The Office of Attorney General filed last week a reply to Palacios’ opposition to the motion for dismissal, reiterating that the lawmaker lacks the standing to challenge the governor’s veto of House Local Bill 17-44.
Palacios, R-Saipan, responded last Monday by filing his own reply to Fitial’s opposition for motion for summary judgment.
Palacios was the acting chairman when the Saipan and Northern Island Legislative Delegation passed H.L.B 17-44 a few months ago.
Assistant Attorney General Michael A. Stanker, who represents the governor, said Palacios fails to satisfy any of the standing factors.
Stanker noted that Palacios even admitted this in his opposition to the governor’s motion.
“Standing,” the assistant AG said, contains three elements. First, a plaintiff must have personally suffered an injury in fact defined as “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.”
This ensures that the plaintiff has a concrete stake in the litigation and its outcome.
Secondly, there must be “causation.” The court, Stanker said, can act only to redress injury that can be “traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and not injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.”
Finally, it must be “likely” that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. This, Stanker said, ensures that the court can provide a remedy that will correspond to the injury sustained by the plaintiff.
Stanker said Palacios has not experienced a concrete and particularized injury as a result of the governor’s veto of H.L.B. 17-44.
And even if the lawmaker suffered an injury, which he has not, there is no causation as the governor is entitled to veto a bill for any reason, he added.
Stanker pointed out that the veto will not be redressed by a favorable decision because the court cannot pass the law; the requested relief will not place the bill before the governor for approval; and the governor could still veto the bill even if the court gave a favorable decision.
“Palacios fails to demonstrate any of these elements of standing,” the government lawyer added.
But in his reply, Palacios said Fitial continues his “long and winding road” of twisting his words.
He said he has the necessary standing in this matter as defined in 7CMC Sec. 2421, which states the right for a party to seek declaratory judgment.
The authority of the court, he added. renders that “in case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, the commonwealth trial court upon the filling of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking the declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.”
Palacios defines justifiable controversy as “real and substantial controversy that is appropriate for judicial determinations, as distinguished from a hypothetical contingent or abstract dispute.”
He said there is a definite and real controversy between him and Fitial in the disputed legal question: “Is a local law a commonwealth law?”
Palacios added that there is also controversy in Fitial’s disputed position that he, Palacios, acted without authority and allowed invalid legislation to be passed when he was acting chairman of the delegation.
Fitial vetoed the bill because the CNMI Constitution requires casino legislation to be passed by both houses of the Legislature, and not just the delegation of a senatorial district.
