Manibusan dismantles bill that seeks to abolish DPL

Attorney General Edward Manibusan said yesterday that a House bill to abolish the Department of Public Lands and replace it with a body outside of the Executive Branch would bring the management of public lands full circle, replicating power structures that past lawmakers found in violation of the CNMI Constitution.

Manibusan, in written comments to the bill yesterday, cited a Commonwealth Supreme Court ruling in 2010.

H.B. 19-89 wants to abolish Public Lands and replace it with the Marianas Land Corporation with a board of trustees who would manage and control public lands in the Commonwealth.

Manibusan said an autonomous agency whose management and authority does not serve at the pleasure of the CNMI governor cannot perform a function that the Constitution reserves and assigns to the Executive Branch.

“A constitutional amendment is required if the Legislature is firm in its resolve to place the management and disposition of public lands with an autonomous agency,” Manibusan said.

When sought for comment, Rep. Angel Demapan (R-Saipan) said that since the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” lawmakers should a make a decision based on the constitutional mandate, and take the feedback and comments before making a final decision on the bill.

Manibusan said that placing public lands within a public corporation that can be sued will expose public lands to possible forfeiture.

He said the CNMI only holds bare legal title to properties.

At present, he said, DPL cannot sue or be sued in its own name. This, he said, insulates trust assets from seizure as judgment against the Commonwealth can only be paid out of funds appropriated by the Legislature.

He said the proposed bill will “jeopardize public lands and subject them to seizure for no apparent purpose.”

On a section to prohibit future legislatures from approving or appropriating Capital Improvement Projects for any homestead development projects in the CNMI, Maibusan calls this “unclear” and objectionable, as the Legislature cannot constitutionally prohibit future legislatures from doing so.

To do so would require a constitutional amendment, he said.

“Second, this provision places the last nail in the coffin of the homestead program,” he adds. “Without a source of homestead funding, no permit will be issued for homestead reconstruction.”

On the provision to establish a board of trustees, Manibusan said this would make it impossible for the governor to exercise his executive function with respect to public lands if he or she has no power to appoint the members serving during a term in office. “A six-year term will span gubernatorial terms and is objectionable on these grounds.”

On a provision to restrict the granting of agricultural permits to U.S. citizens, Manibusan said this violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He said the 14th amendment applies to the CNMI, and a state law that discriminates on the basis of alienage can be held only if it can withstand strict judicial scrutiny.

In order to do so, he said, there needs to be compelling state interest. “There is no compelling interest in restricting permits for agricultural purposes to U.S. citizens. In other words, there is no compelling interest in restricting foreign residents lawfully present in the Commonwealth from acquiring agricultural permits for the use of public land.”

Manbisan also notes that that the bill establishes compensation rates at “over twice that established for other boards and commissions in the Commonwealth.” He adds that compensation should fall in line with pay scale to ensure fairness.