Talk:Sultanate of Sulu

miscellaneous

http://books.google.com/books?id=gG89AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA393#v=onepage&q&f=false

treaties

Sulu Sultanate's lease of north Borneo to Britain

http://books.google.com/books?id=83BIxG7Ig2cC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FZndAAAAIAAJ

Sulu Sultanate's Tausug language version of the treaty with Spain

http://books.google.com/books?id=jijeKx19cIMC&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_c0AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=sSgTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Existence of the Sultanate of Sulu today

Hello,

Some of the recent edits have been claiming that the Sultanate of Sulu still exists today. This has caused confusion among the page's editors. From what I gathered of older versions of this page, in 1915 the United States Insular Government in the Phillipines forced the last sultan to abdicate from his territories and sovereignty, leaving him only with a formal, symbolic role as head of Islam in Sulu. The US was not in control of North Borneo, later known as Sabah, which had been leased/granted to what would later become a part of Malaysia.

All reliable references I found, with the notable exception of the 1946 comments on the 1915 agreement by H. Otley Beyer, claim that the sultanate ended in 1915. Even Beyer claims that the matter had not been properly settled by the Philippines, leaving the sultanate in a legal limbo. Some mention that the Sultan's role continued, although this enters murky territory after 1936, when Jamalul Kiram II, the last sultan, died without heirs.

There are some very vague primary sources from the Filipino government which are used to imply "official" recognition to heirs after 1936, which is a very bold claim that needs stronger sources. This senate resolution in particular has not been passed by government and is simply a proposal by a single senator, not to mention it's a primary source, making this original research.

Either way, if there is a de jure legal entity, this does not imply that the Sultanate of Sulu still exists de facto. Not having temporal powers means not being a polity, a country, or having any sort of real government. Even if you have a Sultan, that doesn't mean you have a Sultanate. Any other claim doesn't follow WP:NPOV.

There are there are multiple claimants to the throne today, all of which are descended from those appointed by a Malaysian court after the last sultan's death to find out who should receive the payment from the 1878 agreement. Either way, it seems there is no consensus or official recognition on the subject, at least not, as I commented, from multiple reliable secondary/tertiary sources.

Paging @M2483 as they have made relevant edits to this subject.

As I am certainly not an expert on the subject, I am requesting anyone more experienced on this area to come forth and please explain this situation better so as to resolve the impasse. Thank you.

Some relevant sources I found for more info: Template:Collapse Mirabile (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mirabile,

Thank you for your interest in this subject. Unlike other monarchies that were abolished in the 20th century, the Sultanate of Sulu was never abolished by any law or treaty. Sultan Jamalul Kiram II never abdicated and was never dethroned. He did not die with no heir to the throne, he died with no sons. His heir to the throne was his brother, Rajah Muda (Crown Prince) Muwallil Wasit (The Straits Times, 5 August 1936, Page 18). However, he was murdered later that year.

Some editors seem to assume that the Carpenter Agreement abolished the Sultanate in 1915, but Governor Carpenter said in 1920:

"It is necessary however that there be clearly of official record the fact that the termination of the temporal sovereignty of the Sultanate of Sulu within American territory is understood to be wholly without prejudice or effect as to the temporal sovereignty and ecclesiastical authority of the Sultanate beyond the jurisdiction of the United States Government, especially with reference to the portion of the Island of Borneo which as a dependency of the Sultanate of Sulu is understood to be held under lease by the chartered company which is known as the “British North Borneo Government’ …"

It is also important to note what Beyer said in 1946:

"By the Carpenter Agreement, negotiated under the administration of Governor-General Harrison, the Sultan relinquished all temporal power over territory within the Philippines (except for certain specific grants of land to Sultan Jamalul Kiram and his heirs), but retained his rights of sovereignty over the territory of North Borneo and his religious authority as titular head of the Mohammedan Church in Sulu and Mindanao. The Sultanate of Sulu was in no wise abolished by the Carpenter Agreement; but the sultan and his council merely relinquished their temporal powers to be exercised by regularly appointed or elected officials of the Philippine Government. It is generally believed that only the Sulu people themselves (through a plebiscite or an elected popular assembly) could legitimately abolish the Sultanate."

Both of these statements show that the Sultanate continued to exist after 1915. M2483 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Today, the Sultanate of Sulu is a non-sovereign monarchy.

There are many of them in Indonesia where they are led by sultans and other non-sovereign monarchs.

