Lizama revises order anew on Atalig appeal

The CNMI Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon revised its previous order regarding scheduling, allowing defeated Rota mayoral candidate Vicente Manglona Atalig to file his “late” appeal briefing.

Justice pro tempore Juan T. Lizama changed the scheduling to permit Atalig to submit his brief by Tuesday, Jan. 3.

Lizama, however, said this is on the condition that Atalig will—if the appellees Commonwealth Election Commission, its commissioners, Rota mayor-elect Joseph S. Inos so request—agree to a later oral argument in the case.

The justice pro tempore said that, due to prior scheduling commitments, he is unable to hear oral arguments between Jan. 6 and 15, 2006.

“The court recognizes that scheduling oral arguments after Jan. 10, 2006, would be inconsistent with the controlling statute. However, if appellees require further time to prepare, appellees may file for leave of court to reschedule the oral arguments for Jan. 16, 2005,” he said.

Otherwise, Lizama said, the appellees’ brief is now due Jan. 4, 2006, and oral arguments will still be held on Jan. 5, 2006, Lizama said.

It was the second time Lizama revised the scheduling order.

He first revised the schedule when Atalig asked for a short extension. He granted Atalig until 3pm on Dec. 30, 2005, to file his brief, but did not grant the appellees any additional time in which to respond to Atalig’s brief. Atalig failed to file his brief on Dec. 30.

On the morning of Jan. 3, the Attorney General’s Office asked the High Court to dismiss Atalig’s appeal after he failed to beat the deadline in filing his appeal.

Assistant attorneys general Arin Greenwood and James D. Livingstone, on behalf of CEC and its commissioners, also asked the high tribunal to impose monetary or disciplinary sanctions on Atalig for failing to prosecute the appeal.

Attorney Stephen C. Woodruff, counsel for Atalig, in a note written on Dec. 30, explained that he could not file the pleadings because of an emergency family matter.

Meanwhile, in Atalig’s pleadings filed Tuesday afternoon, Woodruff asked the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Superior Court dismissing the election contest.

Woodruff requested the high tribunal to remand the case to the Superior Court with instructions to have the absentee ballot envelopes be opened by the CEC in the presence of counsel for the parties and processed according to law and the directions of the court for tabulation or rejection.

Woodruff further asked the High Court to order the CEC to, among other things, determine the number of absentee ballots received from Election District 6 (Rota).

The lawyer said that, if the number is less than nine, the court should terminate the proceedings with no change in election results.

He also requested the following court action:

– Separate the absentee ballot envelopes received from Election District 6 from all others received. Only absentee ballot envelopes for District 6 should be processed further.

– Process the voter affidavits ballot envelopes and ballots contained in the absentee ballot envelopes, regardless of the presence or legibility of a postmark on the reply envelope.

– Tabulate only those absentee ballots received from Election District 6 and only those votes cast for the office of Mayor of Rota.

Woodruff also insisted that the election contest complaint was timely filed because it was filed within the 15-day deadline provided by law.

Woodruff said the seven-day deadline is inapplicable on account of the unlawful action of the CEC, which prevented Atalig from even discovering the facts that would properly support his election contest.

He said the Superior Court’s construction and application of the seven days limitation period, if allowed to stand, “would undermine the sound public policy of discouraging election contests.”

Instead, he asserted, the court ruling would only promote election contests by compelling potential plaintiffs with doubt or uncertainty whether they have valid or viable grounds for an election contest, to rush to court and file their questionable case within seven days.