THE CNMI Office of the Attorney General is proposing permanent regulations that would grant itself formal authority to issue investigative subpoenas in criminal and consumer protection cases, according to a draft published for public review.
The draft was filed with the Commonwealth Register on Oct. 14, 2025, and the public has 30 days from the publication date to submit comments.
Attorney General Edward Manibusan must review and consider the comments before finalizing the rules.
When asked for comment, attorney Robert T. Torres described the proposed regulation as “disturbing.”
“The Office of the Attorney General seeks to promulgate regulations giving its office unchecked powers for investigative subpoenas. That office is trying to do by regulation what the Executive Branch cannot do without the Legislature: to give the Attorney General statutory authority for investigative subpoenas,” Torres said.
“The proposed AG regulation is as dangerous to personal liberty as the Chief Prosecutor of our Commonwealth initiating prosecutions without oversight by the courts or a grand jury. It is an absolute overreach by that office, and our citizens should be greatly concerned. The Attorney General should provide a transparent and extensive process for public comment and objections, rather than seek to enact such an intrusion into our personal rights and privacy sandwiched between innocuous proposed administrative regulations.
“The citizens did not elect an Attorney General to enlarge the government’s intrusion into our constitutionally protected rights.”
Torres added, “The proposed regulation should be withdrawn, or the Legislature should immediately pass a law that would remove such proclaimed authority, with an explicit mandate that only the judiciary may issue subpoenas — not the Executive Branch through its Attorney General.”
Under the proposed rules, the AG’s office would be able to compel documents and testimony as part of its prosecutorial duties. The regulations, based on the CNMI Constitution and the CNMI Administrative Procedure Act, would take effect 10 days after publication in the Commonwealth Register.
The rules outline procedures for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to apply for subpoenas, which must detail the scope of the investigation and the materials sought. Applications would be reviewed by a special prosecutor or the chief of the OAG’s Criminal Division, with at least 24 hours’ notice required unless shortened for good cause.
Witnesses must be informed of their rights, including access to legal counsel and protection against self-incrimination. All testimony must be recorded or transcribed, and witnesses may consult an attorney during questioning.
However, the regulations also state:
“An attorney may accompany a witness but must remain outside during questioning,” and “A witness may pause questioning to consult with an attorney.”
If a subpoena is not complied with, prosecutors may seek enforcement through the Superior Court. Witnesses also have the right to challenge subpoenas by filing a motion to quash.
The Criminal Division would be required to submit an annual report documenting the number of subpoenas issued and any related enforcement actions.
The AG’s office said the regulations are intended to strengthen its constitutional mandate to prosecute violations of Commonwealth law.
A defense attorney who requested anonymity told Variety:
“Yes, an executive branch department can promulgate rules, provided it has been granted that authority by the Legislature through a statute. These rules, which have the force of law, are created to provide the specific details needed to implement and enforce broad legislative mandates. The process is governed by the CNMI Administrative Procedure Act and involves publishing proposed and final rules in the CNMI Register.
“The question is: did the CNMI Legislature delegate this authority to the CNMI Attorney General to enact rules and regulations dealing with subpoenas to access constitutionally protected information?”
Another defense attorney told Variety:
“The regulations claim that they shall not be used for harassment. But what if they are? There are no consequences. How about a crime — up to a year in jail — for an AG who uses it to harass or embarrass for political gain?”
Last year, Torres and 15 other attorneys opposed House Bill 23-22, introduced by Rep. Marissa Flores, which would have granted the OAG subpoena powers. The group of attorneys instead recommended the establishment of a CNMI grand jury as an alternative. H.B. 23-22 never made it out of committee.
