Bennett petition found constitutionally insufficient

The NMI Supreme Court was unable to clarify the proper procedure for selecting a teacher representative to the CNMI Board of Education as the petitioners requesting the court’s assistance failed to meet constitutional requirements.

On Jan. 15, 2008, Roman C. Benavente, former BOE chairman, and Ambrose M. Bennett, former BOE teacher representative, petitioned the Supreme Court with seven questions regarding the process for selecting a teacher representative to the Board of Education.

On April 1, 2008 the Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan, stated that the court was without authority to answer the questions, because Benavente and Bennett failed to satisfy the constitutional prerequisites for certifying legal questions to the court.

According to the justices, the Commonwealth Constitution mandates that four prerequisites must be satisfied before the Supreme Court may review certified legal questions.

First, the Constitution requires the existence of a dispute between Commonwealth officials. The court, however, determined there is no conflict or disagreement between Benavente and Bennett based on the information submitted. Although both petitioners alleged disputes with at least three other parties, the court noted that none of those other parties petitioned the court. Also required is the demonstration that the dispute must be between or among Commonwealth officials, and although Benavente and Bennett were officials during their respective BOE terms, the other parties allegedly involved in the dispute are not Commonwealth officials.

Second, the dispute must relate to the Commonwealth officials’ legal powers or responsibilities. The court determined that Benavente and Bennett failed to satisfy the second prerequisite, stating, “Under the Constitution, petitioners do not have the power to select a new teacher representative, as that power is vested in the exclusive bargaining representative of the PSS teachers.”

Third, parties to the dispute must set forth the stipulated facts upon which the dispute arises. Although acknowledging the petitioners agreed to facts they submitted, the court goes on to state, “Benavente and Bennett are not opposing parties. Rather, they are on the same side of an alleged dispute and their interests are aligned.” The petitioners were required to submit facts that are agreed to by the other parties involved in the dispute, but they failed to do so.

The fourth and final constitutional prerequisite is the submission of legal questions arising from their dispute. However, the court did not discuss this final factor because Bennett and Benavente failed to satisfy the previous three.[B][I] (Supreme Court)[/I][/B]