Ada-Hocog’s candidacy denied

The Commonwealth Election Commission refused yesterday to certify the nomination of Covenant Party candidate Rose Nelly T. Ada-Hocog, standing pat on its interpretation of eligibility requirements for candidates for the House of Representatives.

Hours of arguments and deliberations ended with the CEC issuing a letter reiterating its July 15, 2005 ruling in the case of Democratic Party member Raymond Palacios. CEC had turned down Palacios’ House candidacy after finding that he was not registered to vote in the election district he wanted to represent for two years before the date of election.

“[The election law] contains two distinct and separate requirements for candidates for the House of Representatives: a candidate must be both registered to vote and registered to vote in the election district where he or she is a candidate for at least two years immediately preceding the date of election,” CEC chair Miguel M. Sablan said in a letter to Ada-Hocog.

Based on this ruling, Ada-Hocog is ineligible to run for the House of Representatives for the Nov. 5, 2005 election. Her name was stricken off the voters list after she failed to vote in the 2003 election.

“The Commonwealth Election Commission must therefore refuse to certify your candidacy for the House of Representatives in election district 1 for the Nov. 5, 2005 general election,” Sablan told Ada-Hocog.

Matthew T. Gregory, attorney for Ada-Hocog, said they would appeal the case in the CNMI courts. “We haven’t decided yet how we’re going to do it, but we’re confident that we will prevail,” he said.

Gregory acknowledged that time is of the essence in the case. He said he is certain that the court would understand the urgency of the matter.

Gregory and attorney Perry Inos were given an opportunity to argue Ada-Hocog’s case at the election commissioners’ meeting yesterday.

Both attorneys maintained that the CNMI Constitution did not contain any requirement that candidates for the House of Representatives be a registered voter for two years. In addition, the election statute, Public Law 12-18, should be interpreted in a way that would not conflict with the Constitution.

Gregory pointed out that Section 3b of Article II of the Constitution requires that a representative be qualified to vote in the Commonwealth and at the same time, allowed the Legislature to enact laws requiring a longer residency and domicile requirement.

Meanwhile, Section 3c of the same article stated only that a candidate for the House of Representatives be a registered voter of the election district where he or she is a candidate.

“The Constitution does not provide any basis for a two-year period for registering to vote. A statute should be interpreted in keeping with the Constitution,” Gregory said. “Public Law 12-18 does not conflict with the Constitution if it is read to require two years residency, but not two years as a registered voter.”

For its part, the CEC maintained at the hearing that its interpretation of P.L. 12-18, as applied in Palacios’ case, actually aimed to correct a previous mistake made by the commission regarding eligibility requirements for House candidates.

The election commission added that three or four other potential candidates for the Nov. 5, 2005 had been turned down based on this ruling.

Whether or not such ruling should be reversed is a decision that only the court, not the agency, can make, added CEC executive director Gregorio Sablan.