AGO, MPLA squabble heats up

The Marianas Public Lands Authority and the Attorney General’s Office blamed each other yesterday for the confusion caused by the recent implementation of a new land compensation law.

In a special MPLA board meeting, acting attorney general James Livingstone faced off with the MPLA board and its battery of lawyers, defending the AGO’s proposal that both agencies jointly pose a certified question before the Supreme Court regarding land compensation matters.

Livingstone reiterated that, while the administration did not intend to delay the disbursement of funds to land claimants, the processing of land compensation payments must be suspended until the Supreme Court establishes a fair and equitable procedure to resolve land compensation issues.

However, MPLA chair Ana Demapan-Castro and MPLA’s lawyers maintained that there would have been no need for a certified question had the AGO not refused to issue a legal opinion on Public Law 14-29, which MPLA had been requesting since October 2004.

The MPLA officials also asked why the AGO was acting only now to establish guidelines for land compensation, when most of funds had already been disbursed.

In response, Livingstone pointed out that the AGO and MPLA had several discussions about the new law. He added that the AGO had repeatedly asked MPLA to participate in a certified question. But “you’re not listening,” he told MPLA.

Further, the board questioned the AGO’s authority to instruct the Department of Finance to stop processing all land compensation payments. Then acting attorney general Clyde Lemons has done so in a May 9 memorandum to Finance Secretary Fermin Atalig.

While he failed to cite any specific law granting the AGO such authority, Livingstone said he thought it reasonable to implement the suspension under the present circumstances.

Jose M. Castro, a land compensation claimant who was given a chance to speak during the meeting, urged the AGO and MPLA to resolve their differences among themselves.

Castro, whose As Lito property was taken by the government as early as 1990, said his compensation was long overdue and he could not wait any longer.

“I hope the AGO will retract its memorandum to Finance. You should find a solution to this problem. Don’t waste any more taxpayers’ money fighting in court,” he said.

In the end, the board made no final decision on the AGO’s request. The meeting will resume at 1pm today.

“Generally, the issues we would like to be resolved through the certified question are: (1) what exact procedures should be used in resolving claims with the MPLA; (2) what is the effect of 14-29 on determining the time of the taking and issues related to the governor’s ability to do certifications; and (3) what [factors] should be considered to determine just compensation,” Livingstone said in an interview.

“We don’t want to delay the process. But because of recent developments, we think it’s a fair and equitable way to create clear guidelines to apply to all payments. So that when one family or another receives compensation, everyone understands how it was calculated and what the basis was…and there’s no questions that it is appropriate because it is based on guidelines from the Supreme Court,” he added.

On Oct. 26. 2006, shortly after the implementation of P.L. 10-29, MPLA wrote then acting attorney general Lemons to make an emergency request for legal opinion.

Specifically, Demapan-Castro asked Lemons to interpret a provision in P.L. 10-29, which re-defines the “time of taking” based on the date when the governor certifies in writing the need for the acquisition of private land, rather than the date the government first entered, occupied, and used the private land for a public purpose.

“Other than the additional time and expense that will be necessary to re-prioritize and re-appraise all pending land compensation claims and send out new offers to claimants, there are serious constitutional questions concerning just compensation that must be addressed,” Demapan-Castro said. “Does the governor’s date of certification satisfy the definition of just compensation rather than the date the government first divested the landowner of the use and enjoyment of his or her private land?”