Judge recuses self from lawsuit vs Fitial over casino bill

Superior Court associate judge Kenneth L. Govendo recused himself yesterday from presiding over a lawsuit filed by Rep. Joseph Palacios (R-Saipan) against Gov. Benigno R. Fitial for vetoing a local Saipan casino bill.

Govendo told the parties in the case that he is currently handling the NMI Retirement Fund’s lawsuit against the Fitial administration. Under the vetoed casino bill, a portion of the revenue will be allocated to the Fund. Govendo said that he has been very vocal against casinos on Saipan.

Govendo said he will refer the case to Superior Court presiding judge Robert C. Naraja, who will choose which other judges will preside over the case.

Palacios told Saipan Tribune that he was ready to argue the case by himself but then Govendo announced his decision to recuse. Palacios said he tried to convince Govendo to hear the case as he trusts Govendo’s judgment and that he is fair and impartial.

Palacios said that assistant attorney general Michael Stanker, counsel for Fitial, agreed with him that the judge should not recuse himself.

“I was hoping to resolve this issue and move on. For me, it’s a win-win situation,” the lawmaker said.

Palacios, as chairman of the Saipan and Northern Islands Local Delegation’s Committee on Judicial and Governmental Operations, filed a petition in October seeking declaratory relief that HLB 17-44, as enacted by the delegation, be declared as a Commonwealth law.

Palacios said he is not questioning the veto, but it is just the language that Fitial used when he stated that the bill was improperly acted on.

“We find that offensive,” Palacios said.

Fitial, through Stanker, asserted that Palacios lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.

In a motion to dismiss the case, Fitial argued that he fully complied with the CNMI Constitution in vetoing the Saipan and Northern Islands Casino Control Act of 2011.

Stanker said that Palacios lacks standing to challenge the governor’s decision because he fails to satisfy any of the three standing factors.

First, Stanker said, Palacios has not experienced a concrete and particularized injury as a result of Fitial vetoing HLB 17-44.

Second, even if the congressman had suffered an injury, which he has not, there is no causation as the governor is entitled to veto a bill for any reason, Stanker said.

Third, the lawyer said, the veto will not be “redressed by a favorable decision” because the court cannot pass the law, the requested relief will not place the bill before the governor for approval, and the governor could still veto the bill even if the court gave a favorable decision.