Viewpoints

By JOSEPH ITO PANGELINAN
Special to the Saipan Tribune

Last of a three-part series

Editor’s Note: Due to the length of this submission, it is being published as a three-part series.

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 3: We need Article 12 to protect us from losing our land.

The current law under Article 12 mandates that anyone who has land could lease (restricted to limited years), sell (restricted to NMD) or keep their land. No one could be forced to sell or lease their land. If a landowner decides to sell or lease his or her land, he or she gets compensated for the land being leased or sold. So a seller or lessor did not lose his or her land-it is voluntary. He or she received monetary or other value in return as form of compensation that may be used to buy more land or improve the livelihood of his or her family. The same would be true without Article 12, EXCEPT the buyer pool would be larger, because there would be no buyer restrictions based on NMD definitions. Abolishing Article 12 does NOT force anyone to sell or “lose” their land. If an NMD is “forced” (meaning economically no choice) to sell their land, they will, regardless of Article 12. The difference is, the desperate seller will get the most potential benefit without Article 12. If the NMD doesn’t want to sell to a non-NMD, then the NMD doesn’t have to. It’s as simple as that. It is about expanding options and choices, especially for the poor and possibly uneducated NMDs in today’s poor economy. There is no logic to claim otherwise.

The proponents of Article 12 want to control the landowner’s right as to who he or she can sell his or her land to and limit the term of the lease term when leasing to a non-NMD citizen. Opponents of Article 12 want you as landowner to decide for yourself whether you want to lease, sell, or give away your land. If you want your family to have land, don’t sell it-this is true without Article 12. With Article 12, however, if you want your land to stay within your family, you had better make sure none of your children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have non-NMD qualified children. Seriously, this is what Article 12 does. It tells you who you can and cannot give or sell your land to, even if it is within your own family. Period.

Individual landowners should be allowed to make their own decision to either sell, lease, or give away their land. The government should not be allowed to make decisions for us regarding land we own as private citizens. Article 12 proponents are telling NMDs that they are doing this for “our own good” like a parent guiding a child. Even children are free to do as they please legally once they hit 18 or 21 years of age. It has been 25 years; we are ready and able to decide for ourselves if we keep our land or who we sell or give our land to.

Article 12 still allows NMDs to be landless, please don’t forget this. No NMD buyer is going to give back the land to the NMD seller. The bottom line is the fact that abolishing Article 12 will not force NMD to lease or sell his or her land. Instead, abolishing Article 12 will give landowners the full value of their land and the rights to enjoy full ownership without the government dictating who they can sell it to or how long they can lease it out. NMDs should be encouraged not to sell their land, but they should not be prevented from selling to whomever they want to.

VIEWPOINT 4: Article 12 is not a deterrent to businesses investing here in the CNMI.

STOP and THINK and LOOK around. The “boom” days are over. The world is a different place today, and there are no investors. Look around. Yes, Article 12 was still around when the “boom” happened, but again the world has changed. Nobody is here investing anymore, and Article 12 is a deterrent for investors in today’s economy especially. Investors come to the CNMI to become part of the community and also make a profit in the business they undertake. It is a fallacy that even with Article 12 good investors will still come and do business in the CNMI. Prudent investors know that they will more than likely not recover the value of their investment as the term of the lease decreases. Even if they do business in the CNMI, they will not invest more money in upgrading or expanding their business as the balance of the lease term decreases. They will not likely get a buyer for their leasehold interest without suffering a severe loss.

The La Fiesta building in San Roque and garment factories are good examples. These buildings would not have been abandoned if the owners had fee simple to the property. They would have found other business alternative to continue their investment on the island and continue to provide a tax base for our government to help NMDs get the basic services and assistance they need from our government.

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