Composition of judicial conduct body worries chief justice

Supreme Court Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan has cautioned the House of Representatives against the appointment of more non-attorneys in the planned establishment of the Commission on Judicial Conduct that will hear and adjudicate complaints against justices and judges of the CNMI courts.

In a letter to Rep. Dino M. Jones, chair of the House Judiciary and Government Operations Committee, Chief Justice Demapan recommended the appointment of more attorneys in the Commission than non-lawyers who may not have the legal sophistication required to determine whether a judge’s conduct brings the judicial office into disrepute.

Based on House Bill 12-085, the Chief Justice shall appoint members of the Commission which will consist of five members — two attorneys licensed to practice in the CNMI ( one of whom shall be designated as the chair) and three U.S. citizens residing in the CNMI who are not judges, retired judges or lawyers (one of whom shall be designated as vice chair).

“A lay person may be outraged by a judge’s controversial opinion in a high-profile case, even though there is nothing ethically deficient about the judge’s conduct. I am sure it is not the Legislature’s intent that a non-attorney’s inexperience in legal matters interfere with a judge’s legitimate exercise of his or her authority,” he said.

The governor shall make the appointments of the Commission members if the chief justice has failed to do so within 60 days of the effectivity of the law.

Chief Justice Demapan also suggested that no member of the legislative or executive branches be permitted to sit in the Commission to maintain the separation of powers.

In order to avoid any conflict with the executive branch of the government, HB 12-085 said the Commission should be under the administrative authority of the Judiciary. While he agrees that any hearings and appeal should be independent for purposes of judicial review, Chief Justice Demapan said the Judiciary should still retain administrative control over the office. Sufficient funds should also be set aside for the Commission.

Since the proposed measure does not explain how a Commission member may be removed, the House of Representatives should include a provision which specifies that he or she may be removed for good cause, following notice and an opportunity for an adjudicative hearing.

The chief justice believes that Commission members should be subject to some form of control to avoid potential abuse of authority because the bill grants them absolute immunity for their official actions.

If a formal hearing could result in a judge losing his position, then the Rules of Evidence must apply at the hearing to avoid problems in connection with due process issue. (LFR)l