c
 


 














In Enemies of Equality, The Big Lie: The PPD's "Commonwealth" on  


 at
!"

›
  
 
 



Over a year ago, on May 28, 2009, Rafael Hernández-Colón wrote a column for
CaribbeanBusiness.com criticizing Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi¶s bill in the U.S.
House of Representatives (H.R. 2499: Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009), which seeks ³to
provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico.´
First, the former governor lays out²with omissions, but accurately²the process in the Pierluisi
bill (before being amended by the House through the Foxx Amendment, but more on that later).
Gov. Hernández-Colón stated:
r


 
  





 
   

 


 

  

 
 





 

   


    





 
    

 !
 
 
    " 
  




 
 

[«]
#
 !$
 


%#


%#




 
 
 
 
 
 
&    

 
 


%#'
   

(#  

[«]´
Then the former governor goes on to make disparate arguments about the legislation. He
begins by arguing that this legislation ³misses the point of why we should have a federally
authorized plebiscite´ because there is not a commitment that Congress will follow the results of
the plebiscite. Mr. Hernández-Colón, the point of the plebiscite is to tell Congress what it is that
the people of Puerto Rico want to do; the Congress¶ commitment is implicitly shown by the
passage of the bill itself. (By the way, it should be noted that the governor agrees that the current
status is not acceptable, since he is so concerned with making sure the Congress will act
according to the wishes of the people of Puerto Rico.)
His second argument is that this bill leaves the so-called Commonwealth option out,
which will ³deprive Commonwealth supporters of their right to vote.´ That would be true if the
facts did not say otherwise. The complaint can be defeated in two ways. If by ³Commonwealth´
the former governor means the   )
, the first question of the plebiscite (see above)
addresses that option for the ³supporters´ of whom he speaks. If they are satisfied with the
Commonwealth status, then let them vote appropriately: they should choose answer number 1. If,
however, by Commonwealth he means true Free-Associated Sovereignty, the second question of
the plebiscite (again, see above) addresses
 question. Nevertheless, the governor does not talk
about the former or the latter definition of Commonwealth; instead, he is talking about a third
definition for Commonwealth, one that defines it as ³a relationship in permanent union with the
U.S. based on 
 U.S. citizenship´ (emphasis added).
Let us get this straight, the governor is asking for complete independence from federal
mandates and simultaneously asking for statehood in citizenship: The Republic of the State of
Puerto Rico. Mr. Hernández-Colón, your ³definition´ of Commonwealth is not a constitutionally
viable option under the American system of government. It will never be. You cannot continue
to sell the misguided idea of ³the best of both worlds.´ The purpose of the self-determination
process is to rid Puerto Rico of the current territorial status it has with the United States, and you
and the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico cannot continue to derail the process by
inventing new definitions for the already-over-defined word (i.e. Commonwealth).
It is a fact that Mr. Pierluisi took your party¶s definition of Commonwealth straight out of
its 2008 platform. Now, you say you never asked for Free-Associated Sovereignty. Which is it?
You are correct to point out that Commonwealth is a ³legitimate status option for the people of
Puerto Rico as recognized by the U.S. and the United Nations´; it has been so since the
constitution of 1952. However, that does not make it a sovereignty granting option; it is
territorial in nature. The problem is that you are confusing the Puerto Rican definition of
Commonwealth with the U.S. Constitution¶s (territorial) definition of it. Currently, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is really the Territory of Puerto Rico (there is no Free
Association), and you cannot argue with that²that is why Puerto Ricans want a plebiscite in the
first place.
Further, your Public Law 600 ³evidence´ that there is a ³compact´ between the people of
Puerto Rico and the United States is false. This so-called ³compact´ did not suspend the
Congress¶ plenary authority over the territory of Puerto Rico. Public Law 600 was only a way to
provide the people of Puerto Rico with the means to form a local structure of governance for
themselves with a path toward full sovereignty²through statehood or independence. Those who
quote from the law in question always like to refer to that one word, ³compact,´ but always fail
to mention important sections in the House  Senate reports that expressly address what the
law did not do:
r[Public Law 600]




&  
 "



 



% #   

  
 

*$ 




 
   
 !
% #    "
 " "
+    


"   

'
 

% #   
!  '
 
"  "

 

  
 

*$ 

[Public Law 600]


!


 


 , "  " 
 



 




  
!

- (emphasis added)
.# /0112"(034
Mr. Hernández-Colón, there was no ³compact,´ as you characterize Congress¶ actions in
1950, which is to say the Congress was working with Puerto Rico as an equal partner. For these
reasons, your fears that passage of H.R. 2499 into law would put ³Puerto Rico in political limbo
and the juridical structure of Commonwealth [«] in a precarious situation´ are baseless 
intellectually dishonest, for Puerto Rico has been in limbo for over 500 years, and the so-called
³ELA-Commonwealth´ is to blame for the past 57 years.
The original H.R. 2499 must be supported!
5
6780'
9
 

   
  
':  

 

0;&

<
 0
<=