First of all the answer to all of your questions (A,B,C and D in your letter of March 12) is no. No, I am not interested in selling my property. We are satisfied with what we have. However, if I do decide to sell, I would like to sell it to whomever I want rather than the government saying who I can sell it to as it is now with Article XII.
As for implying that I am interested in buying land from the poor to sell it to an investor for millions of dollars and that Article XII is in the way, this is simply not the case. The abolishing of Article XII would allow for ANYONE, poor or otherwise, to sell to outside investors and to benefit fully. All locals should have the option to sell, if they choose, and get the best price possible for their land.
Abolishing Article XII simply means that locals can sell their land fee simple to anyone they choose. It is entirely up to them. They can also lease if that is what they want.
Many locals have asked me to buy their land. I have declined as it doesn’t feel right to buy land from locals who are desperate for money because they may be having difficult times. I have extended loans on occasion without collateral and in some cases have not been paid back. Some loans go back 20 years.
Secondly, to compare the 10 Commandments to Article XII is erroneous. The 10 Commandments are sacred, they were established by God and they will never change. Article XII is manmade. They were incorporated as a way of protecting the locals for a set period of time which was well-thought out. I give a lot of credit to those that established Article XII and to their foresight. Even the founders of Article XII understood that times would change and that it would be necessary to reevaluate. They never intended it to be permanent.
As I stated before, my interest in Article XII is the fact that it is a discriminatory law. For example, a person of Northern Marianas Decent married to a non-NMD and who have acquired properties will have to contend with Article XII that states that should there be offspring; the non-NMD has no rights to the property.
However, if there are no children of the NMD and the non-NMD, then the non-NMD inherits fee simple the properties upon the passing of the NMD spouse.
This is Article XII. We ask, is this fair? Is it reasonable?
Another discriminatory aspect of Article XII is adoption. When both parents are 100 percent NMD and they adopt a child from another country, that child is considered 100 percent NMD. This means that if parents who are both 100 percent NMD adopt a Korean or a Filipino child, that child is considered 100 percent NMD. However, a child of one parent that is 100 percent NMD and the other parent is non-NMD is considered only 50 percent NMD. How do you explain this? Who really is Article XII protecting? These are but a few of the discrepancies of Article XII.
There are many other aspects of Article XII that need to be fully understood. The Citizens for Change of Article XII hope to continue to encourage discussion and to clarify many of the misconceptions people have about Article XII.
EFRAIN F. CAMACHO
Navy Hill, Saipan
//
