Arriola opposes sanction move against him

Lawyer Joseph Arriola yesterday opposed the motion filed by Presiding Judge Edward Manibusan and Chief Prosecutor Kevin Lynch who have asked the court to have him sanctioned for “extremely improper conduct.”

Manibusan and Lynch have sought sanctions on Arriola in connection with his move to summon them to testify on a case which involved a businessman’s bid for return of the properties seized from him by the government.

Arriola stood pat on his move to subpoena the court’s highest ranking judge and the government’s chief prosecutor, but maintained such move was not meant to “intimidate nor harass” anyone.

“Far be it, a young and new attorney like myself would never think of such act,” Arriola said.

“An attorney’s persistent and aggressiveness in the handling of a case is not considered a bad faith conduct nor is it tantamount to intimidation of harassment,” Arriola stated in his response to Manibusan’s and Lynch’s separate motions for sanctions.

Arriola said he had realized that, considering the smallness of the Saipan community, his action has placed the judge in the spotlight.

“However,” he added, “the attorney’s role as an advocate is to prosecute for his client’s rights to the fullest extent allowable under the law.”

He said his issuance of the subpoena “maybe somewhat unorthodox” but not prohibited under any rule or law.

During an earlier hearing of the case, Superior Court Associate Judge Timothy Bellas quashed Arriola’s subpoenas, saying they were not necessary.

Arriola is representing Cheung Ping Yin, who is seeking the recovery of money and other properties confiscated from him by government agents during a raid conducted on July 3 by operatives of the Department of Public Safety and the Attorney General’s Office.

Arriola alleged the search warrant signed by Manibusan was defective. He also questioned the government agents’ failure to issue Cheung a receipt and to file an inventory for the properties seized.

“I did not find an inventory list despite diligent efforts to view and obtain a filed copy,” Arriola said.

Arriola said his failure to obtain a copy of the inventory prompted him to subpoena the presiding judge who signed the warrant.

The issuance of a subpoena, he said, “was made for the sole purpose of determining whether or not the inventory list was ever provided to the judge as he has commanded.” (MCM)