HOUSE Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez on Tuesday formally certified the contempt of legislative subpoena after the governor’s executive assistant refused to answer the questions of the House Judiciary and Governmental Operation Committee.
Frances “Kai” Dela Cruz appeared before the House committee at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday with her legal counsel, Viola Alepuyo, and the governor’s counsel, Gil Birnbrich.
When asked questions by the House committee members, Dela Cruz replied by reading a prepared statement explaining her objection to the subpoena.
In his letter Tuesday, Speaker Villagomez requested Attorney General Edward Manibusan to initiate the prosecution of Dela Cruz, saying “the lack of respect and cooperation shown the Committee…implicates the dignity of the CNMI Legislature as a body, and its authority to employ compulsory process in service of its investigatory powers must be upheld. We cannot allow lawless flouting of the Legislature’s authority to stand.”
The speaker noted that the committee unanimously voted to endorse a shorter period in issuing an expanded subpoena, adding that this was “justified under the particular circumstances, namely that Ms. Dela Cruz had already been under subpoena for several weeks and was requested to come [Tuesday] morning at 10 a.m.”
Dela Cruz claims executive privilege and testimonial immunity. But Villagomez cited 1 CMC Section 1307 of the CNMI Constitution, which states that “any witness shall have only those privileges against testifying or producing other evidence under subpoena duces tecum which are (1) Authorized by the rules of evidence adopted by the Commonwealth Trial Court; and (2) Required by CNMI Constitution Article 1 or other law applicable in the Commonwealth.”
On Dela Cruz’s claim that the subpoena was overbroad as it breached topics outside the scope of her official duties, Villagomez said: “She presented no legal argument whatsoever as to why her personal knowledge of topics pertinent to our investigation must be connected to her official duties in order to be subject to subpoena, nor did she address how alleged testimonial immunity or executive privilege would apply to questions unrelated to her officials duties.”
As for Dela Cruz’s assertion that the committee lacked legislative authority, the speaker cited U.S. Supreme Court in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, which held that issuance of subpoenas pursuant to the legislative investigatory power “fell within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.”
Villagomez also cited Section 1306 of the CNMI Constitution, which states that “an investigating committee may, by majority vote of all its members, report to the legislative house by which it was established any instance of alleged contempt.”
Edmund S. Villagomez
