Viewpoints

First of a three-part series

Editor’s Note: Due to the length of this submission, it will be published as a three-part series. The succeeding two columns will be published on Thursday and Friday.

I write this with the belief that both proponents and opponents can and should freely express their opinions respectfully and with open minds. This allows the public an opportunity to make an informed decision based on healthy debate of the issues and facts surrounding the question of whether to keep or abolish Article 12.

VIEWPOINT 1: We need Article 12 to protect the culture of Northern Marianas descents (NMD) and for our children’s future.

The argument that Carolinian and Chamorro culture is lost because you sell your land to a non-NMD is, quite frankly, absurd.

Culture is dynamic. It keeps adapting and changing as time goes on. The lifestyles of CNMI families have changed. It used to be that the majority were farmers or fishermen. It was a society with very few jobs. Land was necessary to grow crops or raise animals to barter, sell, or consume. Now our economy has changed. Excess land that is not being utilized remains idle as most families are wage earners in our present cash economy.

The idea that one’s culture or identity is lost because an NMD does not own a piece of real estate is a fallacy. Buying into this fallacy means you’re saying all NMDs who do not own land have lost their culture. How many of you NMDs out there do not own land? Do you agree that you now have no culture? Even if you do agree, has Article 12 given you land/culture? You’re still landless and if this occurred more recently, probably with less money than what you would have gotten without Article 12.

Another culture argument is the claim that NMDs will be tenants of non-NMDs if Article 12 is abolished. Whether we abolish or keep Article 12, NMDs are still tenants of non-NMDs from the 55-year lease term that an NMD leased to a non-NMD. It does not make them lose their culture because they are leasing their apartments from non-NMDs. One’s culture or identity is not lost because one does not occupy the land that their parents or grandparents once owned but voluntarily sold or leased. Furthermore, the idea that NMDs do not want their landlords or neighbors to be Koreans, Filipinos, Chinese, Italians, Palauans, etc., is racist at best and has nothing to do with the protection of culture. There are plenty of NMDs who are neighbors with non-NMDs and are co-existing well, many even embracing each other’s cultures through marriage.

The idea of being exclusive in a multi-cultural community is not conducive to racial harmony. We should be inclusive and give anyone who makes the CNMI home the right to landownership.

Since keeping Article 12 allows for 55-year lease terms, does this mean that the 55-year lease term protects NMDs from losing their culture and attachment to their land? A 55-year-old landowner who leases his land for 55 years will be 110 years old (dead) before he gets back his land. So proponents will say, his children will benefit from the land. His children will still have to wait for 55 years before they could have any say on their land. It will more likely benefit his grandchildren who hopefully still fit the definition of NMD and are qualified to own land, otherwise still no land for this family. Without Article 12, it wouldn’t matter whether his grandchildren meets the definition of NMD, they would own the land. Does this mean that after the 55-year term expires, the non-NMDs’ culture will prevail while NMDs’ culture will disappear? Of course not.

Have the Chuukese, Marshallese, Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese, Samoans residing within the Commonwealth lost their culture because they cannot own land? Of course not. Their cultures are still intact. Their customs remain the same and NMDs are living with them in harmony. It is the lifestyle of the CNMI that has changed. Change is inevitable. We are Americans. We have joined the American family. American society is a melting pot of cultures from around the world. We chose to be Americans. Our children could be at any place within the U.S. jurisdiction but that doesn’t mean they have lost their culture regardless whether they own land or not. Moreover, if the family does own land and the next generation marries outside the NMD definition for their children to not qualify, where is the protection there of land that the family legitimately owns and chooses not to sell to keep in the family? One great-grandchild is disqualified while others are not. Do we want government dictating which among our children are worthy of their inheritance based on having a child with a non-NMD? It is time to abolish Article 12. Article 12 does nothing to preserve our cultural identity. As a matter of fact, it will reach the point when it hinders us, because of irrational bright line rules restricting ownership within our own families for families who chose to keep their land but can’t pass it on due to intermarriage.

We are only a couple or even one (for some) generation away right now from isolating our own families from owning our own land on an island where they may have been born and raised, embracing Chamorro and/or Carolinian culture. The truth is, in the future, it is our own children and our culture that we are killing by not allowing them to own land due to keeping Article 12, disqualifying them from owning land. Remember that NMD is what is defined in the law; a person could be 100-percent Chamorro, but only 50-percent NMD by definition, because one parent is from Guam. If that person has a child with another Chamorro from Guam, that child is now 100-percent Chamorro, but only 25-percent NMD and one generation away from not being able to own land under Article 12. Think about this and look within your own family and your children. You may be the most Chamorro or Carolinian cultured person ever born and raised in the CNMI, but not qualify to meet the definition of NMD-this is an example of how Article 12 hinders culture and family, not protecting it. Article 12 must be abolished.

To be continued tomorrow. (Joseph Ito Pangelinan)

Joseph Ito Pangelinan describes himself as 50-percent Northern Marianas descent by true blood but 100-percent NMD by definition.