Article 12 initiative draws emotional public comments

For almost two hours yesterday afternoon, the House of Representatives received comments that were at times emotional—and dramatic—either for or against a legislative initiative giving landowners the option to subject their land to the current land alienation provision under Article 12 of the NMI Constitution for “at least 25 years” before it could be removed. House members may act on the initiative this morning.

At the public comment period, one community member ripped apart a copy of the legislative initiative in front of lawmakers, while another one threw it away.

That did not sit well with some lawmakers who described the gesture as a sign of disrespect not only for House members but also for the general public.

Some who stood up to comment against House Legislative Initiative 18-4 admitted they have not read the measure, which was introduced in March 2013 and the committee report that was adopted last year. As a result, some of them thought that the initiative would immediately scrap Article 12 in its entirety.

The public comment period began at past 1:30pm and ended at almost 3:30pm. At about 5pm, the session was called to recess without acting on any bill or legislative initiative, except for a concurrent resolution on the fiscal year 2015 budget. The session resumes at 9:30am today.

Acting speaker Frank Dela Cruz (Ind-Saipan), author of HLI 18-4, said he hopes that people would carefully read the initiative before commenting on it. He said the initiative gives landowners the option to subject their land to Article 12 for “at least 25 years,” before it could be removed.

“People can express their views without being disrespectful. …And I believe there are lots of miscommunication and misunderstanding about this initiative,” he later said.

Former speaker Lorenzo Cabrera said the government needs in-depth investigation before acting on the Article 12 initiative. He also questioned whether the CNMI government can unilaterally terminate the alienation of land provision or Section 805 of the Covenant between the Northern Marianas and the United States.

Cabrera was the first of 16 members of the public who testified for or against HLI 18-4.

Like Cabrera, most of those who testified were either against HLI 18-4 or against Article 12 repeal, including Jesus Taisague, Antonio Mareham, Andrew Salas, Herman R. Deleon Guerrero, Joe Pangelinan, Kodep Uludong, Liana Hofschneider, Maggie Camacho, Lino Olopai, Melvin Faisao, John Oliver Gonzales, Richard Hofschneider, and Ralph Rangamar.

“There’s not enough public education on this [initiative]. We should respect Article 12. These lands are passed on to us and should belong only to us,” said Olopai, who threw away a copy of the initiative during the public comment period.

Olopai said that only indigenous Chamorros and Carolinians should vote on any Article 12 initiative. Richard Hofschneider, meanwhile, tore apart a copy of the initiative while commenting on the measure.

Former representative Andrew Salas, in his public comment, said lawmakers should “stand ready” to “make the right decisions for our people.”

Salas, who is running for delegate, said those who are feeling the “pain” and “suffering” are mostly the indigenous people who are unemployed “and the only thing they have is their land.”

Salas said the pain and suffering of these people will continue, “especially” when the CW program is extended and a proposed improved status for aliens is approved. Extending the CW program beyond Dec. 31, 2014, allows the CNMI continued access to some 10,000 foreign workers.

“Our people need jobs, not handouts. This is an NMD issue,” Salas said, adding that these Article 12 issues are caused mainly by “businesses that are not from here.”

Uludong, one of the best prepared to comment, eloquently spoke about the United Nations’ declaration of the rights of indigenous people.

Alex Sablan and Vincent Seman were the only ones who testified in support of the initiative.

Seman, of the Citizens for Change of Article 12, said it’s unfortunate that NMDs themselves have to sell their land for under $5,000 only to fellow NMDs when emergency arises such as for medical treatment of a family member.

He also spoke about lands in Kagman that were sold for less than $12,000 and less than $20,000 because of emergencies.

“We don’t have any mechanism to protect ourselves from inside exploitation,” Seman said, adding that Article 12 was crafted to protect landowners from outsiders’ exploitation. Decades later, landowners also have to be protected from exploitation by their own people because of the limited pool of people that can buy lands.

Dela Cruz’s initiative removes the mandatory restriction on land alienation “and allows landowners to elect to restrict the alienation of their own land.”

“The restriction would be in place for at least 25 years before it could be removed. The initiative gives each landowner the option of either accepting or rejecting the restrictions of Article 12 in respect to their land,” Dela Cruz’s initiative reads.

If they so choose, landowners have to file a declaration of restriction describing the property with the Commonwealth Recorder’s Office.

At least after 25 years after the filing, the owner in fee simple of restricted property may remove the restriction by filing a declaration of removal of that restriction.

One Article 12 initiative will already be on the ballot for voters’ ratification this November. This is Rep. Felicidad Ogumoro’s (R-Saipan) proposed change to Article 12 to allow any U.S. citizen with “at least some degree” of Chamorro or Carolinian blood to be considered a person of Northern Marianas descent who can own land in the CNMI.

Ogumoro said her measure will help ensure that NMDs will be able to pass on their land to their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on, even if they fall below the current 25-percent NMD blood requirement.

Meanwhile, the Citizens for Change of Article 12 also recently launched a signature drive to place an Article 12 question on the ballot this November. They said signing the petition between now and early June does not mean voting “yes” or “no” to keep or remove Article 12 restrictions, but only to give voters an opportunity in November to decide whether they want a constitutional amendment to remove the mandatory restriction or not.