The real deal on impeachment

There have been reports in the Saipan newspapers about a call to impeach the lieutenant governor. In Thursday’s newspaper, there was a letter claiming that such action would be unconstitutional.

Here’s the real deal.

Rep. Tina Sablan, as a member of the CNMI Legislature, is fully empowered and completely within her CNMI constitutional duties and rights to call for impeachment of the lieutenant governor. The CNMI Legislature is fully empowered to consider and move on impeachment of the lieutenant governor. Article III, Section 19 and Article II, Section 8 of the CNMI Constitution specifically authorize such action.

There is nothing in the CNMI Constitution or the U.S. Constitution that protects an elected official from facing impeachment proceedings and criminal charges simultaneously. Unfortunately, the Thursday letter writer, Cristy Sablan of San Antonio, misinforms the public both as to facts and conclusions about the law.

The Illinois governor, Rod Blagogevich, was arrested on federal criminal charges for corruption. The Illinois legislative panel that recommended impeachment did so based on the criminal charges, as well as other allegations of misconduct. The situation is very telling for our present predicament.

This is not an isolated example, either. In 2004, Oklahoma lawmakers voted on impeachment of the state Insurance Commissioner while he faced two trials on five felony charges.

As explained in a news article by journalist Patrick Butler, “While federal criminal charges are pending, one need not be guilty of a criminal offense to be impeached. Unfitness for office and ignoring the legislature in major decisions may be reason enough.”

The letter writer, Cristy Sablan, confuses the presumption of innocence that is part of our criminal jurisprudence with the power of the Legislature to decide issues of job tenure. Being presumed innocent of criminal charges does not mean that you cannot face impeachment proceedings.

Certainly, if the CNMI Legislature decided to impeach the lieutenant governor, he would retain constitutional rights, including his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination and could not be made to testify or produce evidence against himself. But the CNMI Legislature does not need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proving guilt of the specific felony charges presently pending. They can consider all evidence related to any of the categories upon which impeachment is founded.

In such circumstances as exist here—indictments on federal felony charges involving honesty while in public service—it is almost inconceivable that our Legislature is not considering impeachment. At the least, they should have a committee investigate and make recommendations. Then the House would vote on the recommendations and if they voted “for impeachment,” they would really be voting for a trial of the charges for impeachment to be held in the Senate. Upon a two-thirds majority House vote for “impeachment,” the matter would go to the Senate for trial and vote on whether to “convict” on the impeachment—not on the criminal charges.

The effect of impeachment is to oust an elected official from his job. There are no jail terms or other criminal effects. There is no “lynch mob” or hanging of the lieutenant governor “from the highest tree.”

So there is no problem “letting the judicial process run its course” and conducting impeachment proceedings at the same time. Ms. Cristy Sablan is wrong. Ms. Tina Sablan is right.