Denial of full private landownership under Article 12

The denial of full landownership is at the heart of Article 12 that most folks have failed to see. There are other negative aspects to it that all must try to understand by reading the provision itself and the analysis.

The real test of this assertion is found in the fact that you, the landowner, don’t have full disposition of your land, no matter your claim.

Historically, the debate over preservation of land—whether it should be owned individually or collectively—started way back in history. It’s a question of individual rights versus embracing the socialistic concept of preserving land for the collective good.

The issue we advocate is the return of full ownership to each private landowner. Such ownership is denied landowners today under Article 12.

Indeed, it’s a misunderstood issue that easily slides into discussion on land sale. But aren’t you the final arbiter (decision maker) in the disposition of your land? Can anybody really interfere with your decision on family land? Furthermore, how many of us can really brave selling any part of their land? Isn’t it true that most families own only the lot where the first family home was built? So why discuss land sale when there’s nothing to sell?

You have to defend the principle of full private landownership. Otherwise, you’d lose it if perchance the government decides to acquire it through eminent domain for public purposes. How do we know that such definition won’t include the government giving away your land to others as homestead lots? Would you allow this form of infringement in what’s your privately owned land?

Next, why do we support limiting land sale to indigenous folks when in fact a land sale renders the original landowner landless upon sale? Which issue are we trying to protect, limiting land sale to the indigenous people or discouraging the sale of land? Regardless, a sale or lease renders the landowner incapable of owning or disposing the land after it is sold or leased. Get my drift?

Nearly all banking institutions have shut down real estate loans—loans to build the first family home—because of bad experiences with Article 12. They have also refused to allow you the use of your land equity—value of your land—for any loan. How then do you benefit from the value of your property when most every banking or loaning institution refuses dealing with Article 12?

Aren’t private landowners victims in this case? Banks are not interested in your land but their money from the loan you took from them. Most have had to face losses thus the decision to shut down any and all loans involving real estate. What then is our alternative by way of benefiting from the value of our land? None!

Now, the use of Native Hawaiians, Guamanians, and Native Americans as comparable examples or convenient mouthwash in the marginalization of the indigenous people is wrong by oceans apart. Native Hawaiians were forcibly displaced by greed of sugar plantation owners (25 of 32 plantations owned by stateside businessmen) in concert with the military. It destroyed a sovereign nation in the 1900s; the U.S. Congress issued an official apology in recent years. Stateside businessmen and the military forcibly robbed indigenous Hawaiians of their land and destroyed their traditional way of life.

Next came annexation of Hawaii via a single resolution approved by the U.S. Congress rather than a negotiated agreement. Native Hawaiians wanted to retain their sovereignty in union with the U.S. This was consistently denied them. They have fought long and hard (and are still fighting) for the reinstatement of their sovereign government. Until this is done, only then would the spirit of their ancestors once again freely roam traditional venues of their people.

Spain sold Guam and her people without consideration of the livelihood of the permanent host of the island. I can’t understand how Spain could have treated the Chamorros and their island as just another item of consumption on the shelf. I have yet to read an official apology from Spain. Would Spain be humble to extend the olive branch before the people of Guam decide on a permanent future? Would Spain allow this viciously inhuman act to remain a permanent scar in her history? Aren’t Chamorros in Guam people too?

Indeed, we’ve heard and read heart-wrenching stories of the removal of Native Americans from land, including “The Trail of Tears.” But they have equally used a war method of the old countries of “violent conquest” in their land acquisition scheme. It included the violent conquest of other Native American tribes in the expansion of their territories. The colonial government interceded with the intent to encouraging Native Americans to assimilate into organized farming where they plant and raise livestock for their ready use year-round. This it sees as a better approach to civil livelihood over hunting the entire country for wild animals. Throughout the years, the federal government has ably accommodated the needs of the entire tribe in an effort to foster civility and decent livelihood for one and all.

In doing comparative review of their history and ours on land, something is rather prominent on our side: our ancestors never had to shed blood in defense of indigenous land. But they quickly adapted to the ways of the predominant culture in an effort to protect the fate of Chamorros in these pearly isles. We’ve not been displaced, which is a tale that our land is still around and in the hands of our people.

The U.S. paid for land destruction via the Micronesian War Claims reparation. We’ve borrowed money for land compensation that includes land exchange as part of the payment. We’re still here and will be here even after we’ve successfully repealed Article 12. Do not be afraid to secure what’s rightfully yours! Si Yuus Maase` yah ghilisow!