In fact, it has somewhat become a “bloody” discussion for some individuals in the audience who were allowed to express their views following Professor Villazor’s presentation. I say “bloody” in the sense that the term “blood quantum” was a central concept used throughout the exchange of discussions that transpired.
Although I have my own personal opinion whether to support the abolishment or continuity of Article12, I would like to limit this letter’s purpose by focusing on the issue of the fact that some folks are looking at the year 2011 as the time to take action on such an important question by our people or leaders.
Apparently, the year 2011 is obvious since the U.S. Trusteeship Agreement was terminated in the year 1986. Section 805 (a) of the Covenant prescribes the 25-year duration period the CNMI government must “regulate alienation of permanent and long-term interests in real property so as to restrict the acquisition of such interests to persons of NMI decent.”
Furthermore, Section 805 (a) provides that the CNMI government “may regulate the extent to which a person may own or hold land which is now public land.”
My understanding of the reasoning or consideration which necessitated the inclusion of Section 805 in the Covenant was given in view of “the importance of the ownership of land for the culture and traditions of the people of the NMI, and in order to protect them against exploitation and to promote their economic advancement and self-sufficiency.” This particular section of the Covenant clearly states that it is the CNMI government’s responsibility to implement and enforce the intent and purpose of Section 805. The First CNMI Constitutional Convention was tasked to provide the mechanism necessary to fulfill this requirement as part of its quest fulfillment for self-government thus the fruition of Article 12 in the CNMI Constitution. It is clear to me that Section 805 (a) does not state that we must end the implementation of Article 12 in 2011 (25 years from 1986). However, a catch-22 condition is obviously provided by Section 805: 1) protection against exploitation; and, 2) promotion of economic advancement and self-sufficiency.
Having perused such text, it is my opinion that the CNMI government should be readily responsive to make a determination by 2011 whether Article 12 has been sufficiently implemented against any exploitation of landowners and whether such implementation of some article has positively promoted the economic advancement and self-sufficiency of landowners.
Some folks might disagree with what I have to say here but I can end this brief discourse in this fashion: It appears that there is a need to establish a Covenant Section 805 commission who, among other things, should be tasked to compile all relevant data with respect to the implementation of Article 12 and undertake a study whose objective is to make a finding whether the intent and purpose of Section 805, as provided by the Covenant, has been or has not been met.
In closing, I would give this advice: The Covenant is a product of a lengthy period of negotiations. Indeed, it was not done in haste.
Therefore, any movement to repeal or amend, terminate or perpetuate any part or derivative of such political and historical document should be taken with careful deliberation and given ample public scrutiny so as to consequently benefit all concerns and interested groups on what appropriate steps to take relative to their stance on whatever the emergent issues are surrounding Article 12.
I would also like to take this opportunity to extend an appreciation to Professor Villazor the scholarly effort and keen interest she manifested in her published essay entitled: “Blood Quantum, Land Laws and the Race Versus Political Identity Dilemma.” One must read it to decide on its usefulness, especially for those who are seriously contemplating litigation on the constitutionality of Article 12 of the CNMI Constitution or Section 805 (a) of the Covenant. Should there be litigation of this sort, who would then be the defending party? The CNMI government alone or the CNMI government and U.S. government jointly since the Covenant was bilaterally entered by both sides in a duly authorized and recognized act as set forth by the mandates of the U.N. Trusteeship Council.
NOEL QUITUGUA
Koblerville, Saipan
