By Moneth G. Deposa
Variety News Staff

THE Commonwealth Utilities Corp. yesterday conducted a public hearing on the complaint filed by Rep. Stanley T. Torres and his staffer Jack Angello regarding the higher power rates imposed by the governor and CUC.
The two asked for a summary judgment but CUC’s lawyers, former Senate legal counsel Steven M. Newman and former Superior Court Presiding Judge Edward Manibusan, said it can only be issued if there’s no evidence to support the facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.
In a 22-page document submitted during the public hearing on Dandan, CUC’s lawyers said “summary judgment is appropriate if pleadings, depositions, answers and interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits, if any, show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
CUC administrative hearing officer Linn Asper will review the testimony presented by both parties and issue a decision within 10 working days.
Angello, in an interview, said he “feels good” about the case.
“Our position is strong. Basically the governor’s rush on the CUC regulation is very ironic…like the case in D.C. where the governor is complaining that the federal government is rushing things here on CNMI without a proper hearing or representations,” Angello said.
CUC’s legal counsel said they will address the issues raised by the appellants — Torres, Ind.-Saipan, and Angello.
“Appellants assert that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that CUC’s current rate schedule is the unlawful product of the governor’s use of the CNMI Constitution’s ‘re-organization’ authority which is designed to allow a governor to reallocate executive branch offices and functions within 15 principle departments and not to re-write substantive statutory law,” according to a statement from CUC’s counsel.
The appellants “argue that the governor’s authority under the Constitution’s Article 3 section 15…is limited to reorganization within the 15 principal departments of the executive branch.”
Second, the “appellants argue that the (governor’s executive order) cannot effectuate substantive amendments to statutory law.”
CUC, its lawyers stated, “respectfully disagrees…and urges the hearing officer to reject such arguments as being without merit.”
CUC, they added, is an “instrumentality” of the CNMI government that is subject to the governor’s reorganization powers and that upon the expiration of 60 days after transmittal of the governor’s executive order to the Legislature, without disapproval or modification, had the full and effect of the law.
They said that amendments to CUC’s rate regulations were lawfully promulgated in accordance with the law.