ATTORNEY General Edward Manibusan on Friday underscored the “critical importance” of House Bill 23-22, which would authorize his office to serve subpoenas, arrest and perform all other functions lawfully authorized for police officers.
Authored by Rep. Marissa Flores, H.B. 23-22 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Government and Law chaired by Sen. Celina R. Babauta.
Last week, Senate President Edith Deleon Guerrero noted Public Defender Douglas W. Hartig’s comment that the bill would create an “unchecked police department” and “eliminate current checks and balances.”
Hartig said the bill “is completely unnecessary and ill-advised.”
For his part, Manibusan said H.B. 23-22 would help combat crime, curb corruption and “safeguard the interests of our citizens within the Commonwealth.”
In his letter to the Senate president, he said he firmly believes that “embedded within our constitutional obligation to prosecute violations of CNMI law is the authority to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas to procure essential documents and witness testimonies.”
The AG said by codifying these powers into law, “we establish clear boundaries, crucial in maintaining an effective check-and-balance system within our government.”
Sen. Babauta said on Friday that she was working on substitute legislation that would address the public defender’s concerns.
‘Misinformation’
The AG said he is also “rectifying misinformation propagated by the public defender regarding the bill.”
The public defender said the bill would create an investigation unit within the OAG.
Manibusan said the Attorney General’s Investigative Division already exists. He cited Public Laws 18-13 and 18-14, which recognize that AGID investigators are law enforcement officers.
He said House Bill 23-22 does not duplicate government agencies or services.
Section 1 of the bill’s original version, however, states: “The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the authority of the Office of the Attorney General in investigative matters by establishing an investigative division for the Office of the Attorney General….”
Manibusan said the OAG’s investigative division — “similar to practices in numerous other states and territories” — “functions independently, addressing reported corruption and criminal activities that fall beyond the tasks of other law enforcement agencies.”
He said these investigations “often encompass allegations against law enforcement personnel, suspected misconduct by government officials, violations of fiduciary duties, and breaches of government ethics code, while also offering investigative support to the Department of Public Safety, the Office of the Public Auditor, and other government bodies as required.”
Manibusan said H.B. 23-22 would not impose additional financial costs on the CNMI government. The AGID, he added, currently operates within the OAG’s funds appropriated from the general fund. He said the AGID funding is already provided in fiscal year 2024 budget law.
He said H.B. 23-22 would also not impact the budgets of DPS, OPA or any other law enforcement or government agency. “Any potential cost increases linked to the investigative needs would follow the standard appropriation process similar to any other agency funding, ultimately stemming from the OAG’s budget appropriation,” Manibusan said.
Constitutional obligation
He noted that the Senate and the House of Representatives wield subpoena power through the Legislative Investigation Act. Notably, the AG said, Senate Bill 23-18 has been introduced to grant subpoena power to the legislative delegations. Additionally, OPA possesses explicit subpoena power for investigations and audits.
Manibusan said H.B. 23-22 “merely extends similar subpoena authority to the OAG, aligning with its constitutional obligation to prosecute violations of Commonwealth law.”
He said the authority to issue subpoenas serves as a critical check-and-balance on the OAG. “Initiating a subpoena involves a request by the OAG and subsequent issuance by the clerk of court, lending judicial weight to the process.”
The bill also guarantees individuals subject to a subpoena the right to legal representation, he added.
He said challenges to a subpoena can be pursued in court, “ensuring a fair process akin to the oversight applied when the Legislature issues subpoenas.”
“Prosecuting attorneys, bound by oaths of office, operate within legal confines and prioritize the pursuit of justice. Subpoena issuance will be anchored in the quest for justice and not merely wielded as prosecutorial discretion vested in the AG under the Commonwealth Constitution,” Manibusan said.
He is urging the Senate to bring H.B. 23-22 to the floor for a vote.
“Passing this significant legislation would signify unity with our community in combating government corruption and other criminal activities within the Commonwealth,” the AG added.
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives without conducting a public hearing. Comments from the AG, the Office of the Public Defender and OPA, however, were sought by the House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations.
OPA, in its letter to the House committee, said it believes that “the largest current barriers to combating public corruption are the lack of suitable criminal provisions and the lack of a designated prosecutor within the OAG to focus on public corruption.”
OPA recommended “pursuing an omnibus public corruption crimes act and legislative funding and designation of a prosecutor within the OAG to focus on public corruption, similar to the creation of the Office of Consumer Counsel which focused on protecting consumer rights in the Commonwealth….”
OPA said while it “unequivocally supports efforts to encourage and enhance the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving public corruption, our office believes other measures might be more effective to achieving that end, as recommended above.”
