New law defines ‘public purpose’

What is the definition of “public purpose?”

In an effort to clear ambiguity of the phrase, acting Gov. Jesus R. Sablan has signed into law a bill that will set the guidelines for government officials and elected leaders when they are invoking “public purpose.”

Passed by the Legislature in the wake of a dispute between legislators and finance officials over use of public funds, the new law clarifies the constitutional provision of the term.

Sablan said the definition is long overdue that the Legislature should have acted on earlier as stipulated under Amendment 28 of the Constitution.

Lawmakers believed, however, that they must take into consideration existing traditional and cultural notions of “public purpose” to come up with generally acceptable criteria.

“The definition of public purpose must necessarily be broad enough to anticipate a variety of future circumstances, and yet specific enough to provide meaningful general guidelines against which to assess whether any particular purpose is for the public welfare generally,” Sablan said in his letter to presiding officers of the Legislature.

The measure, offered by Senate Floor Leader Pete P. Reyes and which has now become Public Law 11-84, has defined the term to include the following:

• the benefits are equally available to the entire community;

• the service or commodity supplied is one needed by a large number of the community pursuant to customs and traditions as applicable;

• the enterprise bears directly and immediately upon the public welfare;

• the needs to be met by its nature requires a united effort under unified control and cannot be served well by separate individuals;

• where benefits accrue to individuals, the community has an interest in having those individuals benefited, such as sports team;

• the activity or service is in line with the historical development and with the general purpose of the Constitution and laws;

• a special emergency exists, such as war or public calamity; and

• the expenditure is reasonably related to the operation of government or its objective, including fiesta and community celebrations.

According to the new law, the litmus test for the use of public funds is to subject the purpose to whether it will have direct benefit to a “culturally or traditionally significant part” of the community as against to it being incidental or secondary benefit.

“Tradition and custom as well as the particular facts and circumstances of each case shall be taken into consideration when determining whether a public purpose is being served by a specific appropriation,” it said.

PL 11-84 also aims to set a clear-cut policy on the expenditure of public funds as the Department of Finance and members of the Legislature have had brushes in the past few months when they attempt to reimburse expenses incurred from donations to funerals and other community events under their respective government accounts.

To avoid potential misinterpretation, Sablan urged the Legislature to allow the finance secretary to implement rules and regulations to carry out the intention of the law.

All government entities as well as public officials and employees “must be conscientious in determining whether a particular expenditure is for public purpose as the Legislature has defined it in this law,” he added.