Previous Story
DPL now required to pay land compensations
|
Posted on Mar 10 2009
The Senate yesterday overrode Gov. Benigno R. Fitial’s veto of a bill authorizing the Department of Public Lands to pay land compensation judgments, about a month after the House of Representatives also overrode the veto on Feb. 13.
House Bill 16-206 is now law with the override of both House and Senate, and the administration, which said the bill is unconstitutional, has to put a “number” on this new public law.
All the eight senators present at yesterday’s session voted “yes” on the override of H.B. 16-206, authored by Rep. Heinz S. Hofschneider and Rep. Stanley Torres.
Sen. Paul Manglona was absent at yesterday’s session, originally scheduled for 1pm but started at 2:30pm to wait for senators whose flight from Tinian was delayed.
Press secretary Charles P. Reyes Jr. said the Fitial administration continues to stand by its constitutional argument for disapproving that bill.
“The Constitution does not provide for land compensation payments sourced from public land lease income. The Constitution directs that DPL collect the rents and deduct administrative expenses before forwarding the balance to MPLT for investment. MPLT then prudently invests the funds and remits earnings to the Legislature for general appropriation. This bill contradicts this constitutional process,” he said.
In vetoing the bill on Feb. 11, the governor said there is nowhere in Article XI of the CNMI Constitution that mentions land compensation payments as one of the allowable expenses from moneys received from public lands.
But lawmakers said DPL has been sued over land compensation payments, and it’s time the agency fulfills its duty to pay for land compensation.
On Jan. 8, for example, the CNMI Superior Court ordered DPL to pay $1.8 million to the heirs of Rita Rogolifoi as compensation for the family’s As Mahetog lands that were used by the government for public projects in 1976 and 1992.
H.B.16-206 authorizes DPL to pay for land compensation judgments using its operations fund bank accounts “in cases where land exchange is not a viable or desirable option.”
