evidence: Paul Cohen, the lead co-counsel of the Sulu heirs in the French arbitration case, clarifies that the case involves a purely contractual matter. Nonetheless, the Philippine government took notice of the arbitration award, with the government counsel reportedly looking into the impact of the award on the country’s sovereignty claim over Sabah. The claim has long been in the back burner while taking its silent toll on otherwise warm relations with our Asean neighbor, Malaysia. Article continues after this advertisementCohen’s clarification highlights the dichotomous aspects of the Sabah claim; one is proprietary from the perspective of the Sulu heirs, and the other, political from the perspective of the Philippine government. The heirs’ proprietary claim is governed by private law, while the claim of sovereignty is governed by public international law. The claims are, in a way, mutually exclusive because the heirs do not claim sovereignty, while the Philippines does not claim proprietary right. [...] The Philippine claim over Sabah solely hinges on the purported transfer of sovereignty rights by the sultan’s heirs to the Philippine government in April 1962. Then Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs Salvador P. Lopez accepted on behalf of the Republic the cession and transfer of territory of North Borneo. The transfer of sovereignty is uncertain, given the fact that in 1962, the Sulu sultanate does not exist as a sovereign entity. Sovereignty is an attribute of statehood, thus only states may transfer territorial sovereignty.