Reversionary right

Two years from now, the indigenous people would see—for the first time—the return of their public land and all improvements when the Marpi Land lease expires.

Therein comes into full play what’ known as the reversionary rights of the indigenous people. Kan Pacific must return the land and all improvements to the indigenous landowners who would then decide the future of the property.

The subsequent use of the land, e.g., lease or other uses must come from the expressed view of the indigenous people. Yes, the use, management and disposition of public land rests with the Department of Public Land per pertinent constitutional provision. But it remains a custodian of indigenous land.

The impending return of public land is the first ever that must abide by the reversionary rights of the indigenous. This would require extensive public hearings to listen to the voice of our people before making a decision on the final disposition of the Marpi Land.

May I reiterate: The mandated return is the reversionary rights of the indigenous people. It didn’t say DPL is at liberty to commence seeking prospective investors via an RFP. It could pursue such path only after securing the “will” of the local landowners! I plan to actively participate in this discussion to raise legitimate issues bringing into focus the role of indigenous landowners on any and all public land leases.

Importance of Listening
Listening is the most important trait we all should have under our belt. It grants you the opportunity to understand issues in addition to learning from your fellow man of his sentiments.

You could use your mind or heart to listen. In the first instance, it’s about what’s at issue regardless of who’s involved. In the latter, it’s who’s involved.

I’d use my mind researching materials for subsequent reading and review. It’s good exercise to securing clarity, depth and understanding of issues.

Nonetheless, there are matters too that require listening to the heart as a primary guide. It permits taking into full view the human side of issues. This is vital for you’re dealing with people not robots.

It begins with us—ourselves, our families, and island community—our source of strength and motivation that encourage us to contribute to the common good beyond personal interests.

Our democracy is supposed to be a form of governance that encourages and demands prioritizing for the common good over smaller vested interests. You can’t pervert or camouflage it employing the “bait and switch” scheme by simply ignoring the people who placed you in office. This is sheer greed and breeding ground for corruption! Are you still listening?

Understanding Concepts
Appalling that even after 40 years we still confuse the difference in the concepts of self-government and sovereignty. There’s a significance difference in the two. If you review Covenant Agreement Sections 101-105 you’d see defined in plain simple English the role of our national government—US of A—and ours in internal self-rule. The former is an independent country, ours is a political subserviency of the U.S.

The confusion lies in the local mindset that the NMI is sovereign and could do whatever it pleases as to brave redefining self-government to mean legal and political independence. No sir! We gave up sovereignty under Covenant Section 101. In other words, the ultimate authority over these islands rests with our national government especially on foreign affairs and defense.

There’s also the supremacy of laws we’ve failed to read and understand dangerously feeding our warped views on self-government. The recent federal district court ruling declaring local gun laws unconstitutional is a perfect example of the case in point. In other words, a citizen’s right to bear arms is under the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. It reigns supreme over local laws. In brief, the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and treaties of our country stand as the primary legal pillars of the land for the NMI.

Am I concerned of the seeming arbitrary acquisition of islands up north for a monument only they know? Yes! The agreement calls for a “request” of additional land subject to negotiations. In this case it was acquired using an arcane law that grants the president the ultimate authority to grab land anywhere in the country. We even litigated it in federal court, unsuccessfully. But what’s the substance and significance of the agreement then?

Moreover, the NMI isn’t just a DoD cog in the rebalancing of Asia. We play a key role and Uncle Sam must learn how to deal with the indigenous people in straightforward fashion based on the agreement.

Federal interference of this sort (acquisition not necessarily of land, but islands) does nothing but raise suspicion in our relationship. Sure, I understand the concept of sovereignty but does it mean the willful acquisition of indigenous land where we’re left with more questions in our relationship with the feds? It’s indigenous land!

Yes, I refuse to listen to internal self-government inadequacies but the acquisition of islands has gone beyond the agreement. Understandably, I know that this must be the usual version of colonial pedagogy! This must change!

Special Election: There’ continuing debate on whether there should be a special election for the top two most coveted seat in the NMI. The legislature should submit a certified question to the NMI Supreme Court for review and disposition. Only then would the issue be retired permanently.

The view among the electorate is that they never voted for either of the two people as governor and lieutenant governor. Thus the absence of a clear mandate from “we the people” making it imperative that the legislature submits a certified query for resolution with finality.

I’m not soliciting for another legal blather. Judicial review and disposition should be the path to putting this matter behind us.