LAWYERS HOLDING GOV’T POSITION Court upholds right to continue private practice

Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Joaquin V. E. Manibusan, Jr. yesterday ruled that lawyers currently holding government positions are not violating the Government Ethics Act even if they represent clients who are questioning the decision of a government entity before the court.

In fact, he said, it is ridiculous and illogical to interpret that the Government Ethics Act prevents any attorney who serves as government officials from engaging in the private practice of law and disqualify them from representing individuals before the courts.

In a sudden twist of fate, Judge Manibusan threw out the disqualification case filed by the Attorney General’s Office against lawyers Joseph Arriola and Pedro Atalig, who are representing Cheung Ping Yin and former Senate President Juan S. Demapan in a $3 million civil case alleging illegal arrest and seizure of properties.

Their clients filed the case in connection with a raid on illegal gambling conducted by a team from the AGO Investigative Unit at East Ocean. The team seized gambling paraphernalia and business properties.

Named respondents in the case were acting Atty. General Maya Kara, Asst. Atty. General Marvin J. Williams, Public Safety Commissioner Charles W. Ingram, Chief Investigator Phil Goodwin, and Investigator Paul Ogumoro.

The AGO had sought Mr. Arriola and Mr. Atalig’s disqualification on grounds that they violated the Government Ethics Act, which prohibits public officials and employees from representing individuals contesting a government entity in a court case.

Mr. Arriola represents Mr. Cheung and eight others in the criminal proceedings, while Mr. Atalig, who is a member of the Board of Public Lands and Special Master in the Hillblom civil proceedings, represents Mr. Demapan.

Ironically, Superior Court Judge Timothy Bellas issued a ruling last month disqualifying Mr. Arriola in the criminal proceedings of a similar case filed by the AGO, citing conflict of interest because of his work as Senate legal counsel. He is also serving on the Board of Parole.

When the CNMI Legislature passed PL 8-11 establishing a government Code of Ethics, Judge Manibusan said its aim was primarily to prevent public officials from committing corruption and hold them accountable for their official acts.

There can be no conflict of interest in the case of Mr. Arriola and Mr. Atalig since they do not have an attorney-client relationship in the government agencies they serve, he added.

In the case of Mr. Arriola, his contract is with the Legislative Bureau, which requires him to deliver legal services to the Senate and its members through the Office of the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. Arriola’s contract is limited within the Legislative Bureau, thus, he does not represent the entire Commonwealth government. As a result, “there is no evidence to prove that there is an apparent or actual conflict of interest” involved in representing his client, the ruling said.

Disqualifying Mr. Arriola would deprive his client the right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, Judge Manibusan said. He added that the court is certain that the Legislature did not intend to cripple the practice of law in enacting the Government Ethics Code.

It is evident that the legislative intent for establishing the Government Ethics Code Act was to ensure a code of conduct for members of the Legislature as well as for the governor, lieutenant governor, and heads of the executive departments to prevent conflicts of interest in the performance of their official duties, Judge Manibusan said.

Judge Manibusan warned that to include the courts in the interpretation of a government entity covered by the Government Ethics Code would have a dampening effect on the practice of law in the Northern Marianas.

“Such interpretation would lead to the disqualification of every attorney, who is either a public official or public employee of the Commonwealth government, from representing private clients before the courts,” he said.

The clear intent of the statute, Judge Manibusan said, is not to stop attorneys from engaging in their chosen profession while also serving as government officials, but rather to provide a check and balance system in the government and render financial disclosure during the period of such service.