Tina Sablan
SAYING that the subpoena ad testificandum issued to former Rep. Tina Sablan was “unreasonable, oppressive, and without merit,” the Superior Court granted her motion to quash the subpoena requiring her to testify in the trial of Shayne B. Villanueva, who was charged with contempt of the Legislature.
Sablan, the governor’s former senior policy advisor and special assistant for climate policy and planning, was subpoenaed by defense attorneys Keith Chambers II and Joaquin DLG Torres to testify in Villanueva’s trial scheduled for Jan. 27.
The prosecution, for its part, included Sablan, among other individuals, on the government’s witness list.
In a two-page order issued on Tuesday, Judge Kenneth L. Govendo granted Sablan’s motion and quashed the subpoena.
Judge Govendo also ordered attorney Torres to show cause as to why “he should not be sanctioned for wasting court resources and filing a frivolous, unduly burdensome subpoena on a third party.”
The judge noted that in a previous order, he “admonished…Torres and warned him about the possibility of sanctions if misconduct was attributed to him.”
The judge ordered Torres to appear in court for a show cause hearing on Feb. 3 at 9 a.m.
Filing pro se or representing herself, Sablan said the defense subpoena is “unreasonable and oppressive” and “can provide no grounds to demand [her] appearance or testimony at trial.”
“Compliance is oppressive because defense’s subpoena creates undue burden on me and causes me real and tangible economic harm,” she said.
Noting that the defense is aware that she is unemployed and in the process of moving off-island on Jan. 11, Sablan said, “The defense admits they do not know why they are subpoenaing me to appear at their client’s trial. The defense is aware that the government has not subpoenaed me and supports this motion to quash. The defense is aware of the unnecessary burden and economic harm they are causing me. Yet the defense refuses to release me from this subpoena and further refuses to pay for my travel expenses to return to Saipan. I would thus be forced to either return to Saipan at my own expense for a trial at which my appearance is wholly unnecessary or cancel my travel plans for an undefined period and postpone my efforts to secure my livelihood.”
She asked the court to “publicly reprimand the defense attorney in this matter and impose sanctions in an amount sufficient to deter future misconduct, ensure that future conduct aligns with the ethical and professional obligations of attorneys, and prevent further waste of judicial resources.”
In her affidavit that accompanied her motion to quash the subpoena, Sablan said Torres told her that she was being subpoenaed by the defense solely because her name appeared on the government’s witness list.
“Mr. Torres stated that he did not know why I was on the government’s witness list. I informed Mr. Torres that I also did not know,” Sablan said.
She asked Torres why she was subpoenaed to testify when “I was not involved in his client’s case.”
“I stated that I had not been in the Legislature that held Villanueva in contempt, nor had I been involved in the contempt referral to the Attorney General for prosecution,” Sablan said.
She said Torres told her that he did not know what she would testify about and had “not figured that out.” She said Torres also told her, “I don’t know what you have.”
Sablan was a member of the House of Representatives from 2008-2010 and from 2019-2023.
She said she is not a member of the current Legislature or the legislative committee that subpoenaed Villanueva for the oversight hearing, “held him in contempt for refusing to answer questions, and referred that contempt finding to the Attorney General for criminal prosecution.”
Sablan said she asked the defense to release her from the subpoena, but Torres said “no, not without talking with his client.” She said she asked him to talk to his client, to which Torres agreed.
According to Sablan, she also called the prosecutor assigned to the case, Chief Solicitor J. Robert Glass Jr., and AG Edward Manibusan.
She said both confirmed that the government had not issued a subpoena for her testimony, and the Office of the AG would support her motion to quash the defense’s subpoena.
“The AG asked if I was being subpoenaed in my personal capacity or official capacity; I said I did not know, and that it appeared the defense did not know that either,” Sablan stated in her affidavit.
Villanueva’s bench trial, originally set for Nov. 6, 2024, was rescheduled for Dec. 3, 2024. But because the parties informed Judge Govendo of other pending motions, he rescheduled the trial for Jan. 27, 2025.
The case was reassigned to Judge Govendo after Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja recused himself from the case. The judge is the uncle of Rep. Ralph N. Yumul, the chair of the House special committee that found Villanueva in contempt of the Legislature. Villanueva has pled not guilty to the charge.
Villanueva invoked his Fifth Amendment right when the House special committee asked him questions about BOOST.
BOOST stands for “Building Optimism, Opportunities and Stability Together,” a $17 million federally funded program.
Villanueva is the owner of Roil Soil Marketing, which the administration of then-Gov. Ralph DLG Torres contracted to help implement BOOST in 2022.
In a recent order, Judge Govendo denied Assistant Attorney General James Kingman’s motion to quash the subpoena that required the assistant AG to testify as a witness in the trial, saying that the motion was “not well-founded.”
In addition, the judge granted the defense’s cross-motion to recuse the assistant AG, stating that “Kingman should not remain the prosecutor in this matter to ensure procedural integrity and due process for all parties throughout the court proceedings.”
The judge reprimanded Kingman and ordered him to pay a $500 fine for violating the model rules of professional conduct, specifically for “abusing his prosecutorial power and authority, which led to his forced recusal for bias and lack of impartiality.”
Likewise, Judge Govendo reprimanded Villanueva’s attorney, Chambers, and ordered him to pay a $500 fine for violating the model rules of professional conduct, specifically for “harming the administration of justice and wasting resources by withholding crucial information and inconveniencing other parties.”
Both attorneys requested the court to reconsider the sanctions.
On Dec. 30, 2024, Judge Govendo denied their requests.
The Commonwealth, through Glass, Kingman as an intervenor, and Chambers appealed the sanctions to the CNMI Supreme Court.
