At the end of last year, a law was finally passed ordering a referendum to be held on Puerto Rico’s political status. One would think, after all the discussion and arguments about what the referendum should accomplish and what choices should be presented to voters, that the law would be clear and precise, and the result would leave no doubt about what the people of Puerto Rico want. However, the law passed is anything but clear and precise. On the contrary, the law not only is vague in parts and Confusing in others, but also could be contradictory in its outcome.

Instead of clarifying the doubts and confusion many have expressed, it creates even more uncertainty than the original proposal. Clearly, to have held a first vote on whether we wanted a territorial or colonial relationship, on a different date, provided a result that either made the second vote unnecessary or would provide for a clear and precise choice. Yet, the definitions of the options left much to be desired. The options were, and will always be, open to confusion whenever “commonwealth” is included as a choice.

In its introductory statement, the Puerto Rico Legislature quotes parts of the White House Task Force Report that states the Popular Democratic Party’s historical proposal of a “New Commonwealth” is unconstitutional: “The U.S. Constitution would not permit the New Commonwealth proposal because land under the United States Sovereignty must either be a State or a Territory.”

It also recognized that a “free association” pact is a form of independence and could be offered as an alternative to independence. However, they also made it clear that the particulars of any such agreement could be unilaterally revoked by either party. Nonetheless, what the supporters of commonwealth aren’t willing to accept is that a free association compact, as a form of independence, would mean those born in Puerto Rico after the establishment of a free association wouldn’t be natural-born U.S. citizens.

In its introductory statement, the Legislature emphasizes that the Task Force strongly recommended “the President and the Congress support any fair, transparent and clear effort that reflects and is in agreement with the will of the Puerto Rican people.” However, instead of enacting a fair, transparent and clear referendum, it is, as I have said before, a vague, Confusing and even contradictory process.

The referendum will be held at the same time as the elections on Nov. 6, 2012, and two questions will be on the ballot. The first question will be: “Do you agree and support maintaining the present territorial political status? Yes___ No___?” Although the island’s present political status is territorial, in constitutional and legal terms, under the U.S. Constitution, it is also a colonial status pursuant to international definition of a colony.

Was the word “colonial” eliminated to satisfy former Gov. Rafael Hernández Colón and other commonwealth supporters? We shouldn’t continue being accomplices to the false and fraudulent assertions perpetuated upon our fellow citizens and upon the United Nations. The sooner we convince our fellow citizens in the 50 states that Puerto Rico is a colony, the more pressure there will be on the president and Congress to resolve our status dilemma.

A “yes” vote should not only acknowledge that Puerto Rico is a territory subject to the territorial clause, which grants Congress the power and authority to govern and enact laws by which we must abide, but should also acknowledge that Puerto Rico is a colony. Why not call a spade a spade?

The legal and constitutional architect of the so-called “commonwealth status,” José Trías Monge, defended full and complete autonomy for Puerto Rico for decades, including the years he was chief judge of the local Supreme Court. However, after he retired, he wrote a book in which he acknowledged Puerto Rico was the world’s last colony.

As a result of the amendments to the status referendum law, a majority vote in favor of Puerto Rico’s territorial status would contradict a majority for any of the three options provided in the second question on the ballot. Clearly, a majority vote for statehood, independence or sovereign commonwealth would be a vote for a nonterritorial status, which would contradict the affirmative vote on the first question.

I am convinced that not only are the voting alternatives provided by the referendum lawConfusing and contradictory, but the ballot would also probably be held by court to be soConfusing as to be null and void. I wouldn’t be surprised if some members of the U.S. House and Senate, the media and political pundits in the States would even make fun and ridicule Puerto Rico’s status referendum law. It would be very difficult to convince Congress, the White House and the stateside media that the law is clear, precise and fair.

The law is not only imprecise and contradictory, but also contains several misconceptions that confuse instead of educate voters. In the law’s definition of statehood, the official name of the nation is erroneous. The law refers to the U.S. of Northamerica, which is nonexistent.

The statehood option asserts that voters prefer Puerto Rico be a state of the U.S. of Northamerica, with equal rights, benefits and responsibilities as other states of the Union. The correct name is the United States of America. Furthermore, it isn’t the states that have rights, benefits and responsibilities; it is the citizens who have rights, benefits and responsibilities.

In addition, it isn’t the states that vote for president and have the right to full representation in Congress; it is the citizens who reside in any given state who have the right to vote for the president and elect representatives and senators to Congress.

