Misconstrued cultural identity

There’s the suggestion by a proponent to retain Article 12 that it depicts the “identify” of the indigenous people in this archipelago. But I respectfully disagree in hopes of presenting sober analysis on what’s the most fundamental change somehow unclear or hidden in stealth fashion in this constitutional provision, its effects on the principle of landownership and the bad blood it has wrought from proponents who use their bigoted racial animus to rhetorically dismember the truth.

Fundamental change vs tradition

For over 400 years we’ve bestowed full landownership and disposition of private land solely on the landowner. Our ancestors even accepted allowing Chamorro slaves-Manachañg-the right to own land as imposed by the Spaniards. We upheld it based on our religious cultural tradition of Christian-Judeo principle. It gradually was cemented into a cultural tradition of full individual landownership in both cultures: Chamorro and Carolinian.

But a critical review of Article 12 reveals the fundamental changes it has inflicted against traditional landownership in these isles of more than four centuries. It robs private landowners half their land and places it in limbo. It robs private landowners the natural right to dispose of their properties as they see fit. It becomes a collectivist or redistributionist dictate or mandate that tailspins into, “It’s your land but must seek the permission from others to use it.” It forces communal ownership that runs completely contrary to the time-honored tradition of individual landownership upheld by all as a matter of moral obligation.

Can you imagine what becomes of your private land if this redistributionist dictate and agenda are allowed and instituted as the new land tenure system in the CNMI? Even the balance of your private land may be confiscated so it becomes communal property. In effect, you lose your private land because the seed has been planted in our “feel good” Article 12 of the NMI Constitution. Is this why some of us wanted this constitutional provision retained? Since when did we grant permission to an imbecilic and preposterous constitutional provision to rob private landowners of their property?

Effects of Article XII on landowners

There are more than 4,000 homestead applicants with the Department of Public Land when I resigned a year ago. While secretary of DPL, I explored in earnest with the banks the means to enable applicants to build the first family home. After all, it is deeply embedded in the local culture that you provide a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling for your family.

Unfortunately, the banks have run into the monstrosity of “fee simple prohibition.” In other words, they can’t dispose or resell the house and lot because landownership is limited to the indigenous people. So they can’t sell it to other qualified U.S. citizens. As a result, it is limited to the indigenous people, most of whom don’t have the financial wherewithal to purchase foreclosed properties. The banks had to sell the property at a loss. After one too many losses, they decided to terminate all real estate loans. Where does that leave prospective landowners? Nowhere!

There’s also the real estate term “equity” which simply means land value. It becomes a family tool by using the value of your property to secure loans for education, medical emergencies, and other family needs. You pay off the loan and you’re good for another one. But Article 12 killed it right, front, and center because of the “fee simple prohibition.” The bank can’t dispose of your property even if there’s a qualified non-indigenous U.S. citizen who can buy it. The bank isn’t interested in your property other than securing the money owed.

Housing opportunities for veterans and others that would be built via federal funds have been pushed aside because of issues with Article 12. Isn’t it time we own up to our responsibilities as proactive citizens and remove a constitutional junk that has become an obstruction and hardship for our people?

Imagine the leverage that all private landowners could avail if Article 12 is repealed forthright so opportunities are opened to flex their muscles in favor of meeting family needs or establishing a small family business or partially covering for tuition of family members in colleges and universities. You can assert that others have done it without a loan. But SHEFA is in trouble because of budgetary shortfall. Those who attended schools abroad earlier received scholarship assistance that, believe it or not, came from taxpayers. It wasn’t free as it appears. We need this means-use of the value of our land against a loan-especially these days when government revenues have gone Deep South.

Repealing Article 12 is the only way to allow opportunities for families throughout the CNMI to earn their dues. Doing so confirms your desire to retain and strengthen our cultural tradition of full landownership and disposition for over four centuries. Let’s do it for our children.

Landlessness and leases 

We’ve also seen arguments about landlessness in Guam among the indigenous people. The issue, however, requires more research for complete assessment over off-the-cuff conclusion, given its seemingly perfect material to justify retaining Article 12. In other words, what is the basis of landlessness among our southern neighbors? Did they have land years ago? Is the new claim to landlessness justified? Why didn’t they engage due diligence? Is the rest of society at fault for this landlessness?

Did we look into the Chamorro Land Trust and terms set in order for our brothers and sisters to use public land? If landownership is the crux of the matter, why didn’t policymakers in Guam change the current arrangement into a homesteading program? Yes, fee simple prohibition doesn’t exist, but this isn’t at issue today. Rather, it’s the assertion of landlessness that must have its genesis somewhere. It didn’t spin out of thin air, did it? Is this why the unjustified use of a setback that is far removed from the debate on Article 12?

***

Now, the FSM and Republic of Belau have extended the term of land leases to 99 years. They’ve given investors sufficient time to secure returns on investments. But they also have the comparative advantage of semi-independence that didn’t allow any meddling by Washington. They also have one vital issue that we no longer have: complete control of their labor and immigration. It granted both island countries full control over who comes in for purposes of investments. They also can accept grants from Japan, South Korea, Republic of China, and Taiwan. We can’t do it because of the limiting nature of the Covenant Agreement.

But there’s room for real growth and maturity so that we too can politely ask Uncle Sam some room for real self-government. We need time for political maturity and we’re talking about 30-50 years from now. After all, the democratic process is a protracted concept that takes years of refinement.