ASSOCIATE Justice John A. Manglona said the new Guam law that allows for judicial reciprocity between Guam and the CNMI solidifies the judicial relationship between the two insular areas.
Manglona said that CNMI and Guam courts recognize the need to assist each other when recusals and disqualifications of justices arise.
Manglona said that even before Guam’s Public Law 26-89 was enacted, he was a designated justice of the Guam Supreme Court.
Guam Public Law 26-89 allows judges from the CNMI to sit and hear cases in the courts of Guam, provided Guam judges and justices are offered the same in the commonwealth.
The law is intended to address any conflict-of-interest questions that may arise in certain cases.
Under the judicial reciprocity law, lawyers licensed to practice in the CNMI may also do so on Guam, provided that Guam attorneys are extended the same courtesy in the commonwealth.
Asked by Variety on his position regarding Guam’s new law, Manglona said the CNMI Constitution provides that the chief justice may designate an active or former justice or judge of any U.S. jurisdiction to serve as pro tem justice or judge of the commonwealth courts.
The CNMI Constitution, Manglona said, even allows active or former justices from Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia or the Marshall Islands to serve in a pro tem capacity.
He said Guam Justices Philip Carbullido and Frances Tydingco-Gatewood are assisting the CNMI high court in a few pending cases, while Presiding Judge Alberto Lamorena III, Judges Steven S. Unpingco and Joaquin Manibusan are also providing assistance.
“The Guam judiciary has always been helpful to our judiciary,” said Manglona, adding that last week, Justice Kathleen Salii of the Palau Supreme Court also sat as a panel member in one case here.
The new law, Manglona said, provides that any sitting justice or judge in the CNMI should be eligible to sit on the Guam high court or its Superior Court.
Guam’s chief justice would designate a pro tem justice when the need arises.
Manglona said the reciprocal arrangements also extend beyond the courtrooms.
“In recent months, both courts have adopted very similar continuing legal education requirements. Now there are plans to sponsor legal education programs for the judiciary and the bar,” he added.
