A continuing crisis in succession

The electorates of the CNMI should focus on what the first sentence of Section 7 of Article lll of the CNMI Constitution implies. Several days ago, I suggested that the line of succession triggered by resignation, removal, or death of the governor addresses only that.

Removal of the sitting lieutenant governor is anyone’s guess because nothing in Section 7 stipulates about the forfeiture of office by the sitting lieutenant governor. It seems logical that the sitting lieutenant governor could be the subject of forfeiture of office under the same standards of forfeiture of office by the governor. There, a situation ensues in that the sitting governor is forced to accept a person in the order of the line of succession to fill the vacant lieutenant governor office or selection by the sitting governor of a person outside the line of succession. In case of forfeiture of office of the sitting lieutenant governor, the automatic elevation or appointment against the will of the sitting President of the Senate could not serve as the basis of legitimizing the temporary or permanent take over of the lieutenant governor office. The person who is elected to the Senate and holding the office of the President of the Senate must be vetted once again to ensure the qualification and legitimacy of assumption of office of the lieutenant governor office. If that process clears and meets the test of qualification, that would answer the first question.  As no firm information has been offered or explained, whether the vetting actually happened or who conducted the vetting and recorded the investigation, it is hard to say.  But, action of the process must indicate in records or documentation in someone’s office or computer disk. The next step is for the person to resign his or her position as senator of the CNMI Legislature.

We are also reminded that the governor and lieutenant governor came as a paired candidate for and by election. It seems by logical inductive reasoning that the framers of the CNMI Constitution foresaw how the line of succession turning chaotic and unreasonably in disarray when scenarios so perplexing as to render language stated in this section of the Constitution contradicting the present case or situation. A zipper clause was devised to make intelligent and purposeful resolves in due time when factual and actual cases appearing and presenting themselves as the CNMI government striving for maturity in its going concern.

The pairing of the governor and lieutenant governor is part of the consistency and continuity of government, envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Viewed from the perspective that the framers of the Constitution purposefully disregarded mentioning the lieutenant governor in case of removal, resignation or death cause of office vacancy for lieutenant governor and governor has to do with their pairing. 

The sitting lieutenant governor is removable by voluntary, involuntary, or death cause.  But interesting and possibly equally true is when the sitting governor fires the sitting lieutenant governor, for good reason or no reason. This is a point because, speculative or affirmative, the framers must have clear and valid justifications why the lieutenant governor was not implicated in forfeiture of office cause of action as it was only the reference to the governor that entered the written language of Section 7 of Article lll of the CNMI Constitution. The term of office for a paired governor and lieutenant governor extends until the next election and take over of offices by a paired persons at the time.  Hence, the last sentence of Section 7 of Article lll of the CNMI Constitution draws logical meaning. 

The stability of electing a governor is an important concept envisioned by the framers of the CNMI Constitution. Perhaps this was an idea of preserving the dominant party or party electing the governor and lieutenant governor. However, what the framers of the Constitution for good reason favored electing their governor, and succession of office for the lieutenant governor could be resolved by either election or appointment by the sitting governor.  It is for this reason that whoever is elected to fill the governor office vacancy, the lieutenant governor whoever the person would have to deal with the elected governor concerning status of continuation of office. Here is the situation that a sitting lieutenant governor would have to consider resigning from office and pursue taking over the governorship by election of office. And this is the subject of the last sentence of Section 7 of Article lll of the CNMI Constitution.

What is true and possible would be applicable because of the absence of sanctioned rules of engagement as required by the last sentence of Section 7 of Article lll of the CNMI Constitution. It is a sad defining moment of the history of the CNMI government and people that this crisis and damaging breakouts are being ignored by the elected leaders of this government. If there is a blame to all these, it would clearly rests with the Legislature, and the OAG and elected AG. The real and innocent victims of circumstances are the electorates of the CNMI. It is a travesty that would go down in CNMI history as paralysis by obfuscation in government. 

Francisco R. Agulto
Kannat Tabla, Saipan