In its slip opinion issued on Feb. 20, the Supreme Court ordered the scholarship board to promulgate rules and regulations to weigh the applicant’s accomplishments and qualifications, reevaluate the entire set of scholarship applications for 2006 and award the scholarships based on the mandated criteria.
The opinion was signed by Justices Alexandro C. Castro, John A. Manglona and Justice Pro Tem Perry B. Inos.
Represented by attorney Robert T. Torres, Roselle D. Calvo appealed a trial court decision which affirmed the scholarship board’s method for selecting scholarship recipients.
She said the scholarship board failed to comply with the plain language of the CNMI Honor Scholarship Act.
Every year, the scholarship board awards 12 honor scholarships to graduating students from high school.
Eight of the scholarships are awarded to Saipan, two to Tinian and two to Rota students.
The scholarship is based on scholastic achievements and recipients will get up to $15,000 annually up to five years to attend U.S. colleges or universities.
Calvo graduated salutatorian from Marianas Baptist Academy in May 2006 and was one of the 29 students who applied for the scholarship.
She received a letter on Aug. 2006 informing her that she did not make it.
She contested the board’s decision and filed a petition for review but the board rejected her petition in Nov. 2006.
She was told that she ranked 11th and only eight slots were open for scholarship.
Calvo renewed her appeal on Dec. 6, 2006 but it was still rejected by the board.
She then filed for a judicial review with the trial court asking the board to consider all five criteria enumerated in awarding the scholarships.
The trial court later determined that the scholarship board was not required to consider all the five criteria.
After a careful examination of all the evidence and arguments presented, the Supreme Court said the trial court erred in determining that the scholarship board’s regulations and methods in selecting honor scholarship recipients complied with the CNMI Scholarship Act.
In an e-mail, Calvo said she is pleased by the decision. (See letter to the editor on page 13)
“The decision issued is a showcase of the justice provided by our legal system, especially since it is one coming from the highest judicial officials,” Calvo said.
She added that from the beginning, the case was based upon the pursuit of justice.
“This victory is a victory not just for me, but also for our community. Let this be a message to the Scholarship Board and other boards that they have to follow the law, not create their own laws,” she said.
She added that the board’s decision to create their own rules and regulations “led to this catastrophe that will require them to backtrack three years and recalculate the awards based upon the letter of the law.”
“I hope that these board members and future members will hold themselves to a higher standard, especially when dealing with matters of education,” Calvo added.
She encouraged the youth never to give up.
“Most importantly, always fight for what is right, even if that fight takes years to end,” she said.
Attorney Torres, for his part, said Calvo pursued the matter based on the fundamental principles of fairness of opportunity and fairness of procedure.
“The Supreme Court decision is one about following the law as the Legislature intended,” Torres said.
“Calvo believes that the decision will in fact accomplish the intent of the Scholarship Act: to award scholarships to the best and brightest well-rounded and civic-minded students from our community,” he added.
He said as Calvo continues her studies at New York University, “she looks forward to returning and contributing her talents to provide opportunities for our next generation of scholars.”
Assistant Attorney General Braddock J. Huesman represented the scholarship board in the case.
