Disposition of NMI land

The federal district court upheld J. Davis’ right to vote as a U.S. citizen on local initiatives. The decision is about his right to vote. It is not about his right to landownership here.

Indeed, the decision reverses a legitimate query worthy of review: Davis can’t own land here so why should he partake in the disposition of indigenous land?

The focus of the contentious debate is on keeping land for CNMI descent versus individual citizen’s right to landownership and final disposition. The old land tenure system, replaced by Article 12, had the latter fully intact.

Proponents of keeping Article 12 want to retain what’s known as tradition in our relationship with the land. This, however, has shifted significantly since after the war. But it is embraced as hegemonic tradition worth keeping as the permanent anchor of the indigenous people. Be that as it may, individual landownership has been around since time immemorial too.

Wouldn’t trashing Article 12 lead to landownership of private and public land by every Tom, Dick, and Harry? Wouldn’t this someday leave landless posterity longing with empty spirits that something is missing in their link to land? Is this an issue that non-NMDs could understand using our prism? Is the local prism of landownership the same with those who view it as just another commodity one eventually disposes?

Meanwhile, proponents to keeping Article 12 vacillate over the essence of this provision. As a matter of curiosity, I’d ask which amount would they choose, e.g., a Korean offering $180K or a local with $30K for their property. The answer is loud and clear—the former—and there’s no two ways about it either. Interesting the interchangeable agreement and disagreement when money is involved.

Individual landownership has been around since time immemorial up until 1978. We’ve never heard that it has had deleterious effects on landownership. But are there legitimate reasons why land sale should be limited to the indigenous people and is the sacrifice worth it? Only the rich locals with connections to foreigners loaded with money would plunder land, using new real estate concept screwing their own people. This has been and continues to blossom today.

We’ve heard spouts that Article 12 is unconstitutional but it hasn’t been litigated before the U.S. Supreme Court and therefore doesn’t hold water. But if such local constitutional provision is legally deficient, why are Native Americans allowed to keep their land to themselves? Eh, what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, right? Why can’t the same legal standard be made equally applicable in terms of CNMI indigenous landownership?

The most thoughtful sentiment I’ve heard in favor of Article 12 came from local scholars with nationalistic sentiments. Their vision transcends current relationship with the U.S. They wish to begin anew under a freely associated state arrangement. It may seem far-fetched but everything begins with the power of ideas. Nationalistic sentiments or island nation building begins by planting the seed of change to improve upon a deficient agreement.

With or without Article 12, the land belongs to this son of the islands. And I don’t need half-cocked initiatives to exercise my right to land disposition the way I see fit. I’d like to see who’d challenge my disposition. It’s my land so steer clear of preachy and disoriented redefinition of a citizen’s rights to landownership. It’s unalienable!

Article 12 also includes definition of those who could qualify to own land. Strangely, it eliminates full-blooded NMDs who weren’t here in 1950. Since when did Article 12 replace rights to land inheritance? Isn’t this in violation of my right to secure inherited land from my parents? Do you see the fallacy and lunacy of this specific provision? It’s a wonderful concoction in ethnicity loaded with filthy and shallow excuses! Nice try!

Others feel that the Manglona decision didn’t take into account the significance of the return of public land in 1977. This was done in full view of the future of the indigenous people Marianas-wide. As such, only the permanent hosts of these isles have final disposition on land. Thus such disposition should remain solely with the indigenous people.

Furthermore, it is arbitrary for any court to set a term in determining the “will of the people.” Nah! The Covenant agreement is a permanent arrangement including Section 805 or land alienation provision. It’s up to the people to decide when should it dispose of this provision, not the courts.

A friend related that to hold unto what many perceive as indigenous land isn’t without hegemonic foundation. It’s embedded in a unique tradition like a complete fish composed of the head, body, and tail. “In a prayer, the question arises: does a mother forget the baby in her womb?” The ancestral stewards of the land were buried on these islands. Even in contemporary Marianas, we’re only temporary stewards of these isles. Keep your land for posterity!

Investing in our people
Much has been said about the unreliability of local employees but hardly anyone dares point out the natural behavior of employees at the entry level. Each is looking for better wage and salary thus the instant shift when he or she lands one, irrespective of ethnicity.

In a bad economy, discussing minimum wage is an exercise in futility. It’s good though to refocus the discussion on training and education. A temporary sacrifice on skills acquisition (vocational training) or two years at NMC is a surer ticket beyond minimum wage. It’s a sturdy march to good or better paying jobs ahead.