The Senate last week unanimously passed House Legislative Initiative 17-2, which allows for the election of an AG.
The proposal still needs the approval of CNMI voters and will be placed on the ballot in 2012.
Cool said electing an AG is not in the best interest of the government.
An elected AG, he said, does not necessarily guarantee that the CNMI will have a qualified individual who will handle legal issues.
“We have already gone into this kind of problems before,” Cool said.
He said the people can elect an AG based on family connections or popularity rather than qualifications.
If the people want an independent AG, the best way is to make the attorney general like the public auditor, whose appointment is confirmed by both houses of the Legislature. The public auditor, he added, cannot be removed except for a cause and by the two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.
“So why not have the AG like the way we have the public auditor?” he asked.
Another government lawyer who did not want to be identified said an elected AG is “a bad idea.”
But now that the governor seems to be insensitive to the plight of the people, “an elected AG is something that we may have to swallow.”
Sen. Ralph DLG. Torres, R-Saipan, said an appointed AG also does not guarantee that the AG is qualified.
At least an elected AG is answerable to the people directly and does not have to fear the governor, he added.
Introduced by Rep. Francisco S. Dela Cruz, R-Saipan, H.L.I.17-2 states that the attorney general will be elected by the people for a term of four years.
The AG “shall be at least 35 years old, a resident of the CNMI for at least five years, a member of the NMI Bar Association for five years and have not been suspended from practice of law in any jurisdiction of the U.S. for violation of ethical rules.”