Here is a list of current non-sovereign Asian monarchs. The list for Indonesia is long, but you have to press "show" to see it. M2483 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Having read the non-sovereign Asian monarchs article, I am convinced it is quite possible this could be the case, even if there is irregular and scarce official recognition in the Philippines. (Updated 16:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC): see below)

However, it's important to note that this article is about a country. Take a look at Sultanate of Maguindanao, for instance, also a case where there are modern sultans. The article shows that the sultanate effectively ended in the early 20th century. Today the Sultan of Sulu exerts no political power beyond that of a normal citizen. Even the old territory of the Sultanate was split up, making the office essentially ceremonial.

There's also Perak, a state in Malaysia that has a constitutionally recognized monarch. This was also previously an independent sultanate: Perak Sultanate, but that redirects to the article Sultan of Perak. My point is that although the title of Sultan may still exist, the Sultanate as a sovereign country does not. Information on the newer sultans belongs on the List of sultans of Sulu article.

There are many cases of countries that de jure still exist (that is, on paper), but the reality is that they do not have any real power today. And that is what happened to Sulu, where in 1915 the Sultan renounced all his political power. (The North Borneo question is very thorny, and suffice to say most courts have ruled in favor of Malaysia.) There may be a monarchy today that is respected and an institution that is still recognized in the region and even by politicians (although I suspect most of them are unfortunately using the royal family as political pawns favoring the Philippines in the North Borneo dispute), but the fact is that the country is no longer recognized. The Sultan is there, not the Sultanate.

There's also the question of the successors to Sultan Jamalul Kiram II. I won't enter this topic as I'm not the best person to answer this, so I'll wait for someone better experienced to give their opinion, although from what I gathered it's still a very disputed and controversial question.

Still, I could be completely wrong... Which is why I'll wait for more opinions. Thank you for your insights. Mirabile (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

(More sources were added here by Mirabile. See collapsed text above.)

It could possibly be that the sultanate did not become defunct with the Carpenter Agreement, and could very still exist on paper until now, making it existing de jure, but no longer exists de facto. Was there a court ruling on this I have no idea. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I searched for Philippine court rulings on this, but it seems that the matter has not really been resolved. The 2002 ruling by the ICJ on the Sabah dispute resoundingly rejected that the Philippines had "sufficiently strong legal interest" in claiming islands belonging to their Sabah claim, which essentially also rejects any land claims of the Sulu royals.

However, I took a look at Senator Marcos' 2020 proposal linked here as well the history of the instances (1962 until 1974) when the government recognized the institution of the monarchy. (These are better explained in the List of sultans of Sulu article; I also encourage checking the talk page.)

Although every constitution of the Philippines explictly rejects recognizing royalty, the latest (1987) this provision: "The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions". Marcos remembers this when she mentions the historical peculiarities of the region. She also comments that "since the demise of Sultan Mahakuta Kiram up to the present time, the issue of the proper person to occupy the position of the Sultan of Sulu has not been resolved and this has created a significant vacuum in the leadership of the Sultanate of Sulu", even though it's claimed (as Beyer said) "only the people of the indigenous cultural communities themselves could legitimately abolish the Sultanate and its institutions".

Considering the lack of proper resolution by Philippine authorities regarding the Sultanate's legal status, I defend the adoption of this lead:

The Sultanate of Sulu (Template:Langx; Template:Langx; Template:Langx) was a Sunni Muslim thalassocratic kingdom that ruled the Sulu Archipelago, coastal areas of Zamboanga City and certain portions of Palawan in today's Philippines, alongside parts of present-day Sabah and North Kalimantan in north-eastern Borneo. The sultanate's political sovereignty effectively ended in 1915, when Sultan Jamalul Kiram II signed the Carpenter Agreement, ceding temporal authority to the United States colonial administration.

Though it ceased to function as a sovereign state, the title of Sultan of Sulu continues to be claimed ceremonially. Philippine law does not recognize any form of monarchy, and no state institution currently grants the title legal or political authority. Several descendants have assumed the title in a symbolic capacity, often for cultural, religious, or proprietary claims, including the contentious Sabah dispute.

This takes into account: 1. Sulu's previous existence as a sovereign state. 2. Its effective end as a state in 1915. 3. The continuation of its institutions in a cerimonial form, with no current governmental recognition of the claimants to the title of Sultan.

