THE CNMI Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review the merits of former Gov. Ralph DLG Torres’s appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against a House committee that found him in contempt.
The committee had argued that the “legislative immunity provided by the NMI Constitution should operate as an absolute bar to the [then] Governor’s lawsuit.” The Superior Court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice — meaning, it cannot be refiled.
Torres filed an appeal to the local high court.
In its ruling dated Oct. 31, 2023, the high court said it “lacks jurisdiction to decide cases that are moot.”
“Mootness occurs when events following the filing of a suit or appeal eliminate the actual controversy between the parties of the original dispute,” the ruling added.
According to the high court, “This case has been rendered moot by the adjournment of the 22nd Session of the NMI House of Representatives. The NMI House of Representatives is not expressly provided with any power to continue conducting business after the adjournment of a term…. The 22nd Legislature, as a legal entity, ceased to exist in January 2023….”
The 22nd Legislature’s House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations, which voted to find Torres in contempt for refusing to appear before the panel, was established under the rules of the 22nd House, the high court ruling stated.
It added, “The Committee cannot continue as a legal entity beyond the termination of the authorizing Legislature…. Following the termination of the 22nd House and establishment of the 23rd House… the Committee of the 22nd House —the defendant-appellee — no longer exists.”
The high court said the case is also moot because Torres is no longer governor.
“This appeal was brought jointly by former Governor Torres in his official capacity as Governor and the Office of the Governor. While the Office continues under the direction of a newly elected Governor, former Governor Torres no longer has authority to act in any official capacity and he is not named as a plaintiff-appellant in his personal capacity,” the high court stated.
“As both issues on appeal stem from the applicability of legislative immunity for a legislature that no longer exists against a Governor who has left office, no actual controversy exists. Absent a live controversy between adversary parties, this Court has discretion to not declare any rule of law or reach the merits of the appeal…. We exercise this discretion and decline to review this case,” the high court added.
“Though the matter at hand may bear significant public importance, the circumstances that gave rise to this controversy — specifically, the tenures of former Governor Torres and the 22nd Session of the NMI House of Representatives — have both concluded….
“Given the absence of a continuing actual controversy, we are hesitant to engage with such a consequential matter of separation of powers without a clear adversary context,” the high court stated.
It added that its “conclusion that this appeal is moot does not approve or disapprove of the decision by the Superior Court to dismiss” Torres’s lawsuit.
The high court then quoted the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998), stated:
“[M]ootness, however it may have come about, simply deprives us of our power to act; there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so. We are not in the business of pronouncing that past actions which have no demonstrable continuing effect were right or wrong.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal,” the local high court added.
The ruling was signed by Justices Pro Tem Guam Supreme Court Chief Justice Philip Carbullido, Guam Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert J. Torres, and Guam Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas.
