Far from over

It wasn’t a surprise at all that former governor Benigno R. Fitial asked to be pardoned shortly after he was sentenced to one-year imprisonment for misconduct in public office and conspiracy to commit theft of service. But the same could not necessarily be said about the speed with which Gov. Eloy S. Inos considered a pardon, prompting the Board of Parole to expeditiously schedule a hearing on June 30 and, if necessary, also on July 1.

Fitial, the first CNMI governor to be convicted and sentenced to jail for crimes committed during his term as well as the first to be impeached by the House of Representatives, is now banking on Inos’ pardon. The two are longtime friends and colleagues.

If and when Inos makes a final decision soon, Fitial need not spend a minute in jail on or before July 6, 2015 as ordered by the court.

When Inos came into office, he vowed to rebuild the people’s trust in government and this is one of those critical times for him to lead the way.

A final decision to grant or not grant a pardon for Fitial could singlehandedly define Inos’ leadership and legacy, and may well overshadow his administration’s successes and challenges. Fitial’s legacy has already been defined, but not Inos’.

The final decision, after consultation with the Board of Parole and others, rests with Inos alone.

But much more important than defining a legacy, Inos’ final decision would weaken or embolden people’s resolve to hold every CNMI elected official accountable for their actions.

It is about doing the right thing not for one individual but for the CNMI as a whole.

What Fitial did and what Inos is about to do will have a lasting effect on CNMI politics and government for generations to come, and will serve as lessons for both sitting and aspiring leaders.

Inos does not have to go with the seven-member Board of Parole’s recommendation at all, and could just sit on a final decision.

Fitial is the first in the CNMI, at least in recent history, to seek pardon even before he could serve a single day of his sentence, according to Rep. Joseph Lee Pan Guerrero (R-Saipan), who was interviewed for this column strictly on the pardon process. Guerrero spent a total of 18 years with the CNMI Parole Office, eight years of which was as the chief parole officer.

As far as Guerrero can remember, there’s a total of about a dozen pardons and commutations under the administrations of former governors Juan N. Babauta, Pedro P. Tenorio, and Fitial. About half of those were during Babauta’s term.

Inos, meanwhile, issued on Oct. 11, 2013 an absolute pardon on then Labor secretary nominee Edith Deleon Guerrero, who was convicted of assault and battery in a domestic case more than a decade ago.

Under Article II Section 9(c) of the NMI Constitution, the governor shall, after consultation with the Board of Parole, have the clemency power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons after convictions to any person for all offenses except impeachments.

The Commonwealth Code, specifically 6 CMC 4251, states that a “reprieve” shall postpone the execution of a sentence, whereas a “commutation” substitutes a lighter penalty for that imposed by the court.

A “pardon,” meanwhile, ends penalties or legal disabilities imposed after conviction. The governor may grant an absolute pardon, a conditional pardon, or a partial pardon.

Under 6 CMC 4251, an “absolute pardon” frees the person without any conditions, terminates any punishment and exonerates the person from any guilt or conviction.

A “conditional pardon” depends upon the performance of some act by the person for its validity, or which may become void when some specific event transpires.

Lastly, a “partial pardon” remits only some portion of the punishment, or absolves the person from a portion of the legal consequences, or restores one or more of the person’s civil liberties after conviction.

“Prior to granting any reprieve, commutation or pardon, the Governor shall, after initial consultation with the Board of Parole, submit a written notice of intention to grant to an individual a reprieve, commutation or pardon, as the case may be, to the Board of Parole and shall thereafter again consult with the Board of Parole,” 6 CMC 4251 states.

It adds, “If the Board of Parole fails, neglects or refuses to consult with the Governor on such intention within 30 days of the receipt of the notice, the Board of Parole is deemed to have been consulted and objected to such intention. Prior to submitting the written notice, the Governor shall request and the office of the Attorney General, the Department of Public Safety and the Board of Parole shall provide to the Governor all information relating to the criminal record of the person.”

Since the news came out that the Board of Parole has already scheduled a pardon hearing for Fitial, community members have taken to social media and other online forums supporting or opposing a pardon.

“You do the crime, you do the time regardless of who you are and who you know” is among the main messages.

Others want a consideration of Fitial’s years of public service, his current state of health, his age and his admission of wrongdoing, plus the added cost to the CNMI government of putting him in jail and providing him with medical attention.

But as Superior Court Associate Judge David Wiseman said during the sentencing, the court cannot allow Fitial’s health to depreciate the seriousness of his offenses and that the public’s perception of sentencing is a crucial factor in its overall perception of the justice system.

Those who support and oppose a pardon are hoping that the Board of Parole will review all written and oral comments to help in its consideration whether to recommend or not a pardon for Fitial.

And so, just when people thought that the Fitial saga is coming to an end, comes another defining chapter. By all indications, the story and spectacle of Fitial’s rise and fall is far from over, more than five years after he ordered the temporary release of a federal inmate from prison to give him a massage during the wee hours of the morning at his private residence and three years after shielding his former attorney general from being served a penal summon. (Haidee V. Eugenio)