In 1997, during a hearing in advance of a 1998 status vote similar to what Puerto Rico is planning for November 2024, Anibal Acedevo-Vila, who would later become Governor of Puerto Rico, expressed his discontent with the portrayal of “commonwealth” as it was set to appear on the 1998 ballot.
The term “Commonwealth” of Puerto Rico is legally classified as a territory of the United States. Reflecting this reality, the description provided on the 1998 ballot clarified that the “commonwealth” status merely indicated a territory owned by the United States, or as characterized by the Congressional Research Service, “limited self-government.”
At the time of his testimony, Acedevo-Vila held the position of President of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) of Puerto Rico, which is not linked to the U.S. Democratic Party and is also known colloquially as the “Commonwealth” party.
“Commonwealth status, which has been the favored option of the Puerto Rican populace since its inception in 1952,” Acedevo-Vila stated, “is portrayed negatively and brushed off as a colonial status, deemed unworthy of serious consideration. Should the citizens of Puerto Rico stubbornly choose to continue supporting it, additional plebiscites must occur until statehood, independence, or free association, which entails relinquishing U.S. citizenship, is selected. It is well known that the citizens of Puerto Rico desire no aspect of independence and take genuine pride in their American citizenship, thus leading to an inevitable outcome favoring statehood.”
Acedevo-Vila continued to depict the concept of “commonwealth” crafted in the 1950s as a distinctive and special bond between Puerto Rico and the United States, intended as a foundation for a relationship that could evolve and adapt over time, contingent upon mutual agreement from both federal and territorial governments, aiming for a relationship that best serves both parties’ interests—where Puerto Rico would ensure U.S. citizenship, have the power to negotiate treaties with other countries, receive full protections under the U.S. Constitution, enjoy extensive federal benefits, and selectively choose which federal laws would apply to Puerto Rico.
Former Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) would later humorously refer to this arrangement as “the free beer and barbecue option.” Former Congressman Jose Serrano called it “a letter to Santa Claus.”
Here’s an excerpt of the “commonwealth” description that Acedevo-Vila presented at the 1997 hearing:
“(A) The new Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would exist in a permanent union with the United States, and any alteration of this relationship would necessitate mutual consent.
(B) The United States citizenship of individuals born in Puerto Rico would be assured as stipulated by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, equating it to the citizenship of those born in the several states… Residents of Puerto Rico would have equal access to benefits under Federal social programs just like residents of the several States.
(C) [A] Special Constitutional Convention would propose avenues for Puerto Rico’s involvement in international agreements and the exclusion of Puerto Rico from certain Federal laws or their provisions.”
Neither Acevedo-Vila nor any other Puerto Rican leader asserts that this is the existing relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. However, over the years, the Commonwealth party has maintained that this represents a possible outcome of future negotiations under the “commonwealth” designation, which was established in 1952 when Congress sanctioned Puerto Rico’s local constitution and informed the United Nations, during the Cold War, of its intent to abolish the colonial relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico.
The Origin of the “Commonwealth” Label
The challenge with “commonwealth”
The primary issue with “commonwealth” is that it does not represent a political status in any genuine sense. It is merely a term found in the official designation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, akin to its occurrence in the title of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Puerto Rico sovereignty
Ambassador Fred M. Zeder, who was instrumental in signing the Compact of Association between the U.S. and the Federated States of Micronesia, clarified Puerto Rico’s standing during the same hearing.
“If the people of Puerto Rico desire to have a completely distinct identity and existence separate from the U.S.—not merely a social and cultural differentiation but a separation in the legal and political context as a different constitutional nationality like Cuba or the Philippines—it is imperative to finalize the decolonization process initiated in 1952 toward independence or free association,” he elaborated. “Just as the U.S. had to dissolve the trusteeship before the global community would acknowledge the status of the associated republics under the Compact of Free Association, international acknowledgment of Puerto Rico as an independent or freely associated nation cannot be anticipated until Congress applies its Territorial Clause power, coupled with the President exercising foreign policy powers by endorsing a treaty that concludes U.S. sovereignty, nationality, and citizenship in Puerto Rico.”
