it in the text, a fact criticized on the hearings about the plebiscitary measures. In other words, not including specifically the matter of the presidential vote explains in my view, the legislative intent that only those measures really conducting towards the development of the autonomy for the Commonwealth will be explored. Third, even when, the previous interpretation might be incorrect, I wish to refer to that part of Joint Resolution Number One in which the presidential vote is mentioned. And I quote: 5. The participation of the people of Puerto Rico in the powers exercised by the Government of the United States under the Pact, in those matters affecting Puerto Rico, to a measure proportionate with the reach of such powers. This include, among other forms of instrumenting such participation, the right to vote for the President and Vice-President of the United States. I call your attention to the phrase "could include"; it does not say should include, that is, that would be a possibility of participation among many others that would be more effective and would be more compatible with the status of the Commonwealth. In other words, I believe that the constitution of this Committee has been made with several purposes, none of which responds to the genuine desire of developing the Commonwealth to its maximum of self-government, which is incompatible with the defence of statehood with which the present Government is compromised. The ends are to divide the Popular Democratic Party and assure the permanence of the PNP Government in power; gives the impression that the Plebiscitary Mandate is being complied with so that the Popular Democratic Party may not go to the Courts to press the Government as it did before; deviate the attention of the people from the serious economic and social problems that exist; and to take a step towards statehood. I hope that the good judgment of the members of this Committee may lead them to conclude that the presidential vote does not help the development of the Commonwealth, and to recommend that joint advisory groups be constituted to study the various manners to achieve the growth of the Commonwealth. If not, they would be rendering a poor service both to Puerto Rico and to the United States. They would help to provoke the polarization already evident in our society and to sharpen the sense of hostility towards the United States now existing in some sectors of the country. To finish I wish to make two observations. First, I hope that the participation of Puerto Ricans as advisors to the members of future committees is recommended. It is censurable that having able Puerto Ricans to advise the Committee in economic, political and social matters foreign and American advisors are recruited for such a work. Until when is the continuation of the colonial complex going to be allowed? And second, these committees should be more accessible to the people that wish to express themselves. It is deplorable to point out the difficulties that we have had to face to be able to testify before you. Things like this should receive adequate publicity and the channels of communication with the secretarial personnel should remain open. Anyone wishing to testify should be given the opportunity to do so, holding the hearings for longer periods of time. Thank you very much. Vice-Chairman Picó. Thank you very much, Professor Santiago. I you would like to ask you. In page 7, what are you referring to when speak of the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico? What does that last statement imply? The page and, the last statement: "It is necessary to define the reach of the amendment by addition of the law*** " Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. Yes, that is the provision in the Law of Federal Relations that the rights, privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico in the same way as if Puerto Rico were a state of the Union, subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of Section 2 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the United States. The reach of that provision has not been clearly established yet. In my understanding, that is one of the areas that needs clarifying in this matter of the growth of the Commonwealth. Vice-Chairman Picó. Do you believe that certain rights and privileges of American citizens here in Puerto Rico should be cut? Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. No; this section cannot be considered alone; that is why I have it included with another section in which I mention that the Puerto Ricans should have the right to define their citizenship, because according to the Law of Federal Relations the Puerto Rican citizenship is acquired once a person resides a year in Puerto Rico while being an American citizen. Then, that implies that Puerto Rico does not have control over who are going to be the American citizens in Puerto Rico and, therefore, neither does it have control over who is going to be a citizen of Puerto Rico. I believe that Puerto Rico should have power to determine or fix in its Constitution the condition to obtain the Puerto Rican citizenship, and, therefore, upon doing that it would affect that second section necessarily. Vice-Chairman Picó. Don't you believe that it could have consequences for the Puerto Ricans in the United States? Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. In what way? Vice-Chairman Picó. In that if we affect the American citizens here in Puerto Rico by the fact that they are naturalized here, but they are American citizens, how are we going to have two citizenships here? Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. Yes; I see your preoccupation but also what I want to call your attention to is the problem that Puerto Rico does not have the effective means to confront the competition produced by the fact that it has no control over its own internal citizenship, and then I think that this provision should be amended in such a way that Puerto Rico may in some way control it. Vice-Chairman Picó. I repeat again, and if there is a retaliation from New York, Pennsylvania or Illinois against the Puerto Ricans there also making a double citizenship, discriminating against them? Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. Well, to what extent don't they discriminate now with that provision in the Federal Relations Law? Vice-Chairman Picó. Well, but then there will be a legal basis to do it. Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. In can see that problem but any way, what I want to establish is that that is one of the areas remaining in the Jones Act and, therefore, in the Law of Federal Relations, that restricts our internal autonomy and that Puerto Rico should have power over those matters. Vice-Chairman Picó. If you don't mind the questions, to what party do you belong, madam? Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. To the Popular Democratic Party. Vice-Chairman Picó. Thank you very much for your contribution. Any of the members of the committee? Yes, Mr. Cabassa. Mr. CABASSA. Mrs. Santiago, I wish to congratulate you for the effort that you have made in preparing a testimony. Your expressions, I can agree with some and I cannot agree with others; thus is a democracy. However, I would like you to explain to me your point about the right of Puerto Ricans to allow foreigners in Puerto Rico. Would you elaborate a little bit on this? If you are referring to the aspects of our having control over immigration as one of the areas of culmination. That is what Mr. Picó tried . . . Prof. RAMOS SANTIAGO. Yes. That is one of the areas that should be investigated to determine how Puerto Rico could exercise control over the immigration of foreigners to the country. We have a geographical reality. This is a very small Island, densely populated. The emmigration had served as an escape valve which has helped to reduce the impact of the great population growth that we have. However, we on the one hand have that escape valve and on the other its effects are countered because Puerto Rico has no effective means of controlling the entrance of foreigners here on the country. Then, where are we going to? Are we going to have the Island densely popu lated with the help of foreigners or are we going to have it densely populated with Puerto Rican American citizens? I think that it is true that there are some of those groups of immigrants that contribute positively to the economic development of our country; but we should also think to what measure can Puerto Rico continue to allow the entrance without control of foreigners to the Island. In other words, I do not believe that an effective solution to this problem could be reached except by a mechanism in which Puerto Rico could restrict, or at least give an opinion about that matter. Mr. CABASSA. Would you agree with submitting this matter of the presidential vote to a referendum. Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. I do not think so. First, if we continue holding referendums here at the speed in which we are going, the referendum is going to become as those Napoleonic plebiscites, they are going to lose prestige. That implies a tremendous expense. In 1967 a referendum was held for the matter of the Plebiscite; that is, a Plebiscite was celebrated for the matter of status. The Commonwealth formula result triumphant. Not all of the areas of growth of the Commonwealth contained in the mandate of the Law of the Plebiscite have been explored; then, how are we going to hold a referendum on the presidential vote? Mr. CABASSA. Do you mean that if the Popular Party had won the elections of 1968 that mandate could have taken effect and you would have supported it? Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. Which? The one to hold a referendum. for the presidential vote? No. I think that the Popular Party would not have made that mistake. I think that the Popular Party would have recommended the constitution of ad hoc committees that would study the entire growth of the Commonwealth, not a little bit as this matter of the presidential vote, that would not lead to the growth of the autonomy of the Commonwealth but that, in my understanding, would just take us closer to statehood. Mr. CABASSA. The point of view of the question I was going to direct is that of the aspect of the referendum. In other words, if the Popular Party had won the elections of 1968 to comply with it, it would have had to go to a referendum, no? Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. The presidential vote? Mr. CABASSA. No, no, no; the entire aspect covers * * * Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. Oh, of course. Yes, after the constitution of these ad hoc committees, following the recommendations of the Status Commission that has been followed by our politicians, this means that once those recommendations were made there would have to be some kind of consultation to the people of Puerto Rico. Mr. CABASSA. Necessarily this people has to be consulted over anything that is done. Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. Of course; this is a democracy and there is not going to be a "coup de état", imposing anything by force. Mr. CABASSA. In other words, that this Committee by itself cannot press nor require this people to accept something that has not been submitted to the people? Prof. RAMOS DE SANTIAGO. Oh, of course. Mr. CABASSA. Mr. Chairman, that is all. Vice-Chairman Picó. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Professor. I think that with this testimony we end the public hearings of the Ad Hoc Committee to study the presidential vote for Puerto Rico. I wish to thank all the witnesses, all the many other persons, that without presenting testimonies have expressed interest in our work, the very efficient personnel with which this Committee counts in all aspects to perform the work of translating, recording and other silent functions that have obviously, contributed much to the work of this Committee. Unless any one of the gentlemen wishes to express * * * Mr. CABASSA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make mine your words and wish to add something for the record. I wish to explain to the members of the United States that the translation made by Miss Iliaruchi and Evelyn Hansen, for all purposes, as I have heard it, has been perfect. So that even the inflections of the witnesses have been transmitted. Vice-Chairman Picó. It shall go into the record, together with our eternal gratefulness. Equally, to the gentlemen that have taken the record and have recorded during all these days our work and the work of the witnesses, thank you very much. And to, all good night. THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1971 AFTERNOON SESSION AD HOC ADVISORY GROUP ON THE PRESIDENTIAL VOTE FOR PUERTO RICO PROCEEDINGS Chairman SCRIBNER. We are very fortunate to have as our first witness at the meeting this afternoon, the Resident Commissioner here in Washington. We know of his outstanding ability, not only in Puerto Rico, but in the Capital. Judge Córdova, we are very happy to have you here and we will be very pleased to receive your statement. STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JORGE L. CORDOVA, RESIDENT Mr. CÓRDOVA Díaz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When troops of the United States Army landed on the South Coast of Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War their commander, Major General Nelson A. Miles, proclaimed that "We have come *** to bestow upon you the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our government." But it was not until almost 20 years later, in 1917, that American citizenship was extended to the citizens of Puerto Rico. And, indeed, when Congress debated and passed the Foraker Act, providing for a civil government for Puerto Rico, in the spring of 1900, it was made painfully clear to the people who had welcomed the advent of the flag of the United States to Puerto Rico with remarkable unanimity, that the majority of Congress at that time had no intention of making good the pledge proudly made by General Miles. Eventually, in 1947, the citizens of Puerto Rico were granted the right to elect their own Governor, and in 1950 the right to adopt their own Constitution, subject to Congressional approval, which was not withheld. The Constitution of Puerto Rico, as adopted and promulgated on July 25, 1952, states in its preamble, among other things, that We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges. Among the "blessings of the liberal institutions of our government” to which General Miles alluded, and among the privileges of American citizenship to which the preamble to the Constitution of Puerto Rico alluded 54 years later, is one privilege which the citizens of Puerto Rico do not enjoy: the privilege of voting for the Chief Executive of the nation of which they are citizens. I suggest that the time has come to consider the extension of this privilege collectively to the citizens of the United States residing in Puerto Rico. One main obstacle stands in the way: the objection to participation in national elections which has been publicly made by the leadership of the Popular Democratic Party, which polled 42.02 percent of the votes cast in the 1968 general elections, second to the New Progressive Party which polled 44.65 percent. If this leadership is representative of the 1968 Popular Party electorate on this issue, then we would not have the overwhelming |