A certified question to the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of a local law appropriating Managaha landing fees to pay Saipan landowners is just awaiting the consent of a member of the Legislature.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re ready. It\u2019s just that we\u2019re trying to get a member of the Legislature to agree to sign off as an opposing party so that it meets the criteria for transmission of the certified question to the Supreme Court,\u201d Gov. Eloy S. Inos told reporters yesterday.<\/p>\n
House Speaker Joseph Deleon Guerrero (Ind-Saipan) said the Office of the Attorney General being in possession of the certified question on Saipan Local Law 18-19 is news to him.<\/p>\n
He said he is nonetheless willing to sign off as the opposing party so the whole business of land compensation for long-suffering families and individuals who had to yield their land to the government years and even decades ago \u201ccan finally be cleared once and for all.\u201d<\/p>\n
Deleon Guerrero pointed out, through, that the opposing party doesn\u2019t have to be from the Legislature, the local Saipan delegation, or the bill\u2019s author.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s been one our longest standing problems, this outstanding debt. Interest has been accruing. If we don\u2019t do anything to stop the bleeding, it will continue to be a bigger problem to our future generation, not to mention people who had to give up their land so the public can use it. A lot of them have passed away already\u2026we should find every possible way to start compensating people. I know we don\u2019t have the money to pay everybody but we have to at least start the process and minimize the potential of a ballooning debt. It\u2019s a small fraction but at least it will show that the government is acting in good faith.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Executive Branch, through the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, prefers the submission of a certified question to the Supreme Court to break the stalemate on the local law.<\/p>\n
However, two opposing parties have to agree before submitting any certified question to the court. In this case, the other party is the Saipan and Northern Islands Legislative Delegation, while the other is the governor, the Executive Branch, the Department of Public Lands, or OAG.<\/p>\n
The governor said his position mirrors the OAG\u2019s opinion with regards to Saipan Local Law 18-19, which appropriates $800,000 in land compensation payments to land owners whose properties were taken by the government for public use. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe whole idea here is to see if we can get a certified question before the Supreme Court to say that the source of funds in that legislation is prohibited or is limited to be used by the Department of Public Lands and, after deducting reasonable expenses for administration, those funds will be transferred to Marianas Public Land Trust.\u201d <\/p>\n
Under the $800,000 land compensation payment local law, at least 223 Saipan landowners will get anywhere from 89 cents to over $190,000, based on DPL data.<\/p>\n
Besides those owed land compensation payments on Saipan, other intended beneficiaries of Saipan Local Law 18-19 are the NMI Museum of History and Culture and the Northern Marianas Descent Corp., which were supposed to get $100,000 each by mid-October.<\/p>\n
DPL, in an earlier statement, said OAG advised the department that making payments from the Managaha landing and user fees pursuant to SLL 18-19 \u201cwould be an unconstitutional act.\u201d<\/p>\n
The department said the question revolves around whether the Managaha landing and user fees are revenues generated from the management and disposition of public lands, which DPL is constitutionally required to remit to the Marianas Public Land Trust, or whether the Legislature may appropriate such funds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A certified question to the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of a local law appropriating…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[900,4],"tags":[175,1228,223,139],"class_list":["post-180650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-featured","category-local-news","tag-dpl","tag-inos-certified","tag-party","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}