Article 12: What it didn’t say

We all must endeavor with civility discussing, in deliberative fashion, not so much what Article 12 said but what it didn’t say that comprises the most egregious and fundamentally flawed aspect of such provision.

It’s the outright denial of full ownership and disposition of land for private landowners. While it seems to have denoted ownership, a critical review reveals it has failed to state it expressly with finality. As such, it matters that you review it critically (read between the lines) to secure clarity and finality how it quietly robs you of your rights.

This stealth or clandestine aspect of Article 12 isn’t obvious, though I suspect it was crafted this way to see if the indigenous people could catch its very flaw. Yes, I have read and reread it to understand what it says. But something kept echoing in my mind rather strangely: The same constitutional provision took away my rights as a private landowner from making final disposition or decision on my land. It requires seeking permission from others before I could freely decide the use or fate of my land.

As you analyze it, you eventually ask yourself: Can something be mine and not mine at the same time? This is the nature and dictates of the beast we know of as Article 12. Indeed, it easily sways one to slobber in the feel-good resonance of the term “protection” of indigenous land. But how can my rights be protected when Article 12 denies me my full right to ownership? Who do I go to for such permission? The founding authors who’ve used the term “protection” as a simple mouthwash? Do they even know the monstrosity they’ve created?

The one aspect such provision proposes to permanently change is the current land tenure system of “individual” ownership. It openly permits elected and appointed officials to take a portion of your private land for future use by the landless. It permits others to be part-owners of your private land. It’s a socialistic approach to landownership or a collectivist posture to willfully take your land for its own purposes at some point in the future. Is this collectivist arrangement an acceptable disposition or disruption of landownership so mandated under this provision?

Understandably, the other ulterior motive hardly used or explained by the powers-that-be is the fact that keeping Article 12 grants them more time and opportunity to rule the political landscape at will. Definitely, none of the key proponents to retaining this provision have the gall to say so openly. But this is the motive behind their quietude lest they permanently become political dinosaurs. Tell them without hesitancy that ignorance isn’t an option on this and other rights issues that are solely the purview of governance.

****

Midsize and large investors have become fatigued (mentally and financially) by the legal battle they had to endure that originates from Article 12. Indeed, they thought with their feet: closed shop and simply went elsewhere. And they drained the local economy of some $5 billion to $7 billion in revenues that used to be recycled locally.

This financial drain has resulted in the huge plunge of local revenues from $256 million annually a decade ago to a meager $102 million today. Thus, the local government battles bankruptcy never before seen in NMI history. A`Saina!

Sure, one can don the role of an ostrich by blindly arguing that such discriminatory constitutional provision has no relationship with the huge plunge of the local economy. But the deployment of large investors who took with them their lifetime savings of some $7 billion ought to raise a huge red flag that something has gone seriously wrong at home.

What do you think is the most adversely egregious issue? Isn’t it the racist attitude of Article 12, co-opted by a legal system that doesn’t provide for “equal protection”? Why continue investing or reinvesting in a place that denies the same “equal protection” to those legally situated? Are they meager cogs in meeting our revenue needs and must we not also welcome them as they assimilate as permanent partners? We must probe this issue beyond adolescency. It’s a must, today!

The vicious and serious economic downturn adversely affected not the taxpayer-paid politicians on the hill but the simple villagers who must endure the hardship left as a legacy of failed leadership. It’s an economic indicator that all must investigate to the hilt because its devastating effects hit villagers the hardest. Isn’t leadership about improving the welfare of others first? Too, we’ve simply opted to deny ourselves the intellectual integrity to discuss this issue with some sense of responsibility to promote justice. The onus is on the indigenous people who not only support denial of full landownership, but discrimination for our fellow man. Why have we given up humanity in what’s right? Where’s our sense of spiritual justice?

You may wish to firm up the partnership in grime syndrome, displaying immaturity at every turn. But don’t forget that our people too have matured and their disposition on this matter would make it harder for you to peddle and sell the same filthy rags of bigotry and racism. It’s time to employ reasonable maturity in promoting equal protection and justice for all rather than drown shamefully in the sea of self-deception, racism, and discrimination.

****

Had the opportunity to listen to the discussion by Reps. Felicidad Ogumuro and Ramon Basa on the Gonzales show. It pertains to exhausted efforts to approve a casino initiative and establishment of firms here for tax purposes. It demonstrates the obvious disconnect in peddling band-aid solutions versus the tide of a humongous economic mess.

At best, the measures offered are shortsighted, at worst, delusional. Did the casino expert show legislators the marketing aspect of this half-cocked dissertation? In brief, this industry has failed on Tinian and Rota, given the lack of rich and wealthy players to support it. Would opening one on Saipan change this factual issue—lack of an opulent market to ensure a healthy sector?

Are Ogumuro and Basa equally aware of the adverse social effects of casino against communities in the U.S.? Didn’t poker ruin families here? Didn’t governance shoot this issue down twice? Why the dismissive arrogance against the voice of governance?

In his younger days, Stanley Ho made a survey of casino here. Others casino magnates have done their due diligence to see if the CNMI is ripe for such an industry. Steve Wynn is poised to commence building his second casino of some $2.5 billion in Cotai, Macau. Why didn’t he invest here? Others now look at Japan as the next venue given its 26 million wealthy folks who could toy around with their disposable income. Does the CNMI have wealthy folks other than over 10K food stamp recipients?

The disastrous local economy requires a plan beyond band-aid solutions. Peddling shortsighted measures only confirms the ability of policymakers to avoid being infected by the virus of reason and wisdom. It is for this reason that the long-term business climate here would stagnate for as long as the NMI doesn’t buckle down to taking critical review of current policies on investments.

Saddling businesses with another layer of taxes in the midst of an economic disaster is a tale of the shallowness of policymaking here. Policy makes all the difference whether we make it or break it in a dystopia.