“THE record reflects numerous other government officials have traveled on an airline ticket issued for travel in class other than regular economy fare,” stated Gov. Ralph DLG Torres’ legal team in their reply to the government’s opposition to dismissing the criminal case for being selective and vindictive.
The prosecution has not brought criminal charges against any government official other than Gov. Torres, his lawyers added.
On April 8, 2022, the Office of the Attorney General filed a criminal case against the governor, alleging 12 counts of misconduct in public office and one count of theft relating to the issuance of airline tickets for business class, first class, or other premium class travel for himself and/or Diann T. Torres, his wife.
The complaint alleged that Torres committed “misconduct in public office” on nine occasions from April to December 2018 in connection with his purchases of business class, first class and other premium travel tickets for himself and his wife.
The complaint included theft charges related to the governor’s travel expenses amounting to $20,000 between April 2018 and May 30, 2019, using public funds.
The case also alleged one count of contempt for failure to appear in compliance with a legislative subpoena.
The governor has denied the charges and has asked the court to dismiss them.
In a motion filed on June 29, 2022, his attorneys — Viola Alepuyo, Victorino Torres, Matthew Holley, and Anthony Aguon — stated that the Office of the Attorney General published its own travel regulation in 2016 allowing AG Edward Manibusan, assistant attorneys general and other employees to travel first class for travel over five hours.
“This would automatically authorize government employees to issue first class tickets in order to comply with its own travel regulation,” the governor’s lawyers said.
At an evidentiary hearing on May 31, Manibusan said the travel policy was still in place and had not been amended.
The governor’s lawyers said the court must make a finding that Gov. Torres was selectively targeted as early as December 2019, and that Manibusan did not want to investigate others who engaged in similar conduct as stated by Lawrence Pangelinan, former chief investigator at the AG’s office.
“Despite [the AG’s] instruction to target only Governor Torres, he was directly informed by Pangelinan that others, including AG Manibusan, have engaged in similar conduct,” the governor’s lawyers stated.
Even more telling, they added, “the prosecution does not submit any statement under oath setting forth any explanation for why no other governmental official has been charged with an alleged violation of 1 CMC § 7407, or setting forth the reason why a criminal case was filed against Governor Torres rather than pursuing the remedy of a civil money penalty as provided by 1 CMC § 7407, or why the prosecution did not file any charges within two years of knowing of the facts upon which counts 1-13 are based.”
The prosecution fails to offer any legitimate reason for bringing a criminal action only against Gov. Torres and no other government officials, the governor’s lawyers said.
Citing a previous ruling, the governor’s legal team stated that the court found it relevant that the first prosecutor assigned to the case refused to prosecute the matter. “Here, too, Governor Torres has inquired if the first prosecutor who has left island [has] recommended that this matter not be prosecuted,” the lawyers said.
“The record in this case establishes that Governor Torres has presented more than sufficient facts and evidence to demonstrate this case is one of selective prosecution and the prosecution has not presented any affidavits or evidence to rebut or counter the factual showing,” they added.
Chief Solicitor Robert Glass Jr. and Assistant Attorney General Steve Kessel are prosecuting the case.
In opposing the motion to dismiss, Glass said the governor cannot show he is being selectively prosecuted.
“Defendant has been charged and is being prosecuted for misconduct in public office.”
Glass said the defendant “obfuscates the fact that he is being charged with misconduct in public office (6 CMC § 3202) based upon violation of a statute (1 CMC § 7407(f)) with the underlying statute itself. Defendant argues that he is the first person to ever be charged with a violation of 1 CMC § 7407(f). However, a clear reading of the information shows that the defendant is being charged with violating 6 CMC § 3202. The means by which it is alleged defendant committed the crime is for a violation of 1 CMC § 7407(f).”
Other individuals, including former Gov. Benigno R. Fitial, and former Attorney General Edward T. Buckingham, have been prosecuted for misconduct in public office, Glass added.
He said former Department of Public Safety Deputy Commissioner Ambrosio Ogumuro was prosecuted for using government funds to fix a vehicle, which he then sold for less than retail value.
According to Glass, the means under which misconduct in public office is alleged vary from case-to-case, and may also be the first time the underlying means are used as a basis for prosecution.
“It is clear from these cases that other public officials have been charged with misconduct in public office, and that defendant is not standing alone as being prosecuted for allegations of misconduct in public office,” Glass said.
Last week, Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Alberto Tolentino said he had taken all motions under advisement. He said once he issues the orders, they will come out at the same time.
