I was told, by Senator Raglmar-Subolmar, that the “Preamble” of the Yap State Constitution is merely a statement of the DESIRE of the people of Yap State, according to which they ordain the Constitution to be authored by their Honorable and duly elected delegates (representatives). I was actually thinking of the multitude of Constitutional provisions that ARE being violated, not only by “the State” and some Chiefs signing “strategic framework,” “understanding,” and “cooperative investment” documents with ETG in the name of the People of Yap State (documents with FAR REACHING consequences, without their consent or knowledge), but also by ETG’s DEMANDING the use of a non-negotiable and very predatory “Ground Lease Agreement” form. In fact the People had NO IDEA of what was going on until later a “cooperative investment agreement” was signed (which is a double misnomer, first because “cooperative” usually means that BOTH signatories get some favor (the agreement lopsidedly favors ONLY ETG), and second because NOTHING in the “agreement” is mentioned about any “investment”(!)). Actually, EVEN TODAY (after more than three years!) NOBODY except ETG and (maybe!) the Executive Branch knows ANY DETAIL about the ETG (PRC) plans. Now, it COULD be argued that based upon the Yap State Constitution (as published online at fsmlaw.org/yap/constitution/entire.htm), “ARTICLE II. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS “Section 3. The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against invasion of privacy, shall not be violated. “Section 4. No person shall be deprived of property, without due process of law, or be denied the equal protection of the laws, or be denied the enjoyment of his civil rights.” the “cooperative investment agreement” — and the ETG “Ground Lease Agreement” form — are both in violation of the Yap State Constitution, as the result of ETG’s “business activities” (among many other things detrimental to the People of Yap State) is that every man, woman, and child of Yap State will be subject to constant and insufferable invasions of privacy (Article II, Section 3 violation), day and night, due to an onslaught of from 10,000 to 20,000 foreigners — ETG employees, and ETG resort and casino visitors — roaming around their islands, on a daily basis, together with the severe noise pollution of up to 20 jet airliners arriving and departing DAILY, with the accompanying noise pollution of an armada of HUGE air-conditioned buses, shuttling the 2,000+ daily visitors between the airport and the resort hotels… EVERY DAY! Further, the “Ground Lease Agreement” form that ETG require land Lessors to sign is denying the Lessor not only of equal protection of the law, but also denies “third party” Yapese — not formally owning land, but currently enjoying ancient traditional rights to USE parts and parcels of land that may be leased by ETG — their traditional civil rights of property USAGE for his/her sustenance (Article II, Section 4 violation). Further, it COULD be argued that, “ARTICLE III. TRADITIONAL LEADERS AND TRADITIONS “Section 2. There shall be a Council of Pilung and Council of Tamol which shall perform functions which concern tradition and custom. assuming that the COP/COT concerns are to PROTECT and SAFEGUARD tradition and custom, this makes the COP’s signing of a “Memorandum of Understanding” with ETG a constitutional violation (Article III, Section 2), as this “MOU” certainly appears to put Yapese traditions and customs such as: o A desire to live in PEACE and HARMONY with neighbors and environment o Recognizing traditional heritage and villages as the FOUNDATION of Yap society in severe jeopardy! ETG proposes wholesale relocation of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING from the land that they lease, including not only individual estate and foundations, but whole villages! In addition, it is clearly ETG’s intent to CLOSE OFF leased land from public access! Further, it could be argued that, “ARTICLE XIII. CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES “Section 1. The State Government may provide for the protection, conservation and sustainable development of agricultural, marine, mineral, forest, water, land and other natural resources. “Section 2. An agreement for the use of land where a party is not a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia or a corporation not wholly owned by such citizens shall not exceed a term of one hundred years. The Legislature may prescribe a lesser term. “Section 3. Title to land may be acquired only in a manner consistent with traditions and customs. “Section 5. The State recognizes traditional rights and ownership of natural resources and areas within the marine space of the State from the high water mark up to and beyond 12 miles from island baselines. No action may be taken to impair these traditional rights and ownership, except the State Government may provide for the conservation and sustainable development of natural resources within the marine space of the State from the high water mark up to 12 miles from island baselines.” unless the Section 1 word “may” also implies “or may not,” the State Government is Constitutionally bound to protect Yap and its People from the devastation of natural resources proposed by ETG, which — if implemented — will make it IMPOSSIBLE to ever get any sustainable development of agricultural, marine, mineral, forest, water, land and other natural resources (Article VIII, Section 1 violation). Also, the ETG “Ground Lease Agreement” form REQUIRES the Lessor to agree to an effective lease term of 99 plus 99 years, a TOTAL OF 198 YEARS. This is in CLEAR violation of Article VIII, Section 2. The “extension” is NON-NEGOTIABLE for the Lessor! To use the argument that “the term is actually for 99 years, with an extension of 99 years” is nothing but a transparent and shameless attempt to circumvent the Supreme Law, the Yap State Constitution! Also, it SHOULD be argued that — based upon Article VIII Section 3 — any future attempt to change Yap State law in order to give non-FSM citizens the right to Land Title, cannot be done without first changing or amending the Yap State Constitution. (The ETG “Ground Lease Agreement” form contains words and phrases indicating that ETG believes that Yap Land Ownership laws can and will be changed in their favor in the not too distant future. (ETG is already actively marketing “luxury villas, townhouses and condominiums in Yap State, to their non-FSM prospects, which to be feasible requires Land Title ownership! (in other words, ETG appears to be conducting illegal or fraudulent marketing practices in Yap State (crimes for which the ETG owner and chairman, Mr. Deng “David” Hong, iscurrently serving jail time in the PRC!)))) Also, it SHOULD be argued that, due to Article VIII Section 5, ALL Yap State “marine space” (including ALL shorelines up to the high-water mark, and ALL mangrove swamps and fringe reef areas), are protected by the Yap State Constitution: In refreshingly unambiguous language, it dictates that NO ACTION MAY BE TAKEN to impair traditional usage rights and ownership issues. This section should most certainly mean that construct of “artificial beaches” or “water parks” is PROHIBITED, as is ANY ATTEMPT BY ANYONE to closing off shoreline or reef areas from public access! Unfortunately, all those surely well-intended words of the Authors of the Yap State Constitution may come to naught, in effect making this legal document null and void: “ARTICLE XIV. GENERAL PROVISIONS “Section 6. The meaning of any provision of this Constitution SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTENT OF THE DELEGATES.” All that the signatories of the Yap State Constitution thus needs to do — to make “the meaning” of any provision be ANYTHING in order to satisfy the ETG demands — is to publicize that the “intent” of the delegates at the time was to create this Section 6 loophole, to ignore the desires of the People of the Yap State as stated in the preamble... Please, honored Yap State Constitution authors and signatories (Joseph Ayin, James Lukan, Fernando R. Faleuaath, Nicholas P. Rahoy, Joachim Falmog, Alfonso Ranganbay, Christina Felgoboreng, Robert A. Ruecho’, Vincent A. Figir, John B. Rulmal, Tony Ganngiyan, Joseph Tamag, Abe Edmund Gilmar, Louis M. Tarweiche, John R. Haglelgam, Anthony F. Tawerilmang, Belarmino Hathey, Peter I. Ubemal, Henry W. Ibwol, Santus J. Wichimai, Mark Loochaz, and Martin Yinug) — I know most of you as Good and Honorable men — Was that the meaning and intention of Article XIV Section 6? Please, Say It Isn’t So…
Posted on: Sun, 18 May 2014 05:40:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015