The adoption of non-indigenous children (for as long as they are adopted under the age of 18) entitles them to land here by virtue of their adoption.
It’s the nature of the beast inherent under the Covenant Agreement and the NMI Constitution. Rights to land for this group is as rock solid as those of indigenous children.
Moreover, Article XII also provided for the disqualification of two categories among the indigenous people to landownership: 1) Locals who no longer have the blood quantum requirement of 25 percent Chamorro or Carolinian. 2) Chamorros and Carolinians who are US Citizens in the fifties while the rest of us are TTGs.
In either case, the central issue remains the displacement of our people of their cultural heritage, therefore, the denial of their rights to landownership. While the intent of these provisions focuses on limiting landownership to those defined as qualified, they are equally corrosive against the very people it’s supposed to protect. Now, we begin to see its ugly face as we struggle to make sense in order to retain what is traditionally indigenous. Displacement of our very own is far from our indigenous cultural traditions.
The assertion that all others must stand up for their rights could stand legal muster if land is limited strictly to ownership for all. But such isn’t the nature and intent under current provisions of Article XII. This would have to be discussed at length and presented in a plebiscite in 2011 for disposition. It opens up wide opportunities for healthy discussion especially among our young scholars. We must decide how this constitutional provisions should be disposed—retain, amend, delete or some happy medium for all.
The issue is constitutionally provided for and fully protected. It is not the creature of the Department of Public Land. Thus, our fiduciary responsibility is to stay constitutional and legal.
JOHN S. DEL ROSARIO, JR.
Secretary, DPL
