Siemer: Article 12 was supposed to be temporary

The lawyer who helped write Article 12 of the CNMI Constitution says the land alienation provision is discriminatory from a legal standpoint and was foreseen as a temporary measure to protect lands at the time of drafting, boosting the Citizens for Change of Article 12’s call for its abolition in 2011.

“In the legal context, this is discrimination, and this provision was crafted as carefully as I, as a lawyer, could do to last until 2011 but everyone in the Constitutional Convention and I and Howard [Willens] and every lawyer who looked at this understood that it would not last beyond 2011, likely because it would be challenged in the court and it cannot withstand constitutional analysis…,” Deanne Siemer told members and guests of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce yesterday at the Pacific Islands Club in San Antonio.

Siemer supervised a team of lawyers and support personnel at the First Marianas Constitutional Convention in 1976.

Article 12 restricts the fee simple sale of CNMI real property exclusively to persons of Northern Marianas descent and other constitutionally qualified individuals based on certain political definitions.

Section 805 of the Covenant allows the CNMI to revisit its land alienation restrictions 25 years after the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement in 1986.

That 25-year period will end in 2011.

When she stood up to address the Chamber members and guests, she said, “I am Deanne Siemer, I wrote Article 12, so I can tell you that it was designed to take account of what Howard said the United States was insisting on protection for land. It was also designed to provide for the 2011 date on the theory that it would provide for three generations before people would start being cut off. It was intended to cover people until the cutoff date, and that’s where you are.”

She said the provision was also designed to pass a constitutional test.

“The question is discrimination without doubt, in the legal context,” she added.

Members of the Citizens for Change of Article 12, chaired by Efrain F. Camacho, were the guest speakers at the Saipan Chamber of Commerce’s monthly general membership meeting.

“The one item that we all find troubling is the inequality. It is discriminatory and unfair,” said Camacho, who, along with the group’s vice chair, Sen. Maria “Frica” Pangelinan, secretary Vince Seman, treasurer David Sablan and member Alex Sablan, gave examples of the effects of Article 12 on CNMI residents.

Siemer said the group pushing for the abolition of Article 12 is right about the problems that will ensue should this provision extend beyond 2011.

During the drafting of the Constitution, lawyers foresaw that Article 12 was a temporary measure to protect lands, she added.

Camacho, in his remarks, made it clear that the group is not forcing anyone to sell his or her land.

“What abolishing Article 12 will do is give everyone the complete rights to dispose of a very private matter—land—in a way one wants to do, including giving it to a loved one even if that someone is a non-Northern Marianas descent,” Camacho told businesses.

He said so long as Article 12 is in place, no one really owns any land 100 percent simply because one cannot dispose it off due to restrictions.

Sen. Maria Frica Pangelinan reiterated that the abolition of Article 12 does not put an end to local culture.

“That’s only a myth,” she said, adding that the persons originally designated as Northern Marianas descent were not exclusively Chamorros and Carolinians.

Many members of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce voiced their support of the findings of the Citizens for Change of Article 12 that the land alienation provision is discriminatory.

The group also distributed copies of materials that talk about the brief summary, history and provisions of Article 12 of the CNMI Constitution. A brochure also summarizes the groups’ key points in calling for the abolition of Article 12.

A child born to 100 percent Northern Marianas descent and non-NMD descent couple would be considered 50 percent NMD based on blood quantum. If this child should marry a non-NMD and they have a child, that child would be 25 percent NMD.

One more generation of marrying a non-NMD will produce a child with 12.5 percent blood quantum and that family’s ability to pass on their property would be lost under the 25 percent NMD provision of Article 12.

The group said this is an unintended consequence of Article 12 and needs to be corrected.

“We can do this by voting NOT to extend Article 12,” said the group.