House questions AGO’s move on land payments

The House leadership is questioning the Attorney General’s Office’s move to stop the processing of land compensation drawdowns by the Marianas Public Lands Authority, saying the law authorizes the MPLA to disburse the funds.

In a May 17 letter to attorney general Pamela Brown, Vice Speaker Timothy Villagomez cited the land compensation law, Public Law 13-17 as amended by Public Law 13-25, which provides that the MPLA commissioner shall have expenditure authority over the Land Compensation Account within the Department of Finance, subject to the approval of the MPLA board.

“Neither P.L.13-17 and P.L. 13-25, nor any subsequent public law regarding land compensation claims, require that all land compensation claims be approved by the AGO prior to requesting a drawdown from the Department of Finance,” said Villagomez.

Villagomez said that, as long as MPLA complies with all relevant public laws and its own rules and regulations regarding land compensation claims, any agreement between MPLA and a landowner should be valid and payable by Finance.

“If the AGO believes that a particular land claim agreement violates the Act, then the AGO should take the proper legal action against such claim, rather than trying to arbitrarily control the process from within,” said Villagomez.

In a May 9 letter, the AGO instructed Finance to stop processing all land compensation drawdowns amid concerns over the MPLA’s handling of recent land compensation payments.

At least two drawdown requests were pending at the Finance Department as of May 9. The AGO said that it is currently reviewing several other drawdown requests.

“This office is currently reviewing several drawdowns that you have been sent through your office for your approval. Additionally, we are contemplating taking action against MPLA with respect to such drawdowns. As such, I ask that you do not process any land compensation payments until further notice,” acting attorney general Clyde Lemons said in the letter.

The AGO acknowledged that confusion in land payment computations arose following the enactment of Public Law 14-29, which changed the method for valuation of land.

While P.L. 13-25 ensured that individuals with land compensation claims received the actual value of the land at the time of the taking, P.L. 14-29 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.

This caused the amount of recent land compensation payments to shoot up.

For instance, the MPLA recent computation of the controversial Malite estate rose to $3.45 million. In 1978, the estate only amounted to $3,682, a payment which the family said had never reached them. A re-computation of the Malite estate at 9 percent interest compounded annually was $34,610.

The Malite estate’s $3.45 million payment dispute is under litigation.

Villagomez warned that the AGO’s interference would further delay the land compensation process. He said that landowners who have waited for several years for their compensation do not deserve to wait any longer.

“Logic should tell you that the longer the government delays just compensation, the more the government would pay in interest. The AGO should refrain from creating another superfluous and needless layer of bureaucracy,” said Villagomez.