But House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Ramon S. Basa said the CNMI is in dire need of revenues so the Legislature has to act with urgency. He said it is unlikely that the House would pass Senate Bill 17-90.
The delegation’s vote on the casino measure, or House Local Bill 17-44, was 11 in favor, 5 against, 4 absent with 1 member — Speaker Eli D. Cabrera, R-Saipan — voting “present.”
Those who supported the bill were its author Rep. Stanley T. Torres, Ind.-Saipan; acting delegation chairman Rep. Joseph M. Palacios, R-Saipan; Vice Speaker Felicidad T. Ogumoro, Covenant-Saipan; Reps. Basa, Covenant-Saipan; Ralph S. Demapan, Covenant-Saipan; Sylvestre I. Iguel, Covenant-Saipan; Froilan C. Tenorio, Covenant-Saipan; Raymond D. Palacios, Covenant-Saipan; Fredrick P. Deleon P. Guerrero, Ind.-Saipan; Tony P. Sablan, R-Saipan; and Sen. Luis P. Crisostimo, Ind.-Saipan.
Voting “no” were House Minority leader Joseph P. Deleon Guerrero, R-Saipan; House Floor Leader George N. Camacho, Ind.-Saipan; Reps. Francisco S. Dela Cruz, R-Saipan; Ray N. Yumul, R-Saipan; and Edmund S. Villagomez, Covenant-Saipan.
Absent were Sen. Ralph DLG. Torres, R-Saipan and author of the S.B. 17-90; Senate Floor Leader Pete P. Reyes, R-Saipan; delegation chairman Rep. Ray A. Tebuteb, R-Saipan; and Rep. Janet U. Maratita, R-Saipan.
The delegation and the Senate were supposed to start their sessions at the same time, at 10 a.m. but came up two hours later, when the Senate discussed S.B. 17-90.
Senator Torres said if the casino proponents believe that their measure will “save” the CNMI economy, they should ensure that any casino investor is protected from potential lawsuits regarding the constitutionality of H.L.B. 17-44.
Some believe that under the CNMI Constitution, only a CNMI-wide law and not a local law can legalize casino gaming.
Senator Torres said no investor in his right mind will throw millions of dollars here knowing that the legality of his venture is under question.
Anybody, the senator added, can file a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the local gambling law.
“So what’s going to happen if the investor already spent money on a casino and the lawsuit holds up in the court?” he asked.
Without explaining how, his Senate bill states that a casino can generate revenue for the Retirement Fund, scholarships and medical referrals while restoring the 80 working hours for government employees.
But it insists that the establishment of a casino on Saipan is for the people to decide.
The bill calls for a special election within 90 days upon its enactment.
Saipan voters will be asked, “Shall there be casino gambling in the Third Senatorial District?” Casino gambling on Saipan will be legalized if supported by the majority of the votes cast.
The Senate passed S.B. 17-90 by a 7 to 0 vote with Crisostimo abstaining and Senate Vice President Jude U. Hofschneider, R-Tinian, absent.
In the House chamber, the Saipan delegation passed the casino measure after inserting at least five amendments.
The first was Demapan’s proposal to impose $10 million license fee.
Then came Tenorio’s amendment allowing the gaming commission to issue an exclusive license for $130 million.
Sablan’s amendment ensures that the startup money that the delegation will be reimbursed if it appropriates startup money for the gaming commission. His other amendment removes the clause that allows a floating casino.
The fifth amendment was submitted by Palacios to correct a typo.
The local bill now goes to the governor, who supports legalizing casino gaming on Saipan.
Sen. Frank Cruz, R-Tinian in an interview, said the Senate will have to challenge the delegation’s action in court.
“They should let the people decide,” he said, adding that Saipan lawmakers should have passed Senator Torres’ referendum proposal.
Anti-gambling advocate Larry LG. Cabrera, the only one in the House gallery who spoke against the casino measure, asked lawmakers: “Where are you going to get the startup money to run the gaming commission? How sure are you that ‘big time’ gamblers will come?”
