‘Torres’ use of another lawyer to argue appeal probably inappropriate’
Attorney General Edward Manibusan indicated yesterday that he is willing to sit down with the Gov. Ralph DLG Torres to discuss an appeal of a federal court ruling that struck down parts of the NMI’s gun law, effectively allowing the permit of hand guns in the NMI.
Manibusan, though, has publicly shot down the chances of the success of an appeal, pointing a previous Supreme Court ruling. The Torres administration, on the other hand, is willing to test the possibility of having another counsel argue the appeal, Saipan Tribune learned.
Manibusan said yesterday they are going to have to sit down with the governor and “really look at the options, and whether “the options are available” in terms of appeal.
“But as far as the Attorney General’s Office is concerned,” he said, “I think an appeal is not in our radar.
“And if so the governor wants to take a look at that option of appealing, certainly [we can] just sit down with him and see what we can do.”
Asked if Torres could use another lawyer if the AG’s office did not want to appeal, Manibusan said, “He could.”
“But there’s a real serious issue,” he added, “as to whether or not any other [lawyer] can do that because the attorney general is the chief legal officer” of the Commonwealth.
“That would probably not be appropriate,” Manibusan said. But options can be discussed, he added.
Torres earlier said that the NMI needs to appeal, contest, or have a stay on the ruling.
Rep. Vinnie Sablan (Ind-Saipan) has also pushed a resolution to urge Torres and Manibusan to appeal the case, saying earlier that the NMI government has not deprived its citizens of the rights under the Second Amendment, or the right to bear arms, because they have the right to bear .22 caliber or a .410 shotgun are allowed.
“[The] framers of our constitution just said no to handguns. If you look at this in general, are we depriving ourselves of that Second Amendment? We are not. I hope we get the decision of the Ninth Circuit,” Sablan said.
ttorney General — institutional independence in the execution of professional judgment.
Sure, the AG could delegate prosecution of an appeal to someone outside the OAG. Outside counsel are hired all the time. But that is wholly his call, not the Governor’s.
In the past, the Governor had the authority to pursue his policy preferences, and the AG would generally defer, even after disagreement, unless the Governor’s position was so untenable or frivolous as to violate the oath of office or subject the OAG to sanctions.
An example of this deference to gubernatorial policy-making would be the immigration federalization lawsuit, where the OAG did not enter an appearance. Northern Mariana Islands v. United States, 670 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2009), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3558323397297527595 .
The elected AG has the last word on executive branch legal issues. He would be well within his authority and on sound legal footing were he to decline to authorize an appeal.