1.    What is the nature of the case ?

It is a request for intervention on the part of the Philippines in the case between Malaysia and Indonesia regarding sovereignty over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan. The Philippines requested to intervene in this case under Article 62 of the statute of the International Court of Justice because it is of the  view that the decision of the ICJ in that case or its reasoning involved in that decision will adversely affect the legal interest of the Philippines as regards the interpretation and application of certain treaties and agreements which it relies on in its claim over Sabah.

2.     Since the ICJ’s decision does not allow the Philippines to intervene, how does this decision affect the Pi claim over Sabah?

The ICJ decision does not affect in any way the merits of the Philippine claim to Sabah. The Philippines requested intervention in the case as a non-party. In other words, the Philippines, in seeking to intervene, did not intend to become a party to the case: between Malaysia and ndonesia. Its purpose is a limited one, namely, to have the opportunity to explain and show to the ICJ that its claim to Sabah may be adversely affected by the Court's decision or by its reasoning in arriving at that decision if the Philippines would not be given the opportunity to be
heard in the case between Malaysia and Indonesia .

3. Did the ICJ accept same points presented by the Philippines in the oral arguments?

Yes.  As against the arguments advanced by Malaysia and Indonesia, the ICJ ruled:

(1) That the Philippine application to intervene still was filed on time;

(2) That despite the fact that the Philippine application did not contain a full list of documents in support of its claim, still the ICJ concluded that this did not constitute a formal defect; and.

(3) That the absence of jurisdictional link between the Philippines and the Parties to the main case (Malaysia and Indonesia) is not a ground
for disqualifying the Philippines from intervention.  The ICJ recognized that the Philippines sought to intervene as a non-party and therefore does not require such jurisdictional link.

Above all, the ICJ accepted the hypothesis of the Philippines that to establish interest of a legal native, such an interest does not only
pertain to the operative decision of the ICJ but to the method of reasoning in arriving at that decision.

4.    On what ground did the ICJ disallow the intervention by the Philippines?

On the ground that failed to show with “sufficient clarity” or “particular clarity”  in what way will the interest of legal nature on the part of the Philippines would be affected by the decision and reasoning of the ICJ as regards the treaties and other agreements which the Philippines relies on in its claim to Sabah.

We are critical of this reasoning because it implies that the Court, knowing that the parties (Malaysia and Indonesia) refused to give the Philippines copies of their pleadings, would now require the Philippines to show in advance the full basis of their claims in terms of applicable treaties and agreements.

The Philippines is of the position that this requirement of the Court could have been met by the Philippines in the principal case had it been allowed to intervene and therefore would have had the benefit of the pleadings of Malaysia and Indonesia.