Superior Court orders Kara to step down

By
|
Posted on Jan 21 2000
Share

The Superior Court yesterday ordered Acting Attorney General Maya B. Kara to give up her post because her continued stay in office is a violation of the CNMI Constitution.

In a 25-page decision, Judge Pro Tem Joaquin V. E. Manibusan Jr. asked Gov. Pedro P. Tenorio to immediately appoint an AGO with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The court emphasized that the governor has no authority to appoint an Acting Attorney General. However, Mr. Tenorio may appoint a nominee to the position of the Attorney General who shall either be confirmed or rejected by the Senate within the allotted time period.

Ms. Kara was appointed by the governor on July 2, 1998 and has since assumed office in an acting capacity. Despite two rejections on her nomination by the Senate, the governor appointed Ms. Kara as Acting Attorney General 16 separate times for a total number of 504 days. She receives an annual salary of $70,000.

By repeatedly nominating Ms. Kara to the position, the executive branch has usurped the Senate’s advice and consent powers and the governor has disregarded and sidestepped the required procedures, the court said.

“This scheme of repeatedly withdrawing the nomination of Kara directly circumvents the statutory and constitutional provisions for confirmation,” said the court.

According to the court, only the Attorney General who has been properly nominated and confirmed by the Senate, “may appoint an Acting Attorney General to serve in his or her stead, in the event the Attorney General is temporarily unable to perform his or her duties as required by that position,” the court said.

If the Legislature intended to allow a person to serve in an acting position in excess of 30 days, then specific legislation would have been drafted to reflect such an intention.

“The fact that she has not been confirmed by the Senate violates the practices and procedures in place for confirmation. The fact that her nomination has been outright rejected by the Senate clearly shows that she is improperly holding this position,” the court said.

The court emphasized the importance of following the processes and procedures that are in place for the nomination and confirmation of an Attorney General. Failure to follow the procedures render the Constitution and the Commonwealth Code meaningless, it added.

“The position of the Attorney General is an important position in any state, commonwealth, territory or jurisdiction. Further, the people of that territory or jurisdiction have an interest in seeing that any person appointed to the position of Attorney General is qualified to hold the position. This is the very reason why confirmation procedures were created,” the court said.

The court’s decision stemmed from a case filed by former Senate President Juan S. Demapan and Chinese businessman Cheung Ping Yin questioning the legality of Ms. Kara’s appointment after the AGO conducted a raid in their lottery game business at East Ocean in Garapan.

Mr. Demapan and Mr. Cheung are business partners, were granted the right to operate a lottery game known as Jueteng under the license given to Just for Fun Inc.

They alleged that Ms. Kara approved the raid and arrest of nine people during a raid conducted by the AGO’s Investigation Unit on Sept. 2, 1999 claiming they were involved in illegal gambling.

The court upheld the AGO’s raid as it ruled that the plaintiffs were operating an illegal gambling business in a public establishment, thus, they cannot expect any privacy and the arresting officers need not obtain an arrest warrant prior to their arrest. It added that the arrest on the plaintiffs’ were proper and legal.

But the court ruled that the Department of Finance exceeded its authority in revoking the lottery license. It ordered DOF to reinstate JFF’s license.

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.