Article 12: What it says, not what others say it says that it didn’t say

A proponent of retaining Article 12 asked if I didn’t see in the current provision protection of land for the indigenous children of these islands.

It was a shocking question that demonstrates the obvious lack of review (reading) of the provision by proponents. Now, let’s look at the issue together if only to see what it says and not what proponents are saying it says that it doesn’t say. The facts are as follows:

1. The current provision robs the landowner of half his land, a ludicrous form of ownership that doesn’t grant the landowner final disposition of his land. In economics, when ownership becomes a problem, it quickly turns assets into “dead capital. “In brief, your land takes a nosedive in terms of its value because of the current form of ownership—50 percent for you, the other half the government.

2. The definition of NMD accommodates non-indigenous folks from Micronesia who were qualified by date rather than by genealogy or real Chamorro and Carolinian blood. This is pure convenience in political definition that effectively disqualifies real full-blooded indigenous people over non-NMDs. Whatever happened to our cultural or traditional values? Are we now morally bankrupt?

3. It imposes a 25 percent blood quantum to qualify to own land, blood quantum that will continuously be diluted as more of our young folks intermarry. It’s a shortsighted, if not a racist provision that never took into consideration that since five centuries ago, our ancestors have been intermarrying with folks from around the region. Today, our people are more mobile and would intermarry with greater frequency than before.

4. It eventually denies our children their rich heritage. This is the net result of a shortsighted provision done in haste as to deny the benefit of the long thoughtful process. Who is authorized to deny my great-great-great-grandchildren their heritage?

Banking institutions have shot down real estate programs because of the difficulty they had to ensure with Article 12. As such, most won’t be able to build the first family home even when given homestead lots. This constitutional provision has even adversely affected federal housing programs as to deny regular folk opportunities to build and live in a strong, sanitary, and decent home. It has severed opportunities even for veterans. Is this why we wanted to keep or retain Article 12?

We can’t even use the value or equity of our private land for collateral on emergency loans to meet family needs. I looked around for indigenous-owned banking institutions that would accept my application, only to find out that no such banks exist! I looked around for proponents of Article 12 so I could borrow at least $40K, but most are broke, though how ironic that they still have the gall to borrow from my empty wallet. Seesuzzzz!

It brings home the question: If I can’t benefit directly from the value of my land, then what good is it? As the bad times worsen, it means that more folks would need the benefit of their land to survive the apocalyptic pain of real family economic hardship current leadership can’t provide with vision and commitment. Most are still watching via their black and white television sets while the rest of the world has moved on with digital sets.

Land has been, still is and will continue to be an emotional issue. Its history of whether it should be owned individually or collectively has been discussed even before the time of Christ. It still is under discussion to this day. Though the sacred documents leave much room for this continuing debate without clear cut answers to our individual questions, most folks have been able to use their moral obligations to follow its basic tenets so founded on Judea-Christian values.

We’ve benefited tremendously from Christianity brought here by Spain. In fact, the Spaniards got rid of our viciously slave-founded landownership system that is limited to the two upper classes, Achaot and Matua. Land in the old Chamorro land tenure system is denied the Manachañgs. Our forefathers accepted the change given that is gift-wrapped in fairness and justice. We all come from a predominantly Christian community. I’m sure we too would feel forever grateful with spirits lifted by opening our mind, heart and soul to accommodating all citizens who have as much right to live among us as our very own. Si Yuus Maase’ yan Ghilisow!