The infobox's end year would be 1915, though it might be best to add a footnote to that year explaining the detailed situation. This is in line with articles like Zulu Kingdom (which exists only de jure). Mirabile (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

The Sultanate of Sulu is actually something more than a non-sovereign monarchy.

It is not the view of the Philippine Government that the Sultanate of Sulu ceased to exist in 1915 or any other year.

The 1962 acceptance of the cession and transfer of North Borneo states: "WHEREAS, for the last two hundred years or more the title of sovereignty and dominion over the Territory of North Borneo has been vested in the Sultanate of Sulu;"

Malaysia may de facto govern North Borneo (now in Sabah), but this statement means that the Sultanate of Sulu was recognized by the Philippines in 1962 as a de jure sovereign state.

There is a clause on the 1962 transfer that if the Philippines can't claim North Borneo by peaceful means, the said transfer is ipso facto null and void, meaning the Sultanate of Sulu still exists as a de jure sovereign state, a separate country from the Philippines, but recognized by the Philippine Government in the 1962 acceptance. The Sultanate of Sulu would therefore be a state with limited recognition.

The Sultanate of Maguindanao has a different history. After the Sultanate of Maguindanao was disestablished, the Philippine Government did not recognize it as a sovereign state like it recognized the Sultanate of Sulu. M2483 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That the Philippines recognizes the Sultanate of Sulu as a de jure sovereign state is an WP:Extraordinary claim. It is almost certainly not true. CMD (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean to say that the Sultanate of Sulu still exists on paper up to now, making it existing de jure, but it no longer exists de facto. M2483 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Even if it exists de jure, this is also a claim that requires proper sources. Pratically all sources claim otherwise. The only mention I found of the Sultanate being a modern-day subnational monarchy is the self-proclaimed Sultan's website, which is evidently biased. As a matter of fact, I found no evidence for any subnational monarchies recognized by law in the Philippines, which is a republic. Mirabile (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Recognition can be found in Memorandum Order No. 427, s. 1974. M2483 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The Yogyakarta Sultanate is also a monarchy in a republic. M2483 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"WHEREAS, the Government has always recognized the Sultanate of Sulu as the legitimate claimant to the historical territories of the Republic of the Philippines;" (stress added) Nowhere in this document does it state legal recognition to the Sultanate. This is also a primary source, which is too weak for this extraordinary claim. Also, the use of "Sultan" could be a case of a courtesy title. Mirabile (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

A pretender is specifically an unjust or illegitimate claimant who is unrecognized by the government.

This document says that the Government has always recognized the Sultanate of Sulu as the legitimate claimant to the historical territories of the Republic of the Philippines.

That is the opposite of a pretender.

If the Philippine Government has always recognized the Sultanate of Sulu as the legitimate claimant, then the Sultanate of Sulu has always possessed sovereign rights. If the Sultanate did not possess sovereign rights, it cannot be the legitimate claimant.

The document also recognizes Sultan Mahakutah Kiram as the Sultan of Sulu, clearing up confusion as to who is the legitimate Sultan of Sulu, recognized by the Philippine Government. M2483 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck Paging you to let you know I found the original 2001 court decisions by the ICJ on the Ligitan and Sipadan dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia. The Philippines used the case as an opportunity to bring up the North Borneo dispute. The ICJ's decision ignored the claim as irrelevant (the islands in question weren't related to the North Borneo cession) and refused to judge whether the Philippines' claim was valid (and therefore the Sultanate still existed as a legal entity), but this separate judgement by Thomas M. Franck, the only one to really consider the issue at all, was particularly incisive:

Template:Quote

Another judge states:

Template:Quote

This essentially eliminates any possibility that the Sultanate of Sulu continued not only as a de facto polity, but, in the view of judges of the ICJ, also de jure.

While Indonesia's Yogyakarta Sultanate was made into a legal entity by law, this never happened with the Sultanate of Sulu. The claim to North Borneo/Sabah is a dormant claim per its wiki page; the Philippines even removed it from the constitution.

At best, the Sultanate became a cultural indigenous entity as recognized by the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997, though this has never been made explicit. What this means is that no titles of royalty or nobility are to be awarded (as per the Philippine constitution), only recognized in their traditional settings (in other words, it's not up to the Philippine government to name who the Sultan is or even if there is a Sultanate in the first place). But this is article is not the place for this, as the fact that this is not a formal legal entity means it is a non-sovereign monarchy only in the cultural sense.

The Sultanate of Sulu was a country. Any continuation of its institutions should go into another article, like List of sultans of Sulu or maybe something like Sultanate of Sulu after 1915.

