Abolishing Article 12?

With all due respect to Mr. Ricky Delgado’s letter that called for abolishing Article 12, I would like to explain that I understand his point of view. He has invested millions of dollars in a first-class telecommunications company. Ricky is a brilliant businessman who possesses a lot of knowledge and experience in global business. I’d also like to add that I know Ricky means well. More than anything, I appreciate his willingness to speak out on controversial issues, something that seems quite uncommon among many CNMI business and political leaders.

Having said all that, I respectfully disagree with his assertion that Article 12 is making us all “poorer by the day.” I would like to point out that CNMI land prices soared a couple of decades ago, and we watched dozens of landowners become instant millionaires. Investors were fully aware of Article 12, yet they came in droves and dropped millions in land leases here in our islands.

Those days are long behind us now. Is it really Article 12 that chased away all our investors, or could it be a government that betrayed their trust through a series of bad decisions? An unstable, unreliable, and corrupt environment is not attractive to any investor, regardless of Article 12. And when corruption and nepotism seem to be the rule of thumb on how we get things done, Article 12 means little to investors.

From what I have studied, it seems that the intent of Article 12 was so that the indigenous people of the CNMI would not become a minority in their own land. As Tina Sablan stated in her MP article entitled “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property in the Northern Mariana Islands,” “The [Covenant] negotiators believed that with no protections in place, the people of the Northern Marianas would eventually find themselves landless, impoverished, culturally alienated, and politically powerless in their own islands.”

It is important to note that land alienation laws exist throughout the world in various countries, including the Philippines. Last I checked, only Filipino citizens and corporations (at least 60 percent Philippine-owned) are entitled to acquire land in the Philippines. Aren’t foreign investors still investing in the Philippines?

In reference to our brothers and sisters in Guam, Ricky stated that “while we are having a hard time paying for gas, they are driving around in new Lexus and BMWs, all fruits of the real estate boom Guam is experiencing today.” The truth is, those who sold their land may have bought a Lexus and a BMW, but those cars will eventually break down and rust away. What will the children of these former landowners inherit? An old, rusty BMW in place of property?

Take a good look at our community. Do you really feel that transforming our community into a Singapore is a sign of progress? Is renting and living in apartments and high-rise buildings a sign of progress? Is it ideal to have land value skyrocket to the point that most local families can no longer afford to buy property? The fact is, our median family income here in the CNMI is $30,000 lower than families living in the U.S. mainland. If we abolish Article 12 and land value triples within a few years, what will happen to local families who want to purchase land? Will they be able to buy property, or will they be priced out of the market? These are my general concerns on abolishing Article 12.

Although I cannot own land here in the CNMI, I still believe in the intent of Article 12. And so do my parents, who have lived here for 34 years and have built a home in Susupe and leased property near Mt. Tapochau, regardless of Article 12. Sure, to some extent, I would like to see Article 12 amended as my heart goes out to those who were born here, or those who through inter-cultural marriages will eventually have less than 25 percent bloodline, or those who have lived here for many years and consider this home. But the truth is, that is not up to me to decide. It is up to the indigenous people to decide on this particular matter. Article 12 is constitutionally protected, and it was put in place for a reason, and I feel it must be respected. If it is to be amended or one day abolished, there must be a great deal of forums, discussions, and debates on this very controversial issue. I do believe in equality and fairness, but I respect the laws of the land. And the law of this land is Article 12.

In this broken economy, we often react quickly and hastily in our decision-making, looking for quick-fix solutions. But I firmly believe that abolishing Article 12 is not the solution to restoring our economy. Building our economy requires that we create an environment that is investor-friendly, and that certainly includes offering RELIABLE and AFFORDABLE power and water. Investors also crave stability and trust. There can be no stability as long as we continue to sue the federal government, and there can be no trust as long as we continue to put the love of money in place of doing what is right. In any relationship, business or personal, we must have trust.

I know this letter will upset some people, but as always, I speak from the heart. Just as I respectfully disagree with Ricky’s views on Article 12, you may read this and disagree with me. Let us disagree and debate any and all issues, but let us agree on core principles that deal with honesty, integrity, compassion, and humility. If we can do that, I am certain, regardless of whether or not we abolish Article 12, we will see the CNMI’s economy thrive once again. I will bet a case of Spam on that.