In the argument he and his legal team prepared yesterday, Palacios, R-Saipan, will urge the court to decide that local law is a commonwealth law.
Palacios and House legal counsels will be in Judge Kenneth Govendo’s courtroom this morning for the lawmaker’s petition for a declaratory judgment regarding House Bill 17-44, or the Saipan casino measure, which Gov. Benigno R. Fitial vetoed two months ago.
The Office of the Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss Palacios’ petition, saying the Saipan lawmaker has no standing and that he suffered no injury from the governor’s veto of the local bill.
Palacios said he was the presiding officer when the Saipan delegation passed H.B. 17-44. He noted that the governor stated in his veto message that the Saipan delegation’s action on the measure was “improper.”
Palacios said the local casino bill authored by Rep. Stanley T. Torres, Ind.-Saipan, was properly introduced, went through six public hearings, was debated and passed the delegation before it was transmitted to the administration.
“So it is not the place of the governor to determine what are the proper actions of the Third Senatorial District,” Palacios said, referring to Saipan delegation.
In a motion for summary judgment he filed three weeks ago, Palacios cited a Supreme Court decision stating that local legislation providing for gaming prevailed over a “commonwealth-wide” law.
He also cited the 1976 constitutional analysis defining commonwealth law as one that “includes any general law, local law, local regulation or local ordinance enacted under Article 11 Section 6.”
Also, he added, then-Judge Alex Castro held that Trust Territory law as existed prior to commonwealth would constitute CNMI law —even a local bingo ordinance was considered “commonwealth law.”
Thus, Palacios said, local law can be considered CNMI law.
“I filed the petition solely to ask the Court to determine what the [Saipan delegation] legally can and cannot do. I do not challenge Governor Fitial’s power to veto. I merely challenge with all due respect the reasons for the veto. The [delegation] passed House Local Bill 17-44 and it was vetoed because it was supposedly ‘irregularly passed.’ But significantly, even if we could override the veto with two-thirds of both the House and Senate, the result would still be a local law. This is why the court must deny the motion to dismiss and grant my motion for summary judgment and issue a declaratory judgment,” Palacios said.