The entire statehood option should be amended to make it clear to everyone that we understand our democratic form of government as a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

We still have time to amend the status referendum law and make the changes that would make the option clear and precise to voters, while at the same time simplifying the process and giving us, the nation and the world a very clear message about what the majority of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico want.

The referendum would then become a process to define and establish the rights of the individual U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico and not a debate on political, legal and constitutional issues that the majority of people don’t quite understand or care about much. However, everyone is interested in his or her rights, privileges and benefits, as well as his or her duties and responsibilities as citizens. The vote becomes a personal issue and not a conceptual issue.

I propose that the statehood option be amended to read as follows:

“As a United States citizen and as a resident of Puerto Rico I want to have and hereby demand the same rights, privileges and benefits, as well as the same duties and obligations, that all other U.S. citizens have in the 50 states of the Union, including the right to vote for president and the right to elect representatives and senators to the nation’s Congress. Yes___ or No___.”

The only way a majority vote for equal rights could be made a reality would be for Congress to enact an enabling bill to provide for Puerto Rico’s admission as a state. A majority vote would therefore constitute a mandate to Puerto Rico’s governor and Legislature to provide the funds and enact laws ordering the government of Puerto Rico and the resident commissioner to carry out all necessary actions and campaigns to achieve the people of Puerto Rico’s demand for equality.

If we act now, we have time to make all necessary amendments to the status referendum law.

Carlos Romero Barceló is a two-term former governor of Puerto Rico (1977-84), a two-term former resident commissioner (1993-2000) and a two-term former mayor of San Juan (1969-78). He was president of the New Progressive Party for 11 years. He is now a consultant involved in real estate, doing business as CRB Realty. His email address is rbarcelo@prtc.net. Comments on this article are welcome at caribbeanbusiness.pr. Go to the “Sign in” link on the homepage to participate. Emails also may be sent to column@caribbeanbusinesspr.com.

Today, I am going to translate parts of the law, which, as far as I know, hasn’t yet been officially translated, so that you may judge for yourself if the law really provides for a clear decision, as the authors allege, or if the options spelled out are ambiguous and confusing.

The status referendum vote is supposed to be an opportunity to vote on what the legal, political and economic relationship of the American citizens who reside in Puerto Rico should be with the American citizens who reside in the 50 states of the Union, as well as with the federal and state governments.

At present, a considerable majority of all American citizens who reside in Puerto Rico are convinced that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States and that it is subject to Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which in its second paragraph, reads:

«The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claim of the United States, or of any particular State.»

The territorial power which Congress exercises over Puerto Rico stems from the Treaty of Paris of 1898, which in Article II reads as follows:

«Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Puerto Rico and other Islands now under Spanish Sovereignty in the West Indies…»

Since the power and authority of Congress over Puerto Rico emanates from the Constitution, Congress cannot delegate this power nor deny any future Congress of its power and authority over the territory.

Even the judicial architect of the so-called «Commonwealth Status,» José Trías Monge, after he retired as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, acknowledged what I had been saying for years, that Puerto Rico is the last colony in the world with a population of more than one million inhabitants. Trías Monge not only acknowledged that Puerto Rico was a colony, he even confessed to having been guilty of misleading the people of Puerto Rico into believing that we were fully autonomous and no longer a territory of the United States.

However, Trías Monge went further than just admitting his guilt as an accomplice in misleading the people of Puerto Rico. As a legal scholar, he felt compelled to explain why he was now convinced that Puerto Rico was a colony. He gave no fewer than 11 reasons why he had changed his mind. To wit:

1. The rights of U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico are neither equal nor comparable to the rights of U.S. citizens in any of the 50 states.
2. On several occasions the federal government has clearly alleged and held that the sovereignty over the citizens residing on our island rests solely upon the U.S. and not on the people of Puerto Rico.
3. The president of the U.S., as well as U.S. ambassadors and others in positions of authority, make decisions without consulting us.
4. The laws of the land (U.S.) apply to Puerto Rico even though we did not participate in their adoption. Federal laws in conflict with our local Constitution will prevail over our local Constitution.
5. The U.S. Congress is convinced that it has the sovereign authority over Puerto Rico and can legislate without consulting us.
6. Both the Congress and the executive branch of the U.S. act as if there were no bilateral compact. Members of the executive branch are firmly convinced that the alleged bilateral compact is legally untenable.
7. The commonwealth status as it now exists does not comply with the United Nation’s established standards of decolonization.
8. Even if the courts were to hold that there is a valid compact, the consent granted by the People of Puerto Rico in 1950, when it accepted Law 600, is excessively all-encompassing. Trías Monge points out that the consent granted the U.S. government by the referendum in 1950 did not eliminate the colonial nature of the relationship.
9. In the world today, there is no other known colonial relationship where a people exercises such a complete and almost unlimited power over another.
10. By virtue of a law of Congress, the U.S. courts of justice, were granted jurisdiction over matters and issues of a strictly local nature, by virtue of diversity of citizenship. And finally,
11. Puerto Rico plays no significant role in the lives of the international community as a participant in the decisions taken by the U.S.

