‘Bill on OAG subpoena powers moves NMI closer to authoritarianism’

The bill that aims to give investigative subpoena powers to the Office of the Attorney General moves the CNMI closer to authoritarianism, not away from it, and should be opposed by all who want freedom, according to Public Defender Douglas W. Hartig.

In his letter sent yesterday to Senate President Edith E. DeLeon Guerrero (D-Saipan) and Sen. Celina R. Babauta (D-Saipan), Hartig said the Office of the Public Defender has several serious concerns about House Bill 23-22, one of which is it cedes too much power to the Attorney General without a compelling government interest. He described the measure as “inappropriate,” adding there are lesser restrictive means that remains available.

Hartig adds his comments to that of veteran lawyer Robert T. Torres, whose position opposing the legislation has been concurred by 15 other CNMI lawyers. Torres, instead, suggest creating a law that will establish the “grand jury” process in the CNMI. He said establishing the grand jury process protects the due process of citizens in such investigations.

Authored by Rep. Marissa Renee Flores (Ind-Saipan), H. B. 23-22 seeks to create an investigative division within the OAG, codify investigative subpoena power, and improve the investigation of cases involving public corruption.

The House of Representatives has already passed the legislation, but it remains pending in the Senate. The bill is with the Senate Judiciary, Government and Law Committee chaired by Babauta.

In his letter of opposition, Hartig said states and the federal government that currently allow subpoenas by agencies do so for very limited and narrowly tailored investigations or for a grand jury. Such is the case with the Office of the Public Auditor, he said.

Hartig said Torres is correct to point out that a grand jury provides a check on unbridled power of an administration.

He said every state and Guam have a grand jury system in place.

Without this, all residents are subject to an unprotected invasion of privacy and can be ordered to appear at the AG’s office to be interrogated about any matter, criminal or otherwise, about themselves or anyone, and produce anything the AG may want to look at, he said.

Hartig said a free society is dependent on the separation of powers and, checks and balances.

“As to subpoenas, it is the court which is a check on the Executive Branch (the attorney general) as well providing a separate source of authority,” he said.