Saipan casino bill constitutional

After four months of reviewing a controversial Saipan casino legalization bill, a committee of the Saipan and Northern Islands Legislative Delegation submitted yesterday its final report that says the measure is constitutional and has the support of the community.

The Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee, chaired by Rep. Joe Palacios (R-Saipan), is recommending passage of House Local Bill 17-44 as Committee Substitute 1.

“In regards to the constitutional question of HLB 17-44, the Committee finds that HLB 17-44 does not conflict with the CNMI Constitution or applicable law,” says the report, a copy of which was obtained late yesterday afternoon.

The Senate, citing legal opinion, maintains that the Saipan casino bill is unconstitutional and will take the matter to court if it passes.

The JGO Committee, along with the Ways and Means Committee, said there’s “definite desire” by the community to allow casino gambling, based on six public hearings held on the bill.

“…The committee has found that the prevailing feelings of the public revealed a definite desire by the business, government, and private sectors to give casino gambling a chance to flourish in the Third Senatorial District,” the committee said.

Rep. Stanley Torres (Ind-Saipan), author of the bill, said HLB 17-44 may be up for voting in the next delegation session.

“We have enough number [of votes] to move the bill and make it happen,” Torres told Saipan Tribune.

Delegation chair Rep. Ray Tebuteb (R-Saipan) tasked both Palacios’ JGO Committee and the Ways and Means Committee chaired by Rep. Ray Yumul (R-Saipan) to review the bill and come up with recommendations.

As of yesterday, only Palacios’ committee has come up with a report.

Torres said even if Yumul’s committee does not come up with a report, his bill could pass as early as next week.

Of the nine members of the delegation’s JGO Committee, two didn’t sign off on the report: Yumul and Rep. Tony Sablan (R-Saipan).

Yumul, in a separate interview last night, said he didn’t sign off on the bill because he’s “not satisfied with the report’s research and conclusion on the legality of the bill.”

“I find it very difficult to support it [report],” he said.

Yumul said his Ways and Means Committee will come up with a separate report that he said will focus on the financial impact of the bill.

“We’re having problems with the Tinian Casino Gaming Control Commission because they do not want to share data with us that will help the committee come up with a financial impact report. They didn’t want to disclose how much was generated by the casino in the last three years,” said Yumul.

Instead of responding to inquiries about finances, he said that Tinian’s casino commission came back with a message that the bill is unconstitutional.

Analysis

Article 21 of the CNMI Constitution states that “gambling is prohibited in the Northern Mariana Islands except as provided by Commonwealth law or established through an initiative in the Commonwealth or in any Senatorial District.”

Palacios’ committee said the issue here is whether HLB 17-44 is “Commonwealth law.”

“In short, the committee finds that the answer to this query based on the points listed below is ‘yes,’” the committee said.

In making this point, the committee cited the “Analysis of the Constitution of the CNMI, page 119,” “Island Amusement, CV 94-166 (Decision and Order, Dec. 15, 1994), and the legal opinion of the House counsels.

The committee cited the House legal counsel’s opinion that the “Commonwealth-wide law” that is supposedly necessary, does in fact exist in the form of Public Law 3-77, which is the Local Law Act of 1983.

It said this law is clearly applicable to the entire CNMI and is based in the CNMI Constitution’s Article 2, section 6 that allows for each senatorial district to legislate on local matters that do not affect the other districts.

“It is clearly Commonwealth law,” the committee said.