“In situations where a U.S. territory such as Puerto Rico opts for separate sovereignty, it is evident, for reasons elaborated below, that neither the right to birth in the previously existing U.S. territory, statutory U.S. citizenship arising from birth in a U.S. territory, nor connections to a person with such statutory citizenship will underpin naturalization in the U.S. following the establishment of separate sovereignty,” he continued. “If the citizens of Puerto Rico opt to establish separate Puerto Rican sovereignty, the transition processes to distinct nationality will be dictated by Congress and subject to ratification by the populace of Puerto Rico. All involved parties will need to consider, among other factors, international law concerning state succession. Based on U.S. and international norms, Congress will likely stipulate the termination of U.S. sovereignty, nationality, and citizenship in favor of distinct Puerto Rican sovereignty, nationality, and citizenship.”
U.S. citizenship
After clarifying that no best-of-both-worlds scenario exists, Zeder turned to the topic of citizenship: “[A] proposal suggesting that virtually 100 percent of Puerto Rico’s population could retain their current U.S. nationality and statutory citizenship status as conferred under the Treaty of Paris and the Territorial Clause, while simultaneously acquiring separate Puerto Rican nationality and citizenship through a new government-to-government treaty establishing distinct sovereignty, is legally untenable and politically contradictory to Puerto Rico’s push for separate sovereignty. The notion that under separate sovereignty, the citizens of Puerto Rico would attain a citizenship right that surpasses the existing limited statutory citizenship—meaning a guaranteed and enforceable right comparable to the 14th Amendment citizenship protected by the U.S. Constitution as per the Afroyim case—is even more far-fetched. This would represent an upgrade from the current statutory citizenship status of individuals born in Puerto Rico according to 8 U.S.C. 1402, prompted by a vote from the Puerto Rican citizens to terminate U.S. sovereignty in Puerto Rico in favor of separate sovereignty. As mentioned earlier, various political, legal, and constitutional factors ensure that this simply will not occur under any circumstances.”
Laws and treaties
Ambassador Zeder proceeded to address the issue of laws and treaties under Puerto Rican sovereignty: “Instead of concluding the incorporation process through full assimilation and statehood, either independence or free association would ‘dis-integrate’ Puerto Rico from the United States. This would bring an end to U.S. sovereignty, nationality, and citizenship and cease the application of the U.S. Constitution in Puerto Rico… Under either independence or free association, the U.S. and Puerto Rico could forge treaties to outline their relationship on a sovereign-to-sovereign basis. Free association, as practiced by the U.S., essentially serves as a form of independence in which two sovereign nations consent to a closely-knit relationship that involves delegations of the sovereign powers associated with the United States within specific domains such as defense and other governmental functions as long as both treaty parties agree to maintain such arrangements.”
As a territory, Puerto Rico lacks the authority to negotiate treaties with foreign nations or reject federal laws. Therefore, Zeder’s remarks focused significantly on the free association option. “[F]ree association represents a type of separate sovereignty that typically arises from the dynamic between a colonial power and a people previously in a colonial context who temporarily wish to retain close ties with their former colonial power for as long as both parties consent to the arrangements,” he elucidated. “Puerto Rico does not possess the unilateral right to delineate its relationship with the United States.”
The discussions regarding free association took on notable importance since the Commonwealth party adopted a resolution, included in the hearing documents, which stated their objection that “To divide the vote of those who advocate for an autonomous relationship with the United States, it separates commonwealth from free association.”
Definitions
The resolution from Puerto Rico submitted to the House committee in 1997 further argued that the status bill “Defines free association in identical terms as independence” and “Defines commonwealth as a traditional colonial status.” Yet these definitions indeed hold true. They reflected the reality back in 1997 and continue to do so today. Some members of the Commonwealth party have shifted towards “sovereign free association,” but the legal limitations of the free association framework—including the absence of guaranteed access to U.S. citizenship—remain unchanged. Under the U.S. Constitution, Puerto Rico can either remain a territory or evolve into a state or an independent nation, potentially with a Compact of Free Association, assuming consensus can be reached among Puerto Rican and Congressional leaders regarding its stipulations. Voters should be informed of this before the next status vote, especially since Congress has engaged in discussions on these matters since at least 1997.
The post A Page from History: “Commonwealth” as a Colonial Status appeared first on PUERTO RICO REPORT.
