Round 2 in Torres’ fight vs budget cut

Rep. Stanley T. Torres remains undeterred by the court’s denial of his request for a temporary restraining order against Gov. Benigno R. Fitial’s cutting the Legislature’s budget beyond 7.1 percent.

Torres clarified, however, that he did provide the Superior Court with the supporting documents that Associate Judge Kenneth L. Govendo said the lawmaker had failed to submit. Govendo denied Torres’ TRO request on Wednesday.

“[T]he court overlooked the fact that I did file certain documents that would have helped my TRO request. But I won’t quibble over the TRO denial, because the more important petition has been filed and served on the Governor’s Office [Thursday] morning,” Torres said.

He was referring to the petition for permanent injunction and declaratory relief he had filed against Fitial and the CNMI Executive Branch on Tuesday.

The petition called on the court to declare that Fitial’s budget reductions were in violation of the law. It also asked the court to order the Executive Branch to return the “excess” amount cut from the Legislature’s budget.

In addition, the petition demanded that the court declare null and void the Feb. 26 state of emergency declaration for the Commonwealth Utilities Corp., and to stop the administration from hiring new government employees.

Fitial has 20 days to answer the petition.

“Again, if the governor feels he doesn’t have to answer to this minority member of the House, since his majority rules the roost, then I’m confident that the CNMI courts will decide in the favor of those who believe in the separation of powers. This fight is also for all the government workers who are being subjected to pay cuts while the governor continues to hire new green faces under the continuing resolution and current revenue shortfall,” Torres said, alluding to the ruling party’s official color.

Govendo, in denying Torres’ request for a temporary restraining order, said that the lawmaker has not provided the court specific facts in an affidavit or in a verified complaint showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result prior to a scheduled hearing.

Second, the judge said, neither the petitioner nor his attorney, if he has one, has certified to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice to opposing counsel and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required.