Dismissal sought for AG’s suit

Finance Secretary Larrisa Larson sought yesterday the dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Edward Manibusan against her to stop her from paying the governor, lieutenant governor, and lawmakers the salary increases provided in Public Law 19-83.

Larson also asked the Superior Court to disqualify Manibusan from being a counsel or party to the lawsuit.

Larson hired former AG Matthew T. Gregory and attorney Kimberlyn K. King-Hinds as her counsel. She stated in her declaration that she was forced to seek outside counsel at the expense of CNMI taxpayers.

“I am unhappy about this but have no choice,” she said, adding that the matter could have been resolved via a certified question at no added cost to taxpayers.

“A lawsuit and court action should have been a last resort and not the first resort of the AG,” she added.

In Larson’s motions to dismiss and disqualify, Gregory said that Manibusan is essentially suing Larson to have the court declare certain public laws unconstitutional. Curiously, however, the AG only asks the court for an order declaring that the current members of the Legislature’s salary be returned to the pre-1981 level of $8,000, Gregory said.

If, in fact, Section 3(a) of Public Law 7-31 and 4-32 are unconstitutional, some past and present members of the Judiciary—as well as past and present legislators, governors, and lieutenant governors—unjustly received and are currently receiving salaries and pension benefits computed from illegal payments, he said.

The AG also seeks to declare PL 19-83 unconstitutional and stop Larson from paying current legislators as prescribed by P.L. 19-83, which does not actually allow for payments of such salaries.

Gregory asserted that as the chief legal officer of the CNMI government, the AG is constitutionally mandated to advise and represent the Finance secretary, in her official capacity, on many matters pertaining to Finance.

Gregory noted that these actions by the AG against his client, Larson, raise serious concerns of conflict