AGO warns MPLA of taxpayers’ lawsuit

The Attorney General’s Office has accused the Marianas Public Lands Authority of lack of transparency in handling land compensation payments, warning the agency of possible taxpayer lawsuits because of MPLA’s manner of expending public funds.

Acting attorney general James Livingstone said MPLA seemed to be making disbursements “in a manner and in amounts that may not be authorized or permitted by the Land Compensation Act.”

“Our concerns are heightened because of the lack of transparency, as well as the failure to involve the central government, specifically this office, in any of the land compensation negotiations or hearings,” Livingstone told MPLA chair Ana Demapan-Castro in a May 13, 2005 letter.

Demapan-Castro, however, described Livingstone’s letter yesterday as “insulting to MPLA and to me personally.”

She also asked Gov. Juan N. Babauta to instruct Livingstone to be personally present at the MPLA board’s special meeting today, where Livingstone’s concerns will be discussed.

In his letter, Livingstone wrote that MPLA might incur potential liability from bondholders and taxpayers because of its actions concerning land compensation payments, particularly in light of amendments recently made to the original land compensation law.

Enacted in September 2004, Public Law 14-29 changed the method for valuation of private lands taken by the government. The new law defines the “time of taking” as the date when the governor or other authorized government official certifies in writing the need for the acquisition of the private land, as opposed to the date when the land was actually taken.

Because many certifications were made at a time when high market values were prevailing, the amount of recent land compensation payments increased significantly and started depleting the land compensation fund.

“In order to establish a procedure for resolving the land claim payments and minimize the risks of improper disbursements, once again, we ask that MPLA agree to resolve our concerns by posing a certified question before the Supreme Court,” Livingstone said.

Demapan-Castro blamed the confusion arising from P.L. 14-29 on AGO’s own failure to issue an opinion to resolve the ambiguities in the law.

“It is disappointing that the Office of the Attorney General should take such an accusatory position now, especially after the MPLA has repeatedly requested an official [AG] opinion concerning P.L. 14-29 since October 2004,” Demapan-Castro said.

Rather than coming up with an opinion, the AGO has said on several occasions that it was up to MPLA to determine just compensation, she said.

“Since the OAG has repeatedly failed and refused to offer assistance to MPLA in resolving the issues presented by P.L. 14-29, MPLA had no choice but to process land compensation claims on its own, applying the most reasonable interpretation as to the intent of P.L. 14-29,” she added.