By Bryan Manabat
bryan@mvariety.com
Variety News Staff
IN a letter dated Nov. 9, a group of 12 defense attorneys strongly urged CNMI Attorney General Edward Manibusan to withdraw a proposed regulation granting his office investigative subpoena powers, arguing that it lacks constitutional and statutory authority.
“Because the regulation is proposed without constitutional or statutory authority, we request in the strongest possible terms that your office withdraw and shelve the regulation,” the attorneys wrote.
The letter was signed by Robert T. Torres, Janet King, Michael N. Evangelista, Viola Alepuyo, Charity Hodson, Sean Frink, Joey P. San Nicolas, Joaquin DLG Torres, Matthew Holley, Bruce Berline, Victorino DLG Torres, and Colin Thompson.
The Office of the Attorney General has proposed a permanent regulation authorizing it to issue investigative subpoenas in criminal and consumer protection cases. The draft regulation was published in the Commonwealth Register on Oct. 14, 2025, with a 30-day public comment period.
Manibusan, the CNMI’s elected attorney general, is required to review and respond to public comments before finalizing the regulation.
According to the attorneys, the proposed rule cites Article III, Section 11 of the CNMI Constitution, which mandates the AG to prosecute violations of Commonwealth law. However, they argue that this provision does not grant subpoena authority.
“The Constitution does not authorize your office to intrude into citizens’ privacy and compel production of documents or their testimony without probable cause reviewed by a judicial officer,” the letter stated. “There is no language that explicitly gives your investigative officers such authority.”
The attorneys said the regulation attempts to assert “inherent powers” that are not granted by the Constitution or any statute.
“This justification reads into Article XI what the people of the Commonwealth did not give your office — any inherent powers that flow from the execution of your duties,” they wrote.
They also cited the Legislature’s rejection of House Bill 23-22, which would have granted the AG subpoena authority. The bill, introduced by Rep. Marissa Flores, failed to advance out of committee last year following opposition from members of the legal community.
“We find it disturbing that the Office of the Attorney General ignores the fact that the Legislature did not approve proposed legislation to confer investigative subpoena authority on your office,” the attorneys said.
They noted that the AG’s office participated in legislative hearings on H.B. 23-22, where defense attorneys also testified and faced “disrespectful comments” from lawmakers advocating for the bill.
“Yet here we are,” the letter stated, “where the Attorney General, with dazzling purpose, disregards that process to obtain statutory approval of proposed activities that absolutely intrude on our citizens’ Article I privacy interests.”
The attorneys emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in criminal investigations and warned against unchecked executive power.
“Who do we trust? We trust the Constitution,” they wrote. “The Judicial Branch serves to check against constitutional violations by Executive Branch law enforcement.”
They further argued that if AG investigators are already law enforcement officers — like those in the Department of Public Safety, Customs, or the Office of the Public Auditor — then the AG’s role should remain prosecutorial.
“We sincerely hope that as an elected official and the Chief Prosecutor of the Commonwealth, you take heed and exercise prudent charge of your powers and duties with respect to our citizens’ rights rather than trouncing upon them,” they said.
The attorneys also criticized the lack of public discourse surrounding the regulation and called for renewed legislative engagement.
“Your office should withdraw and shelve the proposed regulation,” they wrote. “To respect the democratic process and system of checks and balances, your office should renew your effort for statutory authority for investigative subpoenas.”
They reiterated their support for establishing a Commonwealth grand jury system as an alternative.
Under the proposed regulation, the AG’s office would be able to compel documents and testimony as part of its prosecutorial duties. The rules, based on the CNMI Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, are set to take effect 10 days after publication.
The regulation outlines procedures for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to apply for subpoenas, including detailing the scope of the investigation and materials sought. Applications would be reviewed by a special prosecutor or the chief of the OAG’s Criminal Division, with at least 24 hours’ notice unless shortened for good cause.
Witnesses must be informed of their rights, including access to legal counsel and protection against self-incrimination. All testimony must be recorded or transcribed, and witnesses may consult an attorney during questioning.
However, the regulation also states: “An attorney may accompany a witness but must remain outside during questioning,” and “A witness may pause questioning to consult with an attorney.”
If a subpoena is not complied with, prosecutors may seek enforcement through the Superior Court. Witnesses may also challenge subpoenas by filing a motion to quash.
The Criminal Division would be required to submit an annual report documenting the number of subpoenas issued and any enforcement actions.
The AG’s office said the regulation is intended to strengthen its constitutional mandate to prosecute violations of Commonwealth law.
Bryan Manabat was a liberal arts student of Northern Marianas College where he also studied criminal justice. He is the recipient of the NMI Humanities Award as an Outstanding Teacher (Non-Classroom) in 2013, and has worked for the CNMI Motheread/Fatheread Literacy Program as lead facilitator.