While Rep. Stanley T. Torres, Ind.-Saipan, was waiting to introduce House Local Bill 17-44 during the Saipan and Northern Islands Legislative Delegation session, the Senate was finalizing the draft of its resolution that challenges the delegation’s action on the gambling bill.
Senate Resolution 17-52 authorizes its legal counsel to represent the Senate in a legal action should the delegation passes the Saipan gambling bill.
Introduced by Senate President Paul A. Manglona, Ind.-Rota, the resolution describes Torres’ bill as an an attempt to subvert the CNMI Constitution.
Citing Article 21 of the Constitution which prohibits gambling in the CNMI, except through CNMI law or when allowed by voters through an initiative, the resolution says “any attempt to pass gambling legalization by local law does violence to the intent of the Commonwealth Constitution, it subverts the will of the voters of the Third Senatorial District and sets a precedent by which our Constitution can be subverted through the agreement of one legislative delegation.”
The resolution further states that the 1985 Constitutional Convention, of which Manglona was a member, clearly intended to disallow a legislative delegation to pass gaming legalization.
It further noted that, consistent with Article 21, the voters of Tinian and Rota approved casino gaming by passing popular initiatives.
The voters on Saipan, on the other hand rejected it on two occasions, the resolution noted.
House rebuts
Torres, for his part. handed out copies of a memorandum stating that the enactment of the local bill by Saipan delegation is constitutional.
The memo was prepared by House legal counsels Joe Taijeron and John Cool.
They cited Article 2, Section 6 of the CNMI Constitution which states that, “Laws that relate exclusively to local matters within one senatorial district may be enacted by the Legislature or by the affirmative vote of the members representing that district.”
It is important to note, the memo said, that the CNMI courts will be the final arbiter of the issue “and the only entity whose opinion legally carries the any weight.”
“However,” it added, “the judicial branch has already stated that it is a longstanding doctrine that an Act passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor is presumed to survive constitutional scrutiny.”
The memo concluded that two separate NMI Constitutional provisions — Articles 2 and 21 — independently demonstrate that H.L.B. 17-44 is legal and proper act under the law of the commonwealth “and therefore this bill, if signed into law should withstand legal scrutiny.”
When the time came for Torres to introduce the measure, the House leadership attempted to place it on the bill calendar.
But House Minority Leader Diego T. Benavente, R-Saipan insisted that public hearings should be held first.
Rep. Ramon S. Basa, Covenant-Saipan, noted that there had been public hearings held for the Saipan casino bill introduced last year. The measure was passed by the House but rejected by the Senate, which is dominated by Rota and Tinian.
But Rep. Francisco S. Dela Cruz, R-Saipan, said H.L.B. 17-44 is a new bill and requires another series of public hearings.
In an interview after the session, Benavente said the delegation should hear not only from the public but also from the Attorney General’s Office regarding the constitutionality of the measure.
