House: No new action vs Palacios

The House of Representatives has no plan to impose any new disciplinary action against Tinian congressman Norman S. Palacios as he had already been suspended for a month in 2002.

House leadership spokesman Charles Reyes Jr. clarified yesterday that the 13th Legislature had adopted a resolution in Sept. 2002—shortly after Palacios’ conviction by the trial court on assault and battery charges—putting Palacios on a month-long suspension without pay.

At that time, the lawmaker was not allowed to vote or otherwise participate in session or committee meetings.

“He is not committing a new crime. It would not be fair to sanction him twice for the same reason,” said Reyes.

Reyes, who had said Thursday that the House would meet to get a consensus on how to address Palacios’ case, said that he had not been aware about the previous legislative action when he made the statement. Reyes assumed office only this year.

The Supreme Court had issued a ruling Wednesday affirming Palacios’ conviction on assault and battery charges for touching a woman’s private parts in a bar in 2001. The incident took place when the woman, a waitress at Port of Call Bar on Tinian, greeted the lawmaker and his friends when they entered the joint sometime in Nov. 2001. Palacios had reportedly grabbed the woman’s private parts, removing his hand after a split second.

In Sept. 2002, associate Superior Court judge David Wiseman convicted Palacios on assault and battery charges for the non-consensual sexual contact. He was placed on probation and was tasked to perform 100 hours of community service. The trial also ordered him to spend 15 days in jail, all suspended, for disturbing the peace.

Palacios is currently the chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means. He is a member of the six-member House panel appointed to meet with the Senate to discuss the 2005 budget.

The High Court’s majority ruled that Palacios’ action was for the purpose of sexual gratification, but Chief Justice Miguel Demapan, who dissented, said that “evidence is not there to satisfy the requirement [of] sexual arousal or gratification.”

Palacios had argued that touching the woman for “less than a second” does not conclusively establish that the action was intended to gratify sexual desire.