Previous Story
Innuendo and redundancy
|
Posted on Jan 29 2009
To Enrique Seman: There’s the supremacy of laws to which adherence is mandatory. In brief, there’s the dictates of the Constitution that is supreme. Next, there are statutory or state laws which reigns secondary to the Constitution and finally, municipal laws. If you have any inkling on this concept then please proceed to reading the following:
Article XI Section 5 of the NMI Constitution enumerates the Fundamental Policies of the Marianas Public Land Corporation (MPLC) and its successors. Specifically, section 5(g) states that the Department: “shall receive all moneys from the public lands except those from lands in which freehold interest has been transferred to another agency of government pursuant to section 5(b), and shall transfer these moneys after the end of the fiscal year to the Marianas Public Land Trust Fund except that the corporation shall retain the amount necessary to meet reasonable expenses of administration and management, homestead development, and any other expenses reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of its functions.”
Nowhere in this constitutional provision does it provide for land compensation. Notice as you read the preceding paragraph that I am quoting a constitutional mandate. It brief, it isn’t the creature of the secretary of DPL. And if you still can’t find unmistakable clarity on what this constitutional provision says, I suppose this discussion has come to its final conclusion.
Your disoriented or distorted view hasn’t helped clarify the issues. There’s a substantive difference between what the Constitution says and what you think it says, clear? In other words, what is can’t be isn’t, simultaneously. Be careful for it seems you’re practicing law without a license and the bar association won’t be happy about it either. And tell your boss you’ve spent precious time at work scribbling disoriented layman’s legal views, yeah?
[B]John S. DelRosario Jr.[/B] [I]Secretary, DPL[/I]
