The House majority bloc flirted yesterday with an override of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres\u2019 actions last year on a bill that would have provided additional tax relief to the Saipan casino and allowed lawmakers to block casino regulators from revoking the casino\u2019s license if found non-compliant.<\/p>\n
During discussion yesterday, lawmakers\u2014led by House Speaker Rafael Demapan (R-Saipan)\u2014pulled back from the dead a casino amendment bill that had wrought controversy in both upper and lower houses late last year before it reached Torres\u2019 desk in November.<\/p>\n
In clear defense of its own powers, House leaders rallied on the grounds that Torres had no authority to line-item veto the bill.<\/p>\n
In early December, then House speaker Joseph Deleon Guerrero asked House counsel John Cool for a legal opinion on Torres\u2019 actions. The lawyer got back to him on Dec. 28, with a memo essentially declaring Torres\u2019 line-item vetoes inappropriate, arguing that bill was not an appropriations bill\u2014as Torres deemed it\u2014and therefore outside the mark of the governor\u2019s veto pen.<\/p>\n
In reviewing the bill, Torres had vetoed three concerns: provisions to allow a legislative veto over a potential casino license revocation; mandate that casino employees be declared essential in case of austerity or government shutdown; and allow tax credits for the Saipan casino if they passed a certain tax threshold. However, some House leaders believe two provisions\u2014to provide for a tax relief for the casino and provide legislative oversight in such an event that regulators chose to revoke a non-compliant Best Sunshine International, Ltd.\u2014were policy calls that should be made by their body.<\/p>\n
\u201c[Torres] cannot pass the bill and veto it at the same time,\u201d said Demapan during session yesterday. \u201cThis is something we can\u2019t ignore.\u201d<\/p>\n
Demapan and Rep. Antonio Sablan (Ind-Saipan) laid out three options for the House yesterday; to override the law; pose the issue as a certified question to the Superior Court; or allow law review commission to issue its position.<\/p>\n
The recent law poses \u201cramifications for future administrations,\u201d said Sablan. \u201cWe just can\u2019t sit back and can\u2019t do anything about it,\u201d because it would set \u201cprecedence for future administrations\u201d on how it can treat bills that come out of the Legislature. The bill \u201cshould not be subject to the constitutional authority for line item veto,\u201d Sablan said.<\/p>\n
In reading from Cool\u2019s opinion, Deleon Guerrero said the three vetoed items in contest were \u201cnot appropriation provisions, they were regulatory provisions.\u201d He said\u2014if the bill was indeed an appropriations bill\u2014then the $3 million earmarked to Saipan gaming regulators to fund their office and staff would lapse at the end of the fiscal year. \u201cThat was not the intent\u201d of the bill, Deleon Guerrero said, noting that the earmark was intended to be provided on annual basis. \u201cThis thing has to be clarified,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
On the option to override the bill, Sablan noted that the Senate has not scheduled a session until after the deadline for override\u2014Feb. 4\u2014which meant that an override would be moot since it needs the action of both houses.<\/p>\n
Still, Sablan said the matter must be taken seriously. \u201cWe have a difference of opinion,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
Rep. Joseph Leepan Guerrero (R-Saipan) said he was in communication with the law commission and was told that their counsel issuing an opinion that was supposed to be given on Monday. \u201cThey want to issue an opinion,\u201d Guerrero said.<\/p>\n
Cool argued that if the bill were an appropriations bill then it would not be codified. \u201cWe would need to re-enact\u201d it\u2019s sub provisions, he said.<\/p>\n
An appropriation bill should be limited to the subject of appropriations, Cool said, and the issue at hand was \u201cvery appropriate subject\u201d for a certified question in Superior Court. \u201c\u2026Because it involves a dispute between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch\u201d and \u201creviewing the governor\u2019s authority to exercise line-item vetoes,\u201d Cool said.<\/p>\n
Too little, too late<\/strong><\/p>\n Some lawmakers later called the discussion a waste of time, as the hour-long tease of an override amounted to a decision to send a letter to the law review commission to raise the issue.<\/p>\n The item discussed was also not originally scheduled on the day\u2019s session but pulled from an official communication item from Torres months ago.<\/p>\n Some minority block lawmakers threw some wrenches into the discussion, asking why the issue had not been raised in the handful of sessions they held over the last two months.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are now in February,\u201d Rep. Blas Jonathan \u201cBJ\u201d Attao (Ind-Saipan) said. In response to these concerns, Demapan pointed to the untimely passing of the late governor Eloy S. Inos. If a certified question was poised and the law rendered \u201cnull and avoid,\u201d Attao asked, would the casino commission have to pay back what they\u2019ve been paid already?\u201d \u201c[The bill] never became law,\u201d Attao said.<\/p>\n Cool, though, stated that the commission employees would not be affected. He said \u201cthey are covered\u201d and this would not be problem since the governor had no authority to veto the bill\u2019s provisions. The bill \u201cwould have become law without the governor\u2019s signature assuming actions violate the Constitution,\u201d said Cool, referring to the 40-day window for Executive Branch action.<\/p>\n Frustrated with the debate itself, Rep. Ramon Tebuteb (Ind-Saipan) said the real issue was \u201cdue diligence.\u201d The casino amendment issue has been around since last June, he pointed out, a substitute bill was pushed on the floor during an \u201cemergency session\u201d in August and then \u201cfast tracked,\u201d with no committee report, and \u201csailed smoothly\u201d to the Senate. Senators passed the bill after some amendments to satisfy public health official\u2019s concerns, and then recalled the bill after Attorney General Edward Manibusan sounded his concerns about provisions he thought would give undue powers to casino regulators.<\/p>\n He said if an override were pressed to the Senate, it would be \u201ca very slippery slope.\u201d \u201cThis is symptomatic of a rushed casino bill,\u201d Tebuteb later told reporters.<\/p>\n But Vice Speaker Deleon Guerrero said past House or Senate action was not the question. \u201cIt is the governor\u2019s action.\u201d \u201cIf we keep quiet\u2026what\u2019s to prevent a governor in the future to veto a non-appropriations bill?\u201d Deleon Guerrero asked.<\/p>\n \u201cIf [an override] simply sends a message that this is not right at least it sends a point,\u201d Deleon Guerrero said.<\/p>\n He stressed the need to raise the issue \u201cso we do not turn a blind eye.\u201d<\/p>\n Rep. Ed Propst (Ind-Saipan) noted Cool\u2019s opinion was made over a month ago\u2014Dec. 28\u2014and asked that information with the minority bloc be shared despite their divisions. On Torres\u2019 line-item vetoes, Propst said, \u201cI don\u2019t think that\u2019s necessarily a bad thing.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The House majority bloc flirted yesterday with an override of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres\u2019 actions…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94],"tags":[256,1414,9502,9096],"class_list":["post-220082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-headlines","tag-casino","tag-executive-branch","tag-house-torres","tag-joseph-deleon-guerrero"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220082","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\/47"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}