‘AGO can still file suits despite questions about AG legitimacy’

Citing precedent rulings and policy considerations, the Superior Court ruled that the Attorney General’s Office could prosecute criminal cases regardless of the legitimacy of Pamela Brown as attorney general.

Presiding judge Robert Naraja handed down this ruling in denying the request of the Public Defender’s Office to dismiss the sexual abuse charges against one Joaquin Peredo on the ground that Brown, on whose authority the case is being brought to court, is occupying the attorney general’s post unlawfully.

The Public Defender’s Office had cited the constitutional provision that the attorney general shall be responsible to prosecute violations of Commonwealth law.

Naraja declared that the power to prosecute is not personal to the attorney general, but a function of the executive branch of the government. He said the attorney general and her staff do not act as private employees, but as officers of the executive branch acting on behalf of the governor and the CNMI government, noting that about 500 new criminal cases are filed each year with the Superior Court.

“Clearly, something is terribly amiss if the government cannot prosecute cases such as [this] because of a particular interpretation of the Constitution,” the judge said. “The court cannot, in good conscience, find for the defendant without other more persuasive authority to the contrary.”

“Because the court finds ample precedent and strong policy considerations indicating that the government retains the power to prosecute criminal cases with or without a validly appointed [attorney general], defendant’s analysis of Ms. Brown’s appointment is essentially irrelevant to this case,” Naraja said.

Naraja said the best forum to determine the validity of Brown’s appointment is the case filed by former Senate president Juan S. Demapan against her, which seeks to declare her as occupying her post unlawfully.

In a 13-page order, Naraja cited numerous rulings by local and federal courts, which rejected challenges to several cases—including those that were criminal in nature—that impugned the prosecutorial authorities that brought the actions in the courts.

“It is inconceivable to this court that important government duties to the people should cease to operate simply because of a rejected appointment, a procedural delay in making an appointment, or any circumstance resulting in a temporary ‘power vacuum’ in the [attorney general]’s office,” the judge said.

With hundreds of new criminal cases each year, Naraja said it is impossible that any single person could handle the workload.

Naraja said the various powers of the attorney general are delegated by statute to the AGO, saying that assistant attorneys general assist in performing the duties of the attorney general.

“The attorney general, and her office, are the arm of the executive branch charged with…carrying out the necessary and important function of protecting the people from criminals by enforcing the law. The work of the attorney general goes on every single day, regardless of who heads the department. The people require it,” the judge declared.

He said, though, that had the defense raised an issue by implying that the filing of the case was politically motivated, or that prosecution of the case was retribution on Brown’s part, his ruling on the dismissal request would have been different.