THE CNMI Judiciary opposes House Bill 24-22, which proposes to allocate 75% of the courts’ income to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Safety.
Speaking on behalf of Supreme Court Chief Justice Alexandro Castro and Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto Naraja, Acting Director of Courts Matthew Brown testified against H.B. 24-22 during Thursday’s House Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee meeting at the House chamber.
Present at the meeting were committee chair Rep. Joel Camacho and members House Floor Leader Marissa Flores, Rep. John Paul Sablan, Rep. Danny Aquino, Rep. Angelo Camacho, Rep. Vincent Aldan, and Rep. Joseph Flores.
Brown told the committee that H.B. 24-22 seeks to remove critical funding from the Judiciary’s infrastructure.
Authored by House Floor Leader Flores, the measure proposes to deposit 75% of the Justice Center Fund into the CNMI government’s general fund — allocating 70% to DPS and 5% to DPW. The remaining 25% would stay with the Judiciary for facility maintenance.
The Justice Center Fund was created by Public Law 7-25 as amended by P.L. 19-67 to finance the construction of suitable buildings for the judicial branch through a U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development loan.
According to the bill, “The loan has been fully satisfied, and the Justice Center is now fully constructed. With the original obligation discharged, continuing to earmark court-generated fines and fees solely for this retired debt no longer reflects prudent fiscal management or the intent of enabling legislation.”
Brown disputed that characterization, stressing that the funds are not “extra” but essential for maintaining and improving the justice system. He noted that when P.L. 19-67 was enacted in 2016, the Legislature recognized the urgent need for expanded facilities for the Judiciary, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Public Defender. The 19th Legislature found that the existing facilities housing the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Judicial Administrative Office, and the Law Revision Commission were inadequate to meet current and future needs on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota.
“That need has not gone away — in fact, it has grown,” Brown told lawmakers.
He explained that to date, the USDA loan has not been disbursed, and the justice center envisioned under P.L. 19-67 has not been built. Diverting a large portion of the Justice Center Fund, he said, would undermine the Judiciary’s ability to secure financing and jeopardize projects such as a new Tinian courthouse and current and future specialty courts like the Drug Court and Mental Health Court.
Brown also clarified that nearly 80% of the revenues deposited into the Justice Center Fund come from non-traffic and criminal sources, such as recording fees, Family Court filings, appellate fees, and bar admissions, while only 20% are generated from traffic citations. He added that the Judiciary has recently engaged in active discussions with the executive branch to establish a comprehensive fines and fee schedule to ensure transparency, consistency, and sustainability of these revenue sources.
“These collaborative efforts demonstrate the Judiciary’s commitment to fiscal responsibility in addressing the Commonwealth’s justice system needs,” he said.
In the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget, Brown noted, the Judiciary is appropriated just over $200,000 for operations, an amount he described as “barely enough” to function. That amount, he said, must also cover the statutorily required 1% public auditor fee, which alone is approximately $61,000.
Brown stressed that the Justice Center Fund remains the Judiciary’s only reliable mechanism to maintain its facilities on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota, and the only source of funding it can access to sustain operations in FY 2026.
He further noted that H.B. 24-22, as drafted, provides that revenue diversion accrues only upon disbursement of the USDA loan. Because the loan has not yet been disbursed, however, all fines, fees, and revenues that should be deposited into the Fund’s revolving account would by default be remitted to the general fund — creating a significant funding gap and undermining the Legislature’s stated intent to allocate 25% of Justice Center Fund revenues to the Judiciary and 75% to DPW and DPS.
