SENATE President Jude U. Hofschneider on Tuesday said the Senate impeachment trial of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres will proceed with or without a House prosecutor.
“It appears now the House is not equal to the task of confronting the opposing defense against [their] articles [of impeachment] and is advancing any excuse to slow the impeachment process,” Hofschneider said.
“The Senate will not be deterred. Deadlines are not going to be extended any longer.”
Regarding House Vice Speaker Blas Jonathan T. Attao’s recent statement declining to act as House impeachment prosecutor, Hofschneider said this shows a refusal on the part of the House to recognize the division of duties that the Constitution described in the context of impeachment.
“The Constitution does not require the House of Representatives to act as the impeachment prosecution,” the Senate president said. “The Senate drafted rules that afforded the House the opportunity to act in that capacity as we felt they would be prepared to present the arguments they have so forcefully advocated in the press.”
Hofschneider said pursuant to Rule 7(a)(2) of the Senate impeachment rules, he will name the House impeachment prosecutor.
“The House may, as is its prerogative, continue to refuse to appear in the impeachment hearing. The absence of a House impeachment prosecutor will not serve to end the proceedings of impeachment. Upon the date set for the hearing, the presiding officer will call the hearing to order and call upon the parties to present their cases. If no prosecutor is present to make the arguments before the Senate, the hearing will proceed on the record as it exists at that time,” the Senate president said.
“I will act as the presiding officer for the hearing before the full body of the Senate,” he added.
“The Senate is proceeding with its constitutional duty to conduct a hearing on the impeachment of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres despite the continued obstruction of the House of Representatives.”
As for the House leadership’s claim that the Senate impeachment rules are unconstitutional, Hofschneider said, “Perhaps the most glaring example of the vice speaker’s own lack of understanding of the law and the Constitution is his insistence that the House has some constitutionally-mandated role to perform in the upcoming hearing in the Senate. The vice speaker cites no language in the Constitution, nor would it be possible for him to do so, where the members of the House are assigned a role in the Senate’s hearing. There is no such language in the Constitution.”
Article II, Section 8 of the CNMI Constitution states that “[t]he House of Representatives may initiate impeachment proceedings by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members and the senate may convict after hearing by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members.”
“Article II, Section 8 governs how the work is to be divided,” Hofschneider said. “The Senate had no role to play in the initiation of the proceedings in the House. The House could have, if it so desired, given a role for the Senate to play in their own impeachment hearings. They did not. The Senate did not complain of a lack of fairness or a non-existent lack of constitutionality.”
Similarly, Hofschneider said, the Constitution does not direct the House to act as the prosecution in the impeachment hearing.
“In the interest of a complete hearing, the Senate chose to include the House members in the hearing of the evidence against the governor. If, as has been suggested, the Senate wished to slant the evidence in the governor’s favor, the rules should have been written to exclude the participation of the House members from the hearing completely. We chose, instead, to include the House,” the Senate president said.
The Senate Committee on Executive Appointments and Government Investigations, chaired by Sen. Francisco Q. Cruz, and the Committee on Judiciary, Government, Law and Federal Relations, chaired by Sen. Karl R. King-Nabors, drafted the Senate impeachment rules.
“The joint committee presented its draft rules to the full Senate for adoption after public comment and comment by the members of the Senate,” Hofschneider said. “All members of the Senate had ample opportunity to comment and offer amendments to the proposed rules. No member of the Senate proposed any amendments to the rules which would have affected identification of the impeachment prosecutor. The Senate, as a body, found the rules as promulgated to be constitutional, fair, and balanced.”
He added, “To further muddy the waters, the members of the House continue to suggest that the rules somehow permit the appointed committee to dispose of the Articles of Impeachment directly in violation of the Constitution. This appears to be a purposeful misreading of the rules in an effort to provide misinformation to the public. In any rational reading of the Rules of Impeachment, the only way the Articles of Impeachment are disposed of is by a vote in the full body of the Senate requiring a two-thirds vote in order to convict. This requirement conforms to the requirements of the Constitution for conviction upon impeachment,” the Senate president said.
“I am at a loss to explain the continued insistence of the members of the House on promulgating blatantly false information to the public. It is also apparent that Vice Speaker Attao takes a contorted view of case law as it applies to impeachment when it does not conform to his narrative,” he added.
The center of the discussion about the Senate rules of impeachment has been the case of Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), Hofschneider noted.
He said in this particular case, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the impeachment of a judge was constitutional as the hearing was conducted in committee as opposed to the full Senate.
The evidence of impeachment was presented to a committee and reported to the full Senate for vote, just as the rules of impeachment permit in Governor Torres’ impeachment hearing, Hofschneider said.
The judge, who was impeached, complained to the Supreme Court saying the rules violated the Senate’s authority because it prohibited the “whole Senate from taking part in the evidentiary hearings.”
The high court disagreed. It held that the Senate had the authority to craft its rules as the Senate saw fit and that the court could not and would not review the Senate’s decisions.
“The Senate has drafted rules in conformance with the Constitution,” Hofschneider said. “The House may believe the rules to be unfair. The Vice Speaker confuses the concept of unfairness to his agenda and narrative to be the same thing as unconstitutional. If the Vice Speaker is convinced he has an argument against the holdings of Nixon, the correct course of action is to request a review before our Supreme Court, not to misstate the holdings in a misguided attempt to discredit the Senate. I am confident the Court will agree with the holdings of Nixon and find the Vice Speaker’s claims of unconstitutionality to be unfounded.”
Hofschneider earlier formed the Senate Special Committee on the Impeachment Hearing to look into House Resolution 22-14 which calls for the impeachment of the governor.
He appointed Sen. King-Nabors as its chair, Senate Vice President Justo S. Quitugua as vice chair, and Sens. Francisco Q. Cruz, Victor B. Hocog, and Teresita A. Santos as its members.
Quitugua recused himself due to conflict of interest, citing close familial ties with Governor Torres.
On Jan. 12, 2022, by a vote of 15 to 4 with 1 abstention, the House of Representatives impeached Torres on allegations of felonies of theft, corruption and neglect of duty. He has denied the charges.
At least six of the nine senators must vote to convict the governor who will then be removed from office. The lt. governor will succeed him.
Jude U. Hofschneider
