The need to reassess land ownership restriction

After 1995, litigation pertaining to Article 12 issues decreased. About five years ago, the business sector suggested that Article 12 be further amended so that it would allow persons not of NMI descent to acquire a longer leasehold interest of, say, 75 to 99 years. The rationale behind this suggestion is to try to entice new investors to invest in the CNMI and to allow existing investors to extend their lease agreement whose remaining term has diminished over the years. But those in favor of Article 12 and those against its continuation appear to still have the same entrenched position that they have had over the years. The pro-Article 12 side feels that Article 12 is doing just fine and should be left as it is. The anti-Article 12 group still feels that Article 12 is discriminatory, anti-development and infringes on an individual’s right to dispose of his property as he/she sees fit.

Before the two sides collide again, it is the intention of this paper to suggest that both sides should approach the Article 12 issue from the perspective of how their respective concerns could best be accommodated. Some of the concerns raised by both sides have merit, and each side could understand and appreciate the other side’s concerns. For example, those in favor of retaining Article 12 are very much aware of the extremely poor state of the CNMI economy; and those who are against Article 12 could understand the cultural and social policy objectives of Article 12, namely, to ensure that the indigenous people of the CNMI do not become landless in their own islands. So both sides have compelling arguments in support of their respective position.

The difficult thing to do is finding a mutually acceptable solution that would accommodate the concerns on both sides. In order to do so, we need to begin the Article 12 discussion by taking a realistic look at the present state of affairs that the CNMI is in. The overall situation in the CNMI is very depressing indeed: politically, economically and socially. Faith and confidence in the ability of the CNMI government to handle its own affairs responsibly and to improve the quality of life here has been at an all-time low.

At no time in the history of the CNMI has the local economy been as depressed as what we have been experiencing over the past four years. The real danger is that, unless we begin to turn around the local economy, the CNMI government might become bankrupt soon. In paper, the local government is probably already insolvent. And when the CNMI government in fact actually becomes bankrupt, public service will either be critically compromised, or may even come to a stop. There will not be enough money for public education, and not enough teachers could be hired and paid for. There will not be enough money to operate the hospital and provide essential public health services. The CUC-operated power utility will continue to deteriorate because of lack of money. These eventualities are all very real because there would be very little money to go around. We all know now that the CNMI government treasury is getting dry real fast. Yet, like the Tower of Babel, our leaders are still arguing as the CNMI ship of state founders.

So something has got to give. All of us need to realize that we have to cooperate with each other if we are to survive. We need to help each other in order to get out of the economic quagmire we are in. Fighting each other while the boat is sinking will only be disastrous.

Each side has to realize that we have to compromise and give up something in order to benefit everybody on board. If the pro-Article 12 group feels very strongly that, if the land ownership restriction is removed, somehow many local residents would be tempted to sell their land and eventually become landless in their own island, this concern would have to be addressed and taken into account, because it is not good public policy to have a landless population. For if such landless scenario becomes real, the CNMI government would ultimately end up having to provide housing for the homeless and for those in poverty.

On the other hand, the anti-Article 12 group feels very strongly that each landowner should be able to decide what he wants to do with his private property as he sees fit; and that no government has any right whatsoever to tell him what to do with his property. The arguments on both sides, therefore, have merit, and each would have to be accommodated as much as possible. But the overriding factor at the moment that both sides must realize and address is the depressed economic state that the CNMI is in. This must be immediately addressed and resolved soon; for if our economic predicament is not corrected soon, the CNMI would end up being a ghost town, with the majority of the residents leaving the islands and moving elsewhere.