Associate Judge Ramona V. Manglona denied the motion of Edwin F. Blanilla, who was charged for attempting to bring other foreigners from commonwealth into the U.S. on a boat on June 27, 2007.
Blanilla along with two other individuals, Yanong Lin Doone and Zilin Deng, were charged for smuggling persons and for inducing and encouraging aliens to depart the CNMI with the purpose of entering the United States with the knowledge that such entry is in violation of the law.
Blanilla submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him and the matter was heard on Feb. 13, 2008.
The defendant argued that “the statute is invalid and unenforceable on the basis that it is preempted by the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution; it requires the court to adjudicate matters of federal law that are beyond the court’s jurisdiction and the statute is unconstitutionally vague and fails to provide defendant fair notice of what acts constitute a violation of the law.”
The motion was denied. Manglona said none of these challenges convince the court that the statute is invalid on its face or as applied to the defendant.
She said the defendant’s “reliance upon authorities interpreting the doctrine of implied preemption of state laws under the commerce clause is inappropriate given the role of Congress in granting the CNMI jurisdiction over local immigration and its responsibility for creating both regimes.”
The judge said the commonwealth Legislature “exercises plenary authority with respect to commonwealth immigration matters. Controlling the ingress and egress of aliens within its borders is a matter of compelling interest to the government.”
She added, “The purpose of the CNMI’s statute is to prevent the commonwealth from becoming a stepping stone for unlawful immigration into Guam and other U.S. jurisdictions and an attractive base for persons who profit from human traffic, thereby protecting the lawful residents of the commonwealth from the deleterious effects of these undesirable activities.”
Blanilla argued that everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and so there can be no such thing as unlawful departure from the commonwealth.
He contends that any restriction on this right to leave the commonwealth violated his right to travel.
Manglona agreed with the government’s argument that all the defendants were permitted to travel from the commonwealth to any location that would accept them within the bounds of laws applicable to everyone.
But, she added, “the statute in question is restrictive only in that it regulates the manner in which the right to travel may be exercised by requiring that it can be accomplished lawfully. It is a time, place and manner restriction and is not an outright ban on travel.”
This case, Manglona said, “does implicate the right to international travel since the law addresses the departure from the commonwealth which has sovereignty over CNMI immigration and intention to enter Guam which is under the immigration authority of the United States, a separate sovereign for this purpose.”
Blanilla, Deng, Doone, along with nine other aliens, were rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard when their vessel got stranded in the waters approximately 20 miles north of Guam on June 27, 2007.
Blanilla was the pilot of the boat and he agreed to transport the 11 foreigners to Guam.
In exchange for dropping the foreigners off, Blanilla would receive the boat as payment. He planned to sell the boat then return to the Philippines.
The 12 individuals, including Blanilla, were questioned and charged after the authorities learned that they didn’t have lawful documents to travel to Guam.
A deportation case was filed against nine individuals but the government later dismissed. Some of them voluntarily left the CNMI while others secured a temporary permit to work here.
