Those opposed to a salary increase for elected officials were relieved to learn yesterday that the Department of Finance is \u201cvoluntarily agreeing\u201d to an injunction, effectively preventing it from implementing the increases.<\/p>\n
House minority leader Rep. Edmund Villagomez (Ind-Saipan), who was one of those who opposed the increases authorized by Public Law 19-83, told Saipan Tribune that he is \u201cmore at ease\u201d with his vote pertaining to the issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe pledged to uphold all of the laws and the Constitution of the U.S. and the Commonwealth,\u201d Villagomez said, adding that when it came to questioning a law\u2019s constitutionality, there is a \u201cprocess that needs to be followed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Villagomez, along with House minority bloc members Reps. Edwin K. Propst (Ind-Saipan) and Vinson Sablan (Ind-Saipan), opposed the fiscal year 2018 budget, due to the provision for a salary increase.<\/p>\n
Finance Secretary Larissa Larson and Attorney General Edward Manibusan have submitted two certified questions with the Supreme Court relating to the increase. A briefing on the matter is scheduled in September.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s good to see something like this so we could get a clarification,\u201d Villagomez said. \u201cWe have a three-branch government for the checks and balances and that\u2019s when [it] comes to play, when the [Judiciary] interprets the law.\u201d<\/p>\n
Propst referred to the injunction as a \u201cstep in the right direction.\u201d He said in a message that the best way to go was to eliminate the salary increases altogether.<\/p>\n
\u201cAll it would take is for the leadership to take action on my House Bill 20-39, which aims to eliminate the salary increases [totaling] to\u2026$1.2 million in additional needed revenue every single year for 35 elected officials,\u201d said Propst.<\/p>\n
Propst also proposed a floor amendment to the fiscal year 2018 budget, which re-appropriates $1,018,772 that is supposed to go to the salary increases to the Department of Public Safety. The amendment was ultimately defeated during voting in late July 2017.<\/p>\n
House Ways and Means Committee chair Rep. Angel Demapan (R-Saipan) had no comments on the injunction, but said the certified question joint petition route would \u201cbring some finality to the issue.\u201d<\/p>\n
He reiterated previous statements he made that stood by P.L. 19-83. \u201cThere is an existing law and we budgeted according to the existing law,\u201d he said, adding that the certified question route is a good one for clarity.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen the Supreme Court rules out its response to the question, it would at least give us guidelines to approach the issue, whether it is constitutional or not. At this point, everything is in limbo until we get a response from the court.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hofschneider, Sablan, and House Speaker Ralph Demapan (R-Saipan), the author of the bill that eventually became P.L. 19-83, were not available when Saipan Tribune attempted to interview them.<\/p>\n
Yesterday\u2019s Senate Fiscal Affairs Committee meeting was cancelled; no Senate reactions were obtained.<\/p>\n
What now?<\/strong><\/p>\n According to Demapan, the Legislature has three options. <\/p>\n One is to push through with the appropriations but \u201cjust not pay it out\u201d until a decision from the Supreme Court is finalized.<\/p>\n \u201cWe do not know if the response is going to come before or after [the end of fiscal year 2017],\u201d said Demapan, adding that if the Supreme Court finds that P.L. 19-83 is unconstitutional, the funds could be re-appropriated to \u201cother programs.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cIf the court rules that the law is constitutional, then the [Finance] secretary already has the funds appropriated to pay it out,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The third option, Demapan said, is just to already re-appropriate the money intended for the salary increases without waiting for the Supreme Court ruling; however, the problem with this option is if the ruling says that the increases are constitutional.<\/p>\n \u201c[This] would mean the Legislature would now have to identify new funding sources [for the salary increases],\u201d he said, adding that the fiscal year 2018 budget is now with the Senate and is still under review by the Senate Fiscal Affairs Committee.<\/p>\n MD: Those opposed to a salary increase for elected officials are relieved<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Those opposed to a salary increase for elected officials were relieved to learn yesterday that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[900],"tags":[20,18022,38,139],"class_list":["post-258559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-featured","tag-budget","tag-opposition-certified","tag-saipan-tribune","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258559","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\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}