Upon this clear explanation of the colonial reality of Puerto Rico and how the «commonwealth» supporters have been lied to and misled, we must be extra careful not to become accomplices with the Popular Democratic Party leaders and continue to mislead the public with a law with so many errors and confusing concepts.

The most confusing and vague alternative is the option of the so-called «Sovereign Commonwealth.» I prefer that Puerto Rico adopt a status not subject to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution which acknowledges the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico. Sovereign Commonwealth would be based upon a free and voluntary political association whose specific terms would be agreed upon between the U.S. and Puerto Rico as sovereign nations. Such an agreement would set forth the scope of the jurisdictional powers that the people of Puerto Rico consents to leave in the hands of the U.S. and will retain the remaining powers or jurisdictional authority. If you agree, mark here ____.

Let us start with the first sentence of the Sovereign Commonwealth option. How many voters would understand what «not subject to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution that recognizes the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico» means or implies?

Then follows the most absurd of all proposals. That the specific terms of the «free and voluntary political association» would be determined in the future. In other words, a «carte blanche» proposal. The voters are not told whether they would keep their American citizenship or whether their children would be U.S. citizens or not. The proposal does not tell the voters whether federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, funds for housing, programs for the elderly, WIC (Women, Infants & Children special supplemental nutrition program), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, rental subsidies and others, would be eliminated. Would the U.S. District Court and the U.S. First Court of Appeals remain in Puerto Rico? Would the U.S. District Attorneys, FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, U.S. Post Office, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics, and other federal offices leave? Obviously the so-called Sovereign Commonwealth is a Pandora’s box. The voters would have a great number of unanswered questions and we would become accomplices to the lies and confusion which the Popular Democratic Party would set forth in the referendum campaign.

No, as the responsible ruling party, we cannot allow such a travesty upon our people on such an important occasion. The referendum law must be revisited and amended. 

Carlos Romero Barceló is a two-term former governor of Puerto Rico (1977-84), a two-term former resident commissioner (1993-2000) and a two-term former mayor of San Juan (1969-78). He was president of the New Progressive Party for 11 years. He is now a consultant involved in real estate, doing business as CRB Realty. His email address is rbarcelo@prtc.net. Comments on this article are welcome at caribbeanbusiness.pr. Go to Sign in link on the homepage to participate. Emails also may be sent to column@caribbeanbusinesspr.com.

Because the so-called “commonwealth status” lends itself to be misinterpreted—and the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party have complete divergent, different and conflicting definitions of their “commonwealth status”—they have developed an uncanny ability to fool themselves and others into believing impossible and unrealistic concepts of what their “status” represents. However, not only do they have unrealistic concepts of what “commonwealth” represents, but they also even lie to themselves and others as to the historical events in our history.

In so doing, they have managed to confuse those in the public who aren’t politically educated. They also mislead students who hadn’t been born or were too young in 1952. In addition, as part of their lies and misrepresentations, they also insist on improperly using names and definitions to make people believe in something that isn’t true.

As far as I am concerned, Puerto Rico is an island, and a very beautiful one, and I am as proud of being born on the island of Puerto Rico as the Spaniard, French or German citizens are proud of being born in their native country.

Languages are meant to be used for communication in order to foster friendship, cooperation, love and other constructive relationships between humans. The more articulate a person is, the better he or she can communicate with others. However, if that person insists on using words that create confusion, then his or her ability to communicate positively with others is affected negatively. That is precisely what is happening.

Why can we not call our Olympic Basketball team and our other Olympic teams the Puerto Rico Olympic Basketball team or our State Basketball Team. Wouldn’t we be as proud of our athletes who win world titles and championships if they win playing under the name State or Olympic, instead of National? Is our National Team the Puerto Rico team or the U.S. team? When we talk about our National Parks, are we talking about a U.S. National Park such as Yellowstone or El Yunque, or are we talking about a Puerto Rico State Park, such as Monte del Estado in Maricao?

