As a matter of ‘facts’

In honor of our vibrant democracy for which we in the CNMI are privileged to have and uphold, allow me to respectfully participate in the dialogue about Ms. Guadalupe Perez Manglona’s public questioning of Chief Justice Miguel Sablan Demapan’s integrity, intelligence, and character as a jurist in our CNMI Supreme Court.

I am inspired by Chief Justice Demapan’s credentials and character, especially as a Commonwealth son. I am most particularly inspired by how much he literally sacrificed and succeeded as a native islander in the face of uncertainty and tremendous challenges of his generation during the formative years of our Commonwealth by going to college and eventually obtaining both his MBA and law degrees. It takes a whole lot for an islander to obtain as high and professional education in the U.S. mainland like Chief Justice Demapan did. For that, I am proud and privileged to look up to a fellow Commonwealth son, such as Chief Justice Demapan, knowing that our Commonwealth Judiciary is in good hands because of credible, qualified, highly educated, experienced, and competent professional jurists with integrity like him. Contrary to what may be implied and insinuated by Ms. Guadalupe Perez Manglona in her full-page paid ad, common sense and human decency dictates that no one with a right mind and conscience would put his or her own credibility and character—which took so many years to build and sustain—on the line just to make someone else’s life miserable.

I read the decision of the subject case (No. 02-0015-GA, Civil Action No. 93-1061), and respectfully offer the following observations:

(1) Like all other litigants, once you resort to the judicial process, you run the risk of either winning or losing. Moreover, since our system of justice gives the litigants one more chance of appeal to the NMI Supreme Court and now the U.S. Supreme Court, Ms. Manglona, as the plaintiff, voluntarily subjected herself to the process, knowing full well that a decision by the Superior Court in her favor does not necessarily mean an outright and guaranteed victory. As the result showed after doing a reasonable inquiry, Mrs. Margaret Reyes Tenorio, through her skilled and tenacious attorney, the late Ted Mitchell, appealed the Superior Court’s decision. The record also showed, and it is public record, that Ms. Manglona failed to appeal her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she clearly has the right to do so. Instead, she and her attorney took the unusual step of publicly questioning Chief Justice Demapan’s integrity. Judge Pro Tems Jesus C. Borja and Anita Sukola and Chief Justice Demapan unanimously agreed that Superior Court Associate Judge Juan Lizama erred in his decision “…in granting leave to amend the complaint to allege unjust enrichment after the first trial…[which leave is] under an abuse of discretion standard” (11, III);

(2) I find it compelling, justified, and in full agreement that, once a trial is done and complete, it would be unfair for the trial judge to assist the litigant to offer another legal theory for a second trial. This opinion is patently clear and fair and, more importantly, eliminates the unfairness of having to try the same set of facts numerous times until the plaintiff wins. In other words, as a plaintiff, you only have one chance to assert which legal theory as your defense upon filing a lawsuit. To give anyone another chance is clearly an undue advantage, thus extremely unfair, which was exactly what happened in the lower court in Manglona v. Tenorio;

(3) Chief Justice Demapan alone could not and in fact did not solely decide the case that was appealed by Ms. Margaret R. Tenorio to the CNMI Supreme Court, which Ms. Manglona initially won from a prior favorable judgment penned by the lone judge in the Superior Court, Judge Juan T. Lizama (The Commonwealth Supreme Court consists of three justices who decide by majority—two out of three—on each case appealed by a losing litigant from the Superior Court’s decision, which is decided by one associate judge alone);

(4) Ms. Manglona submitted a motion to disqualify Chief Justice Demapan on grounds that are not legally binding in any courts of the CNMI or any U.S. jurisdiction;

(5) After the opinion was rendered Ms. Manglona’s untimely objection and false allegations against Chief Justice Demapan led to further finding by the Court of a Model Rules of Professional Conduct violation by her attorney; and

(6) Chief Justice Demapan, along with Justices Borja and Sukola, did the lawful thing by reviewing the merits of the case as decided in the lower court and made a hard decision based on the difficult issues that transcended relationships, even if they knew who the litigants were in our very small, tight-knit island community.

For all these reasons, these three justices must be commended and not ridiculed. Chief Justice Demapan is fair, unequivocally honors his profession with the inherent high standards of conduct required of justices, and clearly possesses the integrity and character that is expected of him.

Pot fabot maila’ ya ta fan magof ya ta abiba i mismo sensen ta yan taotao ta kululo’na i man Hues ni chumocho’gue i che’cho’ niha hunestu, gasgas, yan fino maseha man atungo’ hit gi dikike’ na isla ta enlugat di para ta na’ tailayi pot binibu yan chinatli’e. Si Yu’us ma’ase’ – Olomwaay reemw,

John Oliver DLR. Gonzales
e-mail