Considering only two editors have manifested their opinion, I'd like you to please chime in on this topic. Mirabile (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Answer to MonarkistangPinoy's comments

Hello @MonarkistangPinoy, welcome. Thank you for your input to the discussion. The comments below also apply to what @M2483 has said above.

I appreciate from your username this topic must be very dear to you. Indeed, the Tausug people have a proud and rich history, to the point of Sulu being dubbed the "unconquered kingdom" due to their resistance against colonialism to this day. However, it must be remembered that Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia, not a means of WP:Promotion or advocacy of a particular idea. It should reflect the external world from a proportional, WP:Neutral point of view, relying on WP:Reliable sources that are ideally one step removed from the subject described. These are dubbed WP:Secondary sources. Any sources directly related to the subject (in case, this would be original Philippine government texts or any opinions published by the House or Kiram / other Sulu royals) are dubbed WP:Primary sources and must be used very sparingly.

An important principle in Wikipedia is that WP:Exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. The discussion I started in this talk page stems from the claim that the Sultanate of Sulu, an old, historical sovereign state which according to multiple of the reliable sources I mentioned relinquished power over its last territories in 1915, is still a present-day either a sovereign state or a non-sovereign monarchy recognized by law (de jure) by a sovereign government. This is an WP:Extraordinary claim, which must follow the rule: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

None of the mainstream, WP:Reliable sources currently found in the article currently support this point of view. To select a weak source for a bold claim is a case of WP:Cherrypicking. This means selecting only selecting sources which fit your point of view, while disregarding others, disrupting the balance of the points of view. No matter how noble or just the cause of the Sultanate of Sulu may be, it is not the role of Wikipedia to fight for its ideals by attesting its existence. It is merely a mirror of what was published before by reliable sources.

Furthermore, I noticed your support of Sultan Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram. It must be noted that, although he had a ceremonial crowning as Raja Muda supported by the administration of Ferdinand Marcos in 1974, this support has not been repeated since. The government has fallen silent in their support of the Sulu royals, even as they hit the news in several occasions, such as in 2013. Multiple members of his family, including his own brother, claim to be the Sultan today. How is his claim any stronger than that of, for example, Phugdalun Kiram II, his cousin? Even though you might argue that he was the legitimate heir according to the coronation in 1974 (and you may be perfectly right!) this is a claim that requires reliable, and therefore secondary, sources.

The instances of official Philippine government recognition also cannot be taken away from its context. This is one of the motives behind insisting on secondary sources, as they have interpreted the information from an outsider's perspective; looking directly at primary sources gives that attribution to Wikipedia's editors, which allows for bias. All of those had an ulterior motive behind them, namely the North Borneo dispute (in short, the Philippines wanted Sabah for themselves).

Wikipedia is not here to decide who the Sultan is; as I said, its job is only to accurately mirror external reliable sources in a balanced way. There are reliable sources for the claims themselves, not for their validity. If, indeed, you have multiple of those sources supporting the claim that the Sultanate of Sulu still exists as a polity or a legal institution regulated and widely recognized by any governments, I heartily encourage you to bring them to the discussion. On the contrary, this claim does not belong on Wikipedia, as to support it would unjustly disrupt the balance of viewpoints in the listed reliable sources, ignoring multiple strong sources in favor of weak ones. Mirabile (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I agree that we need to use reliable sources and have a neutral point of view.

I would like to share the following from secondary sources:

"Governor Harrison, under whose administration the Carpenter Agreement was signed, testifies that the Sultan continued to be looked upon in North Borneo as the sovereign of that territory." p. 40

"In the opinion of Harrison, the Sultanate could be abolished only by the Moros themselves either by positive action or by the neglect to elect a new Sultan — which did not obtain in this case since, following the death of Sultan Jamalul Kiram, the Ruma Bechara immediately acted on his succession, although for years it could not agree on which of the aspirants to the Sultanate should be recognized as the legitimate successor of Jamalul Kiram.