Wouldn’t it be less Confusing if we used the right words, instead of trying to use one that can create confusion. It seems the use of the word “national” as applied in Puerto Rico arises out of an inferiority complex, as though being a community, state or island is less meaningful than being a nation.

The insistence on using the word “nation” and “nationality” smacks too much of nationalism, which along with religious fanaticism has brought upon our world the worst and bloodiest wars and genocides in our history.

Before the change of name from Territory to Commonwealth, the name “Island of Puerto Rico” was used. After the name of Puerto Rico was officially changed to “Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico,” our government should be the State Government (Gobierno Estatal).

So, what’s wrong with calling a spade a spade? You may think you can change reality by changing a name. You can’t. In Puerto Rico’s case, pretending we are an independent or sovereign nation merely hides the reality that we are a colony, not a sovereign nation. By fooling ourselves, we delay the solution of our colonial dilemma.

I love Puerto Rico with its limitations, its faults and defects. I have dedicated the greatest number of years of my life to work to improve our youth’s educational opportunities, for better healthcare for all, for higher wages and more and better jobs for our people and to improve our quality of life. In spite of our limitations, we have achieved much more than others who have quite a bit more resources than we do.

Why some people have to pretend we are what we aren’t to feel proud of Puerto Rico, I am unable to understand. We have much to be proud of, but economic and financial problems are creating new problems and desperate attitudes. Puerto Rico’s greatest strength is its enormous sense of compassion. Few people in the world have a greater impulse to help their neighbors in times of pain and sorrow. Unfortunately, the growing dependence on government to solve our problems is affecting our capacity to overcome hard times by working harder as we had always done before.

Nowadays, too many people are demanding that government solve their problems and their financial needs. In the recent University of Puerto Rico strike, the students—who receive more money for their personal expenses from the federal Pell Grants than students in any university in the 50 states—were demanding more money from federal government grants, but they never spoke about working to pay for their other needs. How different from the time when I studied, when so many students got jobs to help themselves through school and college. I worked during all four years of high school and during my four years at Yale, including the summers.

When I started law school at University of Puerto Rico, I was married and I worked through all my three years in law school, I never asked for any help from my parents or the government.

During the demonstrations at the university, some students and teachers complained that their human rights were being violated. They identified human rights as violations of their right to freedom of speech and their freedom to demonstrate peacefully. When they talked about human rights, they were actually referring to civil rights. The students, professors and press didn’t seem to know that our Constitution doesn’t guarantee those so-called human rights and that the rights they were claiming are civil rights, which are guaranteed by both our constitutions. As a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution was the first Bill of Rights in any written constitution in the world.

It is shameful university students and professors don’t know that our local constitution doesn’t have a human-rights guarantee. They also apparently don’t know that human rights are economic rights and opportunities, which have nothing to do with freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate peacefully.

Perhaps their mistake is brought about by the Puerto Rico State Department and the Supreme Court, which don’t make it clear to the people that Section 20 of Article II in our Constitution was stricken out by the U.S. Congress in July 1952. Why was it stricken out and who asked that it be struck out?

It was stricken out because it guaranteed: “The right of every person to obtain work.”

Such a guarantee was unacceptable to labor, and the unions lobbied Congress to eliminate the “right to work” clause. Why? Because if that section had been kept in the Constitution, union shops and closed shops would have been unconstitutional in Puerto Rico.

The confusion stems from the fact that if you get a copy of our Constitution from the State Department or Supreme Court websites, you will receive a copy of the Constitution with Article II-Section 20, without any clear indication that Section 20 was rejected and eliminated by the U.S. Congress after our local Constitution had been adopted.

Here again, we have the government of Puerto Rico, under a Popular Democratic Party administration, hiding from the people of Puerto Rico the fact that Congress amended our Constitution unilaterally. Obviously, the congressional action of eliminating Section 20 after it had been approved by Puerto Rico clearly established there is no such thing as a compact, which binds and limits the authority of Congress.

Carlos Romero Barceló is a two-term former governor of Puerto Rico (1977-84), a two-term former resident commissioner (1993-00) and a two-term former mayor of San Juan (1969-78). He was president of the New Progressive Party for 11 years. He is now a consultant involved in real estate, doing business as CRB Realty. His email address is rbarcelo@prtc.net. Comments on this article are welcome at caribbeanbusiness.pr. Go to the “Sign in” link on the homepage to participate. Emails also may be sent to column@caribbeanbusinesspr.com.

The President’s Task Force Report on Puerto Rico’s Status