The outcome of the petition filed by the Sarawak government will have significant implicaions on federal-state relations, says Voon

KUCHING, Feb 24 2026: The Federal Court’s determination on a petition filed by the Sarawak government on the constitutional validity of three federal laws that affect Sarawak’s rights over its continental shelf and petroleum resources will have significant implications for federal–state relations, resource governance, and the interpretation of constitutional protections for Sabah and Sarawak, Voon Lee Shan has said.

PBK president Voon Lee Shan: In constitutional law, federal supremacy applies only within the limits of constitutional competence, If a federal law exceeds those limits, it may be declared invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. 

Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) president suggested that it would be a difficult thing before the Federal Court giving the fact that the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) has impacts on the economy and lifeline for survival of Malaysia as a federation.

Voon, who is also senior lawyer, said the central issue before the Federal Court is therefore not simply whether the PDA74 and Continental Shelf Act (CSA) are federal laws.

He said the real constitutional question is whether Parliament, in enacting those laws, acted within the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to Sarawak — taking into account the safeguards and special arrangements embedded in the Federal Constitution following the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

“In constitutional law, federal supremacy applies only within the limits of constitutional competence,” he said, explaining:”If a federal law exceeds those limits, it may be declared invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.”

Voon said the petition by the state government is, therefore, not about rejecting federal authority, but it is about clarifying constitutional boundaries between the Federation and Sarawak as agreed at the formation of Malaysia.

He noted that the Sarawak government has filed proceedings before the Federal Court to determine the constitutional validity of PDA74 and CSA66 insofar as they affect Sarawak’s rights over its continental shelf and petroleum resources.

“This constitutional question was also raised earlier in 2021 by PBK through 12 plaintiffs led by Dorus Katan, reflecting longstanding concerns among Sarawakians regarding the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963(MA63) inclusive of raising the ownership and control of natural resources by the federal government - controlled by Malaya.

“PBK Suit failed because the court held that the plaintiffs or PBK has no legal right or locus standi to bring these grievances to court, except the Sarawak government.

“At that time, the state government assisted the federal government to oppose or strike out this PBK MA63 Suit filed by PBK through the 12 plaintiffs.

“PBK was whacked with heavy cost or penalty by the court,” Voon recalled.

He claimed it was apparent that the Sarawak government "didn't want"  Sarawak rights to be protected at that time.

“It would perhaps been different if the state government had supported this PBK MA63 suit,”  he said.

Voon said the suit by PBK if supported by the Sarawak government could be used as a leverage to demand many things or rights back for Sarawak.

He said it is important for the public to understand several key legal principles,firstly, when Sarawak formed Malaysia in 1963, it became subject to the Federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of the Federation under Article 4(1).

Secondly, he said the federal laws passed by Parliament prevail over inconsistent State laws under Article 75.

“However, this does not mean that all pre-Malaysia laws automatically became obsolete. Under Article 162 of the Federal Constitution, existing laws continued in force unless repealed or found inconsistent with the Constitution,” he said.

Deputy Minister of Law, MA63 and State-Federal Relations Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali said yesterday that the state government has filed a petition in the Federal Court to determine the constitutional validity and continued applicability of the Petroleum Development Act 1974,  Continental Shelf Act 1966 and Petroleum Mining Act 1966 to Sarawak.

She said these federal Acts adversely affect and deprive the rights of Sarawak to the natural resources, including oil and gas, found in the seabed of the Continental Shelf within the boundaries as extended and defined by the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council 1954 and the Sarawak (Definition of Boundaries) Order in Council 1958.

She said under MA63 and the constitutional instruments annexed thereto, the sovereign rights to the petroleum resources in the seabed within Sarawak's boundaries, were vested on Malaysia Day by the British government, in Sarawak and not in the federation or federal government.

 

She noted that Item 2(c) of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution vests legislative authority in the Sarawak Legislative Assembly (SLA), to regulate the exercise of such petroleum rights through issuance of mining leases and certificates and prospecting licenses.

She added that the Continental Shelf Act, 1966 and the Petroleum Mining Act, 1966 were originally applicable to the States of Malaya, but extended to Sarawak by way of an Ordinance passed after the Proclamation of Emergency 1969.