Bill to oust Diné law from code tabled

On the agenda, the bill sounded harmless, if ambiguous: "Restoring the foundation of the Diné to the Diné."

And while the Navajo Nation Council added the bill as an emergency measure during the weeklong summer session that wrapped up July 23, the delegates debated for less than an hour before tabling the issue for further study.

The question behind the bill? Whether to delete Diné Fundamental Law from the tribal code.

"This (Diné Fundamental Law) is good, it had its purpose," said the bill's sponsor, Raymond Joe (Blue Gap/Tachee/Whippoorwill). "It served its purpose."

Diné Fundamental Law encompasses traditional Navajo values and incorporates them in written form into the Navajo Nation Code, where they are intended to serve as the moral compass by which the tribe governs itself.

It is increasingly referenced in law cases, though the tribal code dictates that the fundamental version should only be used in cases where an issue is not directly addressed by tribal statute.

As written in the tribal code, an overriding philosophy towards life is stated and then discussed in more detail under four headings: traditional, customary, natural and common laws.

It is meant to "provide sanctuary for the Diné life and culture," the law states.

The opening section - written first in Navajo then translated in English - reads like poetry:

"The Holy People ordained,

Through songs and prayers,

That

Earth and universe embody thinking,

Water and the sacred mountains embody life,

Fire, light, and offering sites of variegated sacred stones embody wisdom.

These are the Fundamental tenets established."

However, Joe believes that since its formal adoption into the code in 2001, Diné Fundamental Law has been put to uses for which it was not intended.

He argued that it was intended to ensure that Navajo people learned traditional philosophy and traditional ways of life.

"It was made for a good purpose," he said. "But (now) we start misconstruing, misinterpreting and misunderstanding; we start to abuse it."

Joe gave no specific instance in which he thought Diné Fundamental Law had been abused, nor did any of the small handful of delegates who spoke in favor of his bill.

But its role in the hot-button case of Navajo Election Administration vs. Joe Shirley, et al., raised unavoidable questions about whether it has become a political football.

The most recent use of Diné Fundamental Law could directly affect the future of Joe and other members of the council.

Judge Carol Perry, acting as hearing officer in the case involving President Joe Shirley Jr. and the Navajo Election Administration, invoked Diné Fundamental Law in her decision to give the green light to Shirley's plan to ask voters to reduce the size of the Navajo Nation Council from 88 to 24 seats.

Perry's ruled in June that Shirley had enough valid signatures to place the question before voters in a special election to be held before the end of the year.

If successful, the measure would mean council districts would be consolidated and nearly three of every four delegates would be looking for a new job come the next election cycle.

Perry held that the election office had been overly stringent in its application of the tribal rules governing voter initiative petitions, which resulted in discarding many signatures on Shirley's petitions that were valid.

In do so, she said the election office had given short shrift to the fundamental principle of including all Navajos in decisions affecting the tribe.

The Office of Legislative Counsel, which represents both the council and the election administration, said in its appeal that Perry overreached herself. Tribal law does not give a hearing officer authority to interpret Diné Fundamental Law, as she did, argued lawyers for the election office.

Her decision is under review by the Navajo Nation Supreme Court with a decision expected by Friday. Even if the council had approved Joe's bill this week, it's debatable whether it would affect the Supreme Court's decision.

Joe did not mention the Shirley case, choosing instead to speak in generalities.

"It's supposed to help us," he said of Diné Fundamental Law. "But its purpose is lost."

Katherine Benally (Dennehotso) also spoke in favor of eliminating Diné Fundamental Law from the code, saying Navajo traditional mores were never intended to be written down.

"Now it's being used in judgments against each other," she said. "We are using our own laws against each other."

Benally said many judges have limited knowledge of the fundamental laws, Navajo culture and ways of life.

Benally also said that Diné Fundamental Law, as applied, hurts women and children. Under the principle of k'é - the connectedness of all people - domestic violence victims are encouraged to keep quiet in favor of the greater goal of preserving harmony in the extended family.

They are encouraged to "work through" their problems with abusive family members, which almost always results in continued abuse, Benally said.

"Think about them," Benally said of domestic violence victims. "Even if we only fix that part, it would be great."

Beyond the immediate issue of its role in the battle between the president and opponents of council reduction, however, the place of Diné Fundamental Law goes to the heart of what values govern Navajo Nation lawmaking.

Most delegates seemed to see a larger issue - not to mention the public relations impact of voting to remove traditional Diné values from the law of the land - there, and voted to take up the discussion at a future date.

Back to top ^