By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE Supreme Court has denied the CNMI Scholarship Board’s request for a writ of mandamus directing the Superior Court to vacate an order instructing the board to produce records pursuant to the Open Government Act in the lawsuit filed by a student, Roselle Calvo.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro, Associate Justice John A. Manglona and Justice Pro Tempore Timothy H. Bellas, in their order yesterday, said the board has not satisfied the test laid out in Tenorio v. Superior Court, NMI 1, 9-10 (1989).
The justices said the Tenorio analysis taken as a whole does not support the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
They said the writ of mandamus is at best premature since the trial court has not ordered specific information to be released, reserving that judgment until it has reviewed the board’s decision of what information to withhold.
“Without specific evidence or an impending release of private or privileged information, we find no grounds for a writ of mandamus,” the justices said.
Their order stated that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ, reserved for the most dire of instances when no other relief is available.
The writ of mandamus “is by no means a procedural right and shall not be used to second guess the trial court every step of the way.”
The justices said in denying the board’s request, they looked to the five factors laid out in Tenorio v. the Superior Court: the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal to attain the relief desired; the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; the lower court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; the lower court’s order is an oft-repeated error or manifests a persistent disregard of applicable rules; and the lower court’s order raises new and important problems or issues of law of first impression.
The justices said not all of these five factors need be satisfied to justify the issuance of mandamus.
“Rather, Tenorio provides a balancing test. The factors are cumulative and require this court to determine the degree to which each is implicated,” the order stated.
The justices said the Scholarship Board argued that a writ of mandamus is needed to protect the documents at issue because the documents cannot be redacted once they are produced.
“However, the trial court’s order allows the board to redact any information, the disclosure of which would violate commonwealth of federal law or is privileged under common law or rules,” the justices said.
“Allowing the board to redact information it believes is privileged or private preserves the board’s nondisclosure duty under 1 CMC§9918 (a),” the justices added.
They said that “the trial court’s order implements the Open Government Act’s own safeguards. We cannot say that the release of redacted scholarship applications will injure current or future applicants, much less in a way not correctable on appeal.”
The Supreme Court did not find the Scholarship Board’s argument that the trial court lacks jurisdiction as a sufficient basis for mandamus relief.
An honor student and a student leader, Roselle Calvo earlier applied for a scholarship but was not selected by the board.
Calvo appealed the decision to the board which denied it.
Calvo then sued the board and requested it to make duplicates of documents relating to the 2006 scholarship applicants.
The board rejected her request.
Calvo renewed her request to the Superior Court which granted her request on March 28.
The Scholarship Board then requested a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court.