QUOTE (Suzuka00 @ Oct 22 2009, 10:56 AM)

The people I said who are Luzon People are the mainstream filipino group which includes majority of the tribes(ilocanos,visayans,ivatans,iranuns etc..) basically they are the Han Chinese of the philippines and they speak the idioms in the philippine language group which the bajaus and certain minorities in palawan(the dayaks) and mindanao(the sangil from sanghe) don't belong to,their cultural artefact or pottery is called as Luzon Tsubo by the japanese so I call them Luzon people,there are also couple of other names for these people...
Actually Tausugs are actually Visayans or Visayan related,I wonder if Tausugs might use the maragtas legend of the visayans in order to justify the sabah claim,mainstream filipinos have many legends that connect them with the melayu(the group that include minangbangkau) of sumatra and borneo,whom they had good relations with...
The original people of sabah are the dayaks...
Our Austronesian ancestors probably didn't have a "Masculine" concept of territorial ownerships and probably had concept akin to the Feminine or indigenous concept, the whole owned holistically by everybody. Western ideas of Political boundaries or territorial limits, wars for supremacy, empire building, etc could have been introduced or borrowed from the Hindu Aryans.

And later on more pronounced during the Islamization of Southeast Asia but again the influence was via the Subcontinental India. Islam practiced before was more of the Indian-Persian type rather than directly from the Arabs and was only later that the latter had influence. Islamization and the concept of formation of Sultanates started first from Aceh in Sumatra, then radiating from there.
So, before Islamization and even unto this day, the Dayaks coexist peacefully with the Bruneian Bisayans without having any territorial disputes etc. Or the headhunting mountaineers could have simply terrorized the lowlanders, that the lowlanders let them be on their own ancestral domain. But, the lowlanders were just greedy landgrabbers so they include the ancestral domains of the indigenous people as their own on "legal" papers or "western legal technicalities". Just like the head-hunting and the feared Zambals and Aetas terrorized the lowland Kapampangans accdg to the early Spanish chronicles and occupied ancestrally the mountain ranges of both sides of the Centrla Luzon plains. But the greedy lowlanders represented by a Fernando Malang Balagtas who wrote the "Will of Pansonum" and he claimed everything.

So, Sabah belongs to everybody. But legally speaking that is a different matter. And the Philippines acting for the Sultanate of Sulu have a strong case in international courts.
Quoting from a Manila Bay Watch...
QUOTE
Manila Bay Watch on Sun, 23rd Sep 2007 11:13 am
Curiously, Malaysians and non-Malaysians can buy property in Sabah but only on a freehold basis, i.e., 99 year lease while in the rest of Malaysia, one can buy property on freehold basis, i.e., ownership ad vitam eternam.
My suspicion is that Malaysia – which has been telling the world that it “owns” Sabah – cannot deliver deeds of ownership other than a leasehold title to the buyer very likely on account of the standing contention by the Philippines that Sabah belongs to the Philippines! (Also, even if you buy a property in Sabah today, it takes a minimum of a decade to get that leasehold deed…)
When I advanced this theory to friends in Malaysia, particularly to those who live in Sabah, they acknowledge that this could very well be the reason.
Surprisingly (I don’t know if it’s out of politesse or courtesy), no Malaysian I’ve met, neither in Sabah nor in mainland Malaysia, not even officers of the Malaysia defence forces, has ever contradicted me frontally about what I’ve always said, “Sabah belongs to the Philippines.”
Manila Bay Watch on Sun, 23rd Sep 2007 11:16 am
Oops, “Curiously, Malaysians and non-Malaysians can buy property in Sabah but only on a LEASEHOLD basis, i.e., 99 year lease while in the rest of Malaysia, one can buy property on freehold basis, i.e., ownership ad vitam eternam.”