The only other way an ancient state like the Sultanate could have been abolished is by force or armed conquest which apparently did not take place even under the events that led to the Treaties of Capitulation of 1836, 1851, and 1878; the Protocols of Sulu of 1877 and 1885; nor under those which led to the Treaty of Paris of 1898, the Bates Treaty of 1899, and the Carpenter Agreement of 1915. The Sultanate is still in existence today, and the Ruma Bechara has finally agreed last summer to recognize Sultan Esmail Kiram as the legitimate successor of Jamalul Kiram." p. 42

"If any party has the right to cede, that party is the legitimate owner and sovereign of North Borneo, the Sultan of Sulu. On April 29, 1962, that was exactly what Sultan Esmail Kiram did: acting with the advice and authority of the Ruma Bechara, Sultan Esmail Kiram ceded to the Republic of the Philippines the territory of North Borneo, and the full sovereignty, title and dominion over the Territory, without prejudice to such proprietary rights as the heirs of Sultan Jamalul Kiram may have." p. 43, Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question, Pacifico A. Ortiz, Philippine Studies vol. 11, no. 1 (1963): 18–64

"The Philippines contends that the American Government expressly recognized the sovereignty of the Sultan of Sulu over North Borneo in spite of the provisions of the Carpenter Treaty of 1915 whereby the Sultan of Sulu relinquished his sovereign rights to his territory under American jurisdiction." pp. 77–78, THE PHILIPPINE CLAIM TO NORTH BORNEO by ORLANDO M. HERNANDO M2483 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I really like the sources you brought, thanks! I've come to the conclusion that the recognition of the Sultanate is mostly tied to the Sabah dispute. Essentially the Philippines vary their recognition through time, but are mostly supportive of the sultanate's continued legal existence because of their claims to the Sabah dispute (this would be why they even dealt with the Sultan in 1962 in the first place), while the British authorities and later Malaysia deny this. This explains why some of the sources I brought seem to be Malaysian/favor Malaysia, while those that consider the sultanate's legal existence are from Filipinos/favor the Philippines. And most of the world seems neutral on this matter. I imagine only a definite ICJ court ruling would solve this impasse.

I still defend the -1915 end in the infobox, while adding a footnote explaining the situation (as it would be an omission to ignore all the complicated legal peculiarities of the sultanate). As for the verb tense (is or was), I checked MOS:TENSE and I haven't found anything specifying scenarios like this, where a country ceases to exist de facto but is still in a controversial legal limbo.

I'd like the opinion of more editors before attempting to reach consensus on this, though. Mirabile (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

MonarkistangPinoy: Sultanate of Sulu is still existing today Featuring Legal & Historical Technicalities

Things to ponder that must be put for the record as it is also recorded in History...

Sultanate of Sulu is still existing today Featuring Legal & Historical Technicalities

Legal technicalities & Historical accuracy Sultanate of Sulu is still existing because of the Presidential Memorandum 427 year 1974 & 1987 constitution's technicalities Latest comment: 4 minutes ago The Sulu Sultanate under De jure 35th Monarch Sultan Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram is still existing.

The Philippines successive regimes after Marcos (aka Apo Lakay) only prohibited the bestowment of Noble titles. Not Royal Titles. And the last recipient of the recognition although long dead is not affecting the existence of the sultanate.

One must remember that the recognition of the last 34th monarch under Presidential Order memorandum 427 year 1974 also acknowledged the tradition, heritage & history plus the current status quo during that time. Aside from the Sultan the last recognized Tausug monarch (34th) under that Presidential Memorandum Order 427byear 1974 (published in Philippine Gazette) declared (with full authority in accordance to his recognition) that Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram will be his official Raha Muda (Crown Prince).

Technically, speaking The Sultanate still existing.The 1987 constitution only abolished the bestowment of Noble titles (Not Royal titles). And it doesn't abolish any royal titles that are last bestowed or recognized by the Marcos regime.

Sultan Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram is also recognized and honoured by President Barrack Obama. The former US President gave the "Lifetime achievement award" to his majesty. Aside from it the Sultan also received many honours from various sovereign countries such as Belgium.

The Royal House under Sultan Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram also had official correspondence to the Buckingham Palace.

The official representative in that correspondence is Mr. Matthew Yngson, The Raja of Tambulian Island. Raja is currently attending the official meetings of the United Nations.

Interestingly, the late news anchor Mike Enriquez, interviewed the 35th Sultan (Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram) during the height of the Lahad Datu incident. And the report states that the Sulu archipelago still had (technically & legally speaking) a Tausug Monarch. The late Jamalul Kiram (The Father of Jacel Kiram) according to Report (as Narrated by Kara David) insist on being a Sultan but this decision is not supported by the Datus and other members of the royal household because Sultan Muedzul must be the 35th monarch because he is the crown prince & the son of the last government recognized (34th) monarch.

MonarkistangPinoy (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)