Reyes explains

Normally, I would not respond to opinions that were publicly expressed, as I firmly believe that the free expression of opinion is essential to a properly functioning government. However, when the opinions are based on factually incorrect information, I feel the misinformation should be corrected. This is especially true when the misinformed is Ms. Ruth L. Tighe, a woman for whom I have great respect and admiration. Because she is so often “right on the money” I feel that I must correct the record.

In an article she wrote in her column regarding the stance I have taken on the Governor’s vetoes on three bills passed by both houses of the Legislature, she thought me paranoid for questioning the Governor’s motives and rationale behind the vetoes. Yes, I sponsored the three bills, and, as such, one could assume that I had more than a passing interest in their becoming public laws. If I did not believe in them, I would never have sponsored them in the first place.

However, Ms. Tighe then goes on to state that the Governor’s vetoes were “eminently logical and sensible.” This, assuredly, is not the case.

For example, the Governor’s message on his veto of SB 14-11, SD1, granting option for DNA testing in this paternity suits, indicated that the intent of the measure is commendable, but it will duplicate an already existing section of the Uniform Parentage Act, specifically 8 CMC § 1711. While there is some similarity in the subject matter between § 1711 and SB 14-11, SD1, i.e. blood/scientific testing to determine parentage, SB 14-11 SD1 states that the testing of the child, mother or alleged father is not optional but shall be required by the court upon request of a party. SB 14-11, SD1 provides the option to be tested or not to the child’s purported natural parent from whom child support is sought. In addition, the purported natural parent may not be ordered to pay the child support until the test proves that he/she is the child’s natural parent. Currently, section 1711 is silent as to whether the court may or may not order the purported natural parent to start paying support pending the test results.

Secondly, the governor stated that SB 14-11, SD1 conflicts with the provisions of 8 CMC § 1412(a), without stating what the conflict is. Essentially, § 1412(a) provides for the legal effect that a final decree of adoption and an interlocutory (not final) decree of adoption have on the adopted individual’s relationship with his/her biological parents and his/her adopted parents as specifically provided under § 1412(a)(2). Therefore, no conflict is readily apparent between the DNA testing of a purported natural parent in a child support proceeding under SB 14-11, SD1 and the provisions of 8 CMC § 1412 involving an adoption proceeding.

Further, the veto message hinted that the bill frustrates adopted children from petitioning the court for child support from their biological parents. I have never heard of a more lame excuse. Once a child is adopted, the adoptive parent assumes full responsibility for the child.

The governor notes that the bill does not specifically amend § 1711 and § 1412, and asserts that the courts will have to harmonize the bill’s provisions with existing law, as if that were reason enough for a veto. If the bill did become law, the courts would have to harmonize the statutes. What the governor seemingly fails to understand is that it is the duty of our courts to harmonize the law, to read the statutes in a consistent way.

The governor points out that the bill does not address who will be responsible for paying the expensive cost of DNA testing. Section 2, subsection 3206 (b)(3) of SB 14-11, SD1, makes clear that if the test is negative, the petitioner shall bear the cost. Otherwise, if the test is positive, § 1716 obviously applies. Incidentally, § 1716 states that the court may determine which party pays which proportion of the costs of the case. In other words, the Governor’s concern that my bill did not address costs has absolutely no basis, as the Commonwealth Code already addressed the situation.

As for SB 14-13, restricting the hiring of nonresident workers at MVA, the governor informed the Legislature that MVA and the Administration are currently attempting to open new markets, including China, and that SB 14-13 would limit MVA’s ability in hiring qualified personnel in the country where CNMI is being promoted. The bill clearly does not affect satellite offices established or to be established in countries such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China and other areas where CNMI is being promoted. What the bill proposes to do is restrict MVA from hiring nonresident workers within the CNMI. If there are no CNMI residents available, many U.S. citizens are capable of speaking various languages. As you know, the strength of the United States of America is built on diversity. In a nutshell, the intent of the bill is to further strengthen the policy of the CNMI for CNMI residents to be given preference in employment. To take away local government jobs from residents and hand them over to nonresident workers is a crime against the people of the Commonwealth.

The governor did not even take the time to make his veto messages convincing enough to justify his actions. In some cases, the carelessness is stunning. The fact that three bills where I am the primary sponsor are vetoed three consecutive times suggests that extra vigilance and special attention are given to my bills.

That the governor would veto my bills is not troubling, as he has that right under our Constitution. What troubles me is when the veto messages are poorly justified. This is simply not fair to the public, including to you. Surely we, the people, are entitled to a rational justification when the governor subverts the will of the people by quashing legislation enacted by their democratically elected representatives in the Legislature?

I think the public is entitled to something more than the recent veto messages that, in essence, are nothing more than “because I’m the governor and I said so.” Is “because Reyes sponsored them” really that far of a stretch when the governor cannot put forth a convincing reason?

Perhaps this new information will change your mind. If, in the future, it will help to call my office to clarify information, which is not readily available to the general public, prior to forming an opinion, please do so. I always appreciate and respect public inquiries. You used to call my office inquiring on issues that were of interest to you. What happened?

Sen. Pete P. Reyes
Capitol Hill