Court: Boys, it’s the law!

The claim by the administration and Legislature of exemption from the Open Government Act was reportedly shot down by the Superior Court this week.

The Wiseman court told Gov. Eloy S. Inos, Speaker Joseph P. Deleon Guerrero, Reps. Rafael S. Demapan and Felicidad T. Ogumoro, and Senate President Ralph DLG. Torres that they can’t exit the lawsuit filed by Glenn Hunter by hiding behind “legislative immunity.”

Interesting how this cabal thought it could leapfrog its way out of the OGA,, relying on a suspect House rule. But the judge caught them trying to jump over the rails from the second floor of the judicial building.

Attorney Jennifer Dockter pointed out that the CNMI passed a popular initiative that bound the Legislature and the lawmakers to the OGA. But why would the cabal venture a government of fiat—choosing which laws to follow or ignore—while everybody else must abide by them? Isn’t the NMI a government of laws “of the people, for the people and by the people?” Where did you guys miss boarding the ship?

Said Wiseman: “Open Government Act statutes supersede common law enrolled bill.” He pointed out that “legislator defendants have not satisfied their burden of proving they are entitled to legislative immunity, as there is no evidence that attending a meeting constitutes protected legislative activity as envisioned by the framers of the CNMI Constitution. Legislators’ attendance at a meeting held without proper public notice may be considered incidental to legislative affairs, but it cannot be said to be part of the legislative process itself.”

“The court does not find that attending a meeting rises to the level of legislative activity as contemplated by the framers of the CNMI Constitution, as they only specifically mention protection for legislative committees and legislative reports,” Judge Wiseman said.

“Furthermore, the court would be remiss to allow defendants to use the doctrine of legislative immunity as a shield against liability by claiming that their allegedly prohibited acts were merely ‘legislative activity’ where they simultaneously insist that actions taken in contravention of explicit, written CNMI law are typical in the formulation of policy, and that such typical actions do not violate applicable CNMI law. The court finds this argument to be logically flawed and disingenuous at best.”

The laws of the NMI must be followed, including the cabal that thinks it could willfully skirt statutes it feels very uncomfortable with. Now, did you meticulously adhere to rules governing introduction of legislation? Was there an author or was the casino legislation stamped “by request?” If you failed this procedural issue, would you then agree that actions taken on the casino law was illegal? What’s there to hide anyway? What happened to your spouts about transparency? Or is it a standard applied only in seesaw fashion per your convenience?

Reassessing our future

Most decent countries in the world use the principal concept “Linear Progress” to measure its growth and achievements for its people. It reviews its achievement delving into adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy.

Using a set of plans with vision, rhetoric and mechanism or vehicle, was the NMI ever engaged in any serious review in order to move from issues point A to B in the creation of economic prosperity over the last 10 years? Or did we simply sink into complacency and mediocrity?

If nothing significant has happened then it stands to reason that we basically pushed our canoe out to the open waters saying, “happy sailing.” Whatever happened to “planning for” our future?

Discussion of indigenous issues

We’ve begun informal discussions to define the identity of the indigenous people seesawing between tradition and modernity. Displaced, we glide like white doves over 400 years of change forcibly imposed by every colonial power that set foot on these isles. Indefatigably, our spirit long for what is ours as indigenous people of this archipelago.

In earnest, we ask rudimentary queries like what is the indigenous cultural identity of these isles? Is it in ancestral icons like legendary Taga and his latte stone? Is it in our ancestral relationship with the land and sea? Is it in our local vernacular or Chamorro? The list could go on but is it an issue we could define and pass on to our children in orature or written literature? Though a difficult undertaking, we can no longer postpone nor ignore it. It has to be done forthwith so we have something to begin sharing with our children.

In formulating the framework for initial discussion, do we focus exclusively on Chamorro or Carolinian or both, premised on historical facts? Or do we go for an inclusive paradigm, taking the social changes here over the last 40-60 years? The latter pertains to the shift to a multicultural, multiracial and multilingual NMI.

Do we embrace an inclusive multi-tiered approach by constructing new cultural ballast to be accommodating, including the view that tradition retards socio-economic growth? Does it mean the creation of a political ecosystem—an artificial reef—where every fish could learn to adapt to its new surroundings?

What about cultural tradition that made us uniquely a people of these isles? Why can’t we hold on to a natural reef that is part of our surroundings and a permanent source of sustenance for over 400 years?

Personally, there’s no animus for the rapacious nature of colonial history in these isles. Fortunately, every attempt to permanently annihilate our mother tongue failed. The reason is simple: It is a permanent part of our spiritual being since birth.

We have to resolve our cultural identity lest we slowly slide and accommodate the submission that we would live as the new minority right here at home. Is this archipelago home or just another place in the tropical sun of paradise? Is there a difference between a “place” and “home”?