“This is very disappointing,” Taotao Tano’s Greg Cruz said. “The legislative body is acting on bills under pressure.”
He noted that the executive order appears to violate two provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution.
Article X, Section 3 states that “public debt may not be authorized or incurred without the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members in each house of the Legislature.”
Section 4 states that “public indebtedness, other than bonds or other obligations, may not be authorized for operating expenses of the commonwealth government or its political subdivisions.”
Rep. Tina Sablan, Ind.-Saipan, shares the same concern.
The following questions come to mind, she said in her “Thoughts on the sessions last week” e-mailed to the Variety:
• What was the purpose of the $500,000 debt ceiling that was established by the governor himself in his initial Executive Order 2006-04?
• Did the governor overstep his constitutional authority with the initial Executive Order 2006-04, when he went beyond simply reallocating offices (as permitted under the Constitution) and essentially rewrote statutes that were not germane to reallocation of offices within the executive branch?
• If the governor did overstep his constitutional authority, does the fact that the 15th Legislature failed to act on the executive order make the governor’s actions somehow less unconstitutional or does it validate his actions?
• Did the governor overstep his constitutional authority in this latest executive order raising the debt ceiling permitted for CUC, which does not apparently have anything to do with reallocating offices?
• The CNMI Constitution prohibits borrowing for operations. The attorney general has argued that CUC is not part of the government and so can borrow for operations. Is CUC part of the government? And would borrowing in any amount, temporary or otherwise, approved by the Legislature or not, to pay for emergency power or other operational expenses of CUC, be a violation of the Constitution?
Interestingly, Sablan said, “on the same date that the governor issued both his executive order and letter of justification to the Senate, the Senate passed a resolution, S.R. 16-21, ‘acknowledging receipt of and approving Executive Order No. 08-09 and respectfully urging the Commonwealth Utilities Corp. to take any needed action consistent with the laws of the commonwealth to ensure reliable and affordable provision of electrical service to the commonwealth.’ This suggests, in effect, that even if the House wanted to amend or reject the governor’s executive order, the effort would most likely go nowhere — legislative action on executive orders requires the approval of a majority of the members in both houses, unless the Senate could be persuaded that the governor’s actions are not consistent with the laws of the commonwealth, and that the members of the Legislature should uphold their oaths of office.”
Sablan said during the House session last week, “we requested a legal opinion that would address our questions and concerns — and specifically on the nature of the funds provided to CUC through P.L. 16-7, on the constitutionality of the governor’s executive orders, and on the ability of CUC to borrow for operations. A legal opinion should be forthcoming soon.”
Senate Resolution 16-21 was adopted unanimously by the Senate on Thursday.
The resolution was introduced by Sens. Maria T. Pangelinan, D-Saipan, Luis P. Crisostimo, D-Saipan, and Paul A. Manglona, R-Rota.
Senate Floor Leader Jude U. Hofschneider, R-Tinian, and Sen. Paterno S. Hocog, R-Rota, were absent during the session.
Pangelinan said she supported the governor’s executive order to avoid a total lack of electricity on island due to the unresolved engine problems at the power plants.
