Previous Story
Teno vetoes bill on adult privacy
|
Posted on Aug 30 1999
A measure seeking tighter penalty against violators of the privacy of any person in the CNMI was vetoed by Gov. Pedro P. Tenorio on Friday in fear that the legislative proposal would infringe on the powers of the judiciary and the executive branch of the government.
Called the Commonwealth Adult Privacy Act of 1999, the legislation would have imposed criminal sanctions to offenders as well as awarded compensation damages of up to $2,000 to individuals whose fundamental right to privacy has been grossly violated.
Offered by Senators Pete P. Reyes and Thomas P. Villagomez, the bill also would have addressed concerns by the Legislature in the absence of a statute that would further guarantee this right as provided under the Constitution.
But the governor, citing several provisions in the proposal, thumbed down the measure due to potential impact on the functions of the court, the police and the Attorney General.
“I share the Legislature’s concern regarding enforcement of the unique right to privacy,” Tenorio explained in his veto message. “However, a number of concerns regarding this measure require me to disapprove the bill.”
Noting a particular provision that would exempt the rules of evidence in a hearing on a violation of a privacy right claim, the chief executive said this responsibility of setting rules in court procedures has been delegated by the Constitutional to the judicial branch.
Tenorio added its potential consequences in the compensation portion of a privacy case could also lead to “unfair awards that are not based on strong evidence.”
Another provision regarding a victim’s choice to pursue either a criminal or civil lawsuit also raised concern as it would divest the AG’s power to seek a criminal violation of law.
Moreover, the Department of Public Safety objected to its possible impact on its law enforcement efforts relating to surveillance.
“Although if DPS was conducting police surveillance it would be based on a ‘compelling public interest,’ as required by the bill and the Constitution, for clarity purposed DPS requests language that specifically excludes police activities performed in the line of duty,” said Tenorio.
