NMI descent only or all of NMI?

The Legislature’s move to abolish the Marianas Public Lands Authority has spurred a debate on whether proceeds from public land leases should benefit only people of Northern Marianas descent or the Commonwealth as a whole.

The question on the lease proceeds was one of the main topics discussed at a public hearing conducted by a joint legislative committee regarding pending bills that would abolish MPLA.

According to the Constitution, MPLA is tasked with managing leases of public lands on behalf of the people of Northern Marianas descent. After deducting administrative costs from the collected fees, MPLA should transfer the balance to the Marianas Public Land Trust. MPLT then invests the money. Income earned from those investments is transferred to the general fund for appropriation by the Legislature.

MPLA, in an effort to justify its failure to transfer funds to MPLT since 1991, said there have been no excess funds to remit to MPLT because the monies are being spent on homestead development projects.

MPLA added that, by earmarking funds for homestead projects, MPLA has satisfied its constitutional responsibility to its direct beneficiary, which is the indigenous people.

On the other hand, the CNMI, which would have benefited from legislative appropriation of the proceeds of MPLT’s investments, is not a direct beneficiary of any funds from MPLA, according to the agency.

“It is only the MPLT and the indigenous that are the direct beneficiaries of the Northern Marianas Descent funds derived from the leases of the indigenous lands,” MPLA said.

Marianas Public Land Trust chairman Juan S. Torres, who opposes the abolition of MPLA, said it was wrong to consider public land fees as part of the Commonwealth’s revenue base. “Those are not taxes; they belong to the indigenous people,” Torres said.

But attorney Howard Willens, who served as counsel to the Marianas Political Status Commission and the first CNMI Constitutional Convention, said there should be no conflict between the interests of the indigenous people and the rest of the U.S. citizens living in the Commonwealth.

According to Willens, the framers of the Constitution intended “multi-racial benefit” from the proceeds of public lands. For this reason, the Constitution prohibited earmarking of fees collected from public land lessees, and left it up to the Legislature to allocate lease proceeds as it sees fit.

Willens noted that Section 6(d) of the Constitution specifies MPLT’s responsibilities regarding its disposition of the interest earned on the funds under its management. “[MPLT] must use the interest on the amount received for the lease of property at Tanapag Harbor for the development and maintenance of a memorial park,” Willens said as an example.

Gov. Benigno R. Fitial, a delegate to the First Constitutional Convention, agreed with Willens’ interpretation of the Constitution.

“This issue was thoroughly discussed by the framers of the Constitution. There was no such discussion that the trust income should benefit only people of Northern Marianas descent. Because if you did that, a lot of Northern Marianas descent people will not be recognized,” Fitial said.

Article XII of the CNMI Constitution defines a person of NMI descent as one who is a citizen of the United States and who is at least one quarter Northern Marianas Chamorro and/or Carolinian blood. An adopted child of such an individual also qualifies as a person of NMI descent, if he or she was adopted while under the age of 18 years.

A person is considered to be full-blooded Northern Marianas Chamorro or Carolinian if that person was born or domiciled in the Northern Mariana Islands by 1950 and was a citizen of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands before the termination of the trusteeship with respect to the Commonwealth.