Safe Haven abuses Section 103 of Covenant

Section 103 of the Covenant guarantees to the people of the Northern Marianas the right of self-government, and assures that they can govern themselves with respect to their internal affairs in accordance with a constitution of their own adoption.

Although noble in a sense, the Safe Haven regulations recently proposed by CNMI Attorney General Pamela Brown is clearly an abuse (if not a violation) of the authority granted to the CNMI people under Section 103 of the Covenant.

In her capacity as Attorney General, what authority does Pam Brown have to arbitrarily and capriciously initiate public policy of this magnitude? Accordingly, is it appropriate for an official belonging to a lame duck administration to promulgate public policy that may be burdensome to the succeeding administration?

These are just a few of many questions the general public should ask the sitting AG. From my point-of-view, this proposal should it become public policy would have an adverse impact on the CNMI’s cash-strapped government. The CNMI’s infrastructure alone would not be able to sustain this additional influx of people. At this juncture, essential government services (i.e. public safety, education, and healthcare) are strained due to the lack of professional manpower and facilities necessary to accommodate the existing CNMI population. Now, can you imagine the devastating impact this proposal would bring should it come to fruition? Most importantly, who will shoulder the medical and educational expenses of this group? How about the costs of expanding the educational and medical facilities in order to accommodate this additional number of people? Were there any impact assessments conducted or prior studies performed? If not, then why is the government suddenly rushing into having these rules promulgated? Let us now turn our attention to the proposed rules and regulations, namely the provision that would allow this foreign group to enter CNMI soil without passports (as reported by Sen. Pete P. Reyes in a recent letter to the editor). Is this even legal? And if so, under what authority can the CNMI government do this? Certainly, a double standard would set that, which would be contrary to both federal and CNMI laws governing immigration; particularly, existing policy that requires foreign individuals entering U.S. jurisdictions to possess valid passports.

To this end, what benefits (if any) will the Commonwealth gain from this proposal, aside from being regarded as humanitarian? Again, I firmly believe that this monumental and legally-sensitive public policy MUST be enacted by the CNMI Legislature and not by its Attorney General.

Jose Pangelinan Mafnas
San Antonio