An open letter to members of the Legislature

It has been over 25 years since Article 12 came about, and it is time that it is either abolished or amended to give NMDs the right to voluntarily opt out of its restrictions and limitations.

Article 12 was initially created under the assumption that, as a newly formed U.S. self-governing society, we needed to be safeguarded from being exploited by sophisticated outsiders. The idea was to keep us from being exploited into landlessness. I find this assumption insulting, but nevertheless, it was conceptualized with good intention.

Today, over 27 years later, Article 12 only benefits the few wealthy NMDs who are amassing cheap land all over the Commonwealth at the expense and loss of the desperate NMDs. Article 12 does not protect NMDs. In fact, it forces NMDs to part with their land at a very low gain because the pool of buyers is very limited by Article 12. NMDs that are faced with emergencies such as catastrophic illnesses are forced to sell their most valuable asset, land, at a pittance. Without Article 12, a landowner in an emergency may be able to get a mortgage loan from a bank instead of selling his or her land since banks will be more willing to loan because of a larger pool of bidders in a potential foreclosure. Furthermore, Article 12 does not benefit any NMD by continuing the fallacy that we are an uneducated, weak, and vulnerable people who cannot make decisions for ourselves. It gives government control over our private property, robbing us of our freedom not only to sell but to give as an inheritance our land to whomever we please.

You passed a legislative initiative to be voted on this coming election, but your proposed amendment does not help heal the division between NMDs and non-NMDs. I am appalled that you have proposed to eliminate legally adopted non-NMDs regardless of age from inheriting or owning land from their NMD parents. At least the present law allows adopted non-NMDs below the age of 18 to be considered NMDs to inherit their adopted parents’ land. In Chamorro custom, even a non-adopted person in the household under the concept of “Poksai” traditionally inherits land. An individual or a couple adopt because they consider that child their own child and want to give the same rights and benefits as if they gave birth to such child. They should rightfully be treated the same as the natural-born child or children of the family.

Those in opposition will argue that Article 12 protects NMD parents from being scammed by non-NMD children (I will refrain from addressing the lunacy of that sentence and address it for those who believe it). I have heard claims that Article 12 protects against fraudulent inheritances by non-NMD children. To the contrary, all this racist amendment will do is prevent a parent from leaving land to their non-NMD children even though that is the parent’s will and wish, and even though all of the family accept and treat the adopted child as an NMD and a true member of the family. If there are fraudulent transactions out there, it is illegal regardless of Article 12, regardless of NMD ancestry, and that’s what the probate, civil, and criminal courts are there to handle, not Article 12. Restricting adopted children from owning land through their NMD parents because of a few extraordinary and not typical potential fraudulent acts (that law already prohibits) is like banning people from driving because a few people break the law and drive recklessly, causing accidents. Instead of dealing with the lawbreakers, we punish even the innocent. There are already laws against fraud and abuse of signing documents while incompetent. Article 12 has no role in that and should not be used to punish adoptive parents and innocent adopted children. Period. How shameful that this is potentially going to be the new law!

Article 12 is established so that we have time to educate ourselves in land transactions. However, it appears to be taking on the shape of racism under the guise of cultural preservation. To this date, none of the proponents for keeping Article 12 is able to explain what they mean by protection of our land and culture. Remember that NMDs are a mixture of Chamorro, Chukese, Kosraeans, Marshallese, Pohnpeians, Palauans, Yapese, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Spanish, Germans, Filipinos, and Americans. NMDs are not only Carolinians and Chamorros. The argument of cultural preservation is a fallacy.

Culture is dynamic and is always changing. The Carolinians have their culture; the Chamorros have their culture and the other culture of NMDs continues. Article 12 has nothing to do with their preservations.

If you want to preserve your land for your children, is Article 12 necessary to compel you to keep it? No. You do not need Article 12 to decide what to do with your land, who to give it to, who to leave it to, or who to sell it to. Instead, Article 12 restricts those basic freedoms. Without Article 12, at the very least you would be better off being able to get more money if you decide to sell because of an emergency need or get a bank loan using your land as collateral for loans which the banks at present are wary of because of Article 12.

If you still think that Article 12 is necessary, give the option of opting out on the restriction and limitations of Article 12 by passing a legislative initiative to amend Article 12 using the same version being circulated by CCART. Let the voters decide. NMDs, who favor keeping Article 12, can keep it and continue the restrictions and limitations it imposes on their land. NMDs, who want to be lifted from the restrictions and limitations of Article 12, can opt out of it as specified in the proposed amendment. Even if the amendment by CCART passed, those NMDs who like Article 12 can still keep Article 12. Only those NMDs who want to opt out will be affected.

Let’s stop this nonsense of cultural purity that borders on racism. All non-NMDs who have made the CNMI their home deserve the same human right to be landowners. Let’s stop the notion that non-NMDs will always exploit NMDs because NMDs are unsophisticated and dumb.

I believe that each landowner should be the absolute decision maker on what to do with their land. Please help CCART get their petition passed through a legislative initiative.

Joseph Ito Pangelinan
Landowner and supporter of CCART petition
Garapan, Saipan