Attorney General Edward Manibusan has issued an opinion that the House of Representatives\u2019 tie-breaker rule that allows the speaker to vote twice in the event of a tie contravenes the CNMI Constitution\u2019s provision on the minimum vote requirement. <\/p>\n
In his opinion last Friday, Manibusan also recommended that due to the importance of resolving the constitutionality of the tie-breaker rule and the likelihood that it will be invoked regularly during the present term, a certified question petition to the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute is a recourse that may be explored.<\/p>\n
Manibusan issued the opinion after nine Republican representatives and one independent representative sought last March 25 his legal opinion on Article II Section 3 of the NMI Constitution pertaining to the principle of \u201cone representative, one vote.\u201d The 10 lawmakers said it is their understanding that House Rule XI Section 10 \u201cTie Vote\u201d may be in contravention to Article II the NMI Constitution.<\/p>\n
Last March 19, House Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez (Ind-Saipan) had to exercise his authority to break a 10-10 tie to pass a bill that mandates legislative appropriation for the estimated $515-million Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund that will be allocated to the CNMI.<\/p>\n
When asked for comments yesterday, Villagomez said that he has not seen the AG\u2019s opinion yet. <\/p>\n
Manibusan said they framed the question as whether House Rule XI, section 10 is constitutional.<\/p>\n
Manibusan said that, based on their review of the pertinent sections of the Constitution, the 1976 Analysis, and the House Rules of Procedure, he has \u201creservations\u201d that the tie-breaker rule of having the speaker vote twice during a session in the event of a tie on the final approval of a bill is constitutional.<\/p>\n
He said Section 5(c) of Article XII of the Constitution requires a bill to be approved by \u201cat least a majority of the votes cast in\u201d each house of the Legislature.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is the threshold number of votes needed to approve a bill,\u201d Manibusan pointed out, adding that if the vote falls short of the majority of votes cast, the bill does not pass the House floor for transmittal to the Senate.<\/p>\n
He said the House failed to muster the majority of the votes necessary to approve the bill.<\/p>\n
The AG said Section 5(c) of Article II of the Constitution states that \u201cthe legislature may not enact a law except by bill and no bill may be enacted without the approval of at least a majority of the votes cast in each house of legislature.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said the 1976 Analysis of the Commonwealth Constitution sheds light on the intent of the framers in drafting Section 5(c) which has remained unchanged since the original Constitution was approved.<\/p>\n
Manibusan said that, based on the Analysis, the framers intended that Section 5(c) be a minimum requirement and that the Senate, or the House, could require a greater margin than the \u201cmajority of votes cast.\u201d <\/p>\n
For example, the AG said, a higher voting requirement could be based on a majority of the members of the Senate or the House; or a majority of the members present at a session. \u201cBoth scenarios would increase the number of votes necessary to pass a bill,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Instead of raising a bar on the number of affirmative votes to pass a bill, Manibusan said House Rule XI, Section 10 creates a tie-breaker rule that \u201cwhen the vote for or against a proposition are equal, the speaker may cast a second vote to break the tie.\u201d He said the language in the House rule does not state that the speaker\u2019s second vote does not apply to the final disposition of a bill and uses the word \u201cproposition.\u201d<\/p>\n
Used only in Section 10 of the House Rules, the word \u201cproposition\u201d as commonly understood means \u201csomething offered for consideration: proposal,\u201d Manibusan said.<\/p>\n
He said a motion to approve a bill could be encompassed within the broad meaning of proposition and would trigger the speaker\u2019s second vote if he decides to cast an additional vote on a motion to approve a bill.<\/p>\n
He said the speaker\u2019s second vote to break a tie contravenes the threshold voting requirement in Section 5(c) that a bill must receive the \u201cmajority of votes cast.\u201d<\/p>\n
The AG said under Section 5(c), when the casting of votes on the motion to approve a bill fails to garner the minimum threshold of a \u201cmajority of votes cast,\u201d the motion is deemed disapproved and the bill does not move past the House floor to be transmitted to the Senate for action.<\/p>\n
Unlike the U.S. Senate and other jurisdictions, there is no tie breaker rule provided in Section 5(c) or anywhere else under the CNMI Constitution to get around the threshold of \u201cmajority of votes cast,\u201d Manibusan said.<\/p>\n
He said the 1976 Analysis makes clear that Section 5(c) is the minimum vote requirement and neither the House, nor the Senate, can circumvent the minimum vote requirement by rule or by statute.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe only recourse is for either house to raise the vote requirement by using the total number of members of the House or Senate, or by using the total number of members present at the session,\u201d Manibusan said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Attorney General Edward Manibusan has issued an opinion that the House of Representatives\u2019 tie-breaker rule…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":334402,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94],"tags":[68],"class_list":["post-342191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-headlines","tag-ag"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342191","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\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=342191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342191\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/334402"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=342191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=342191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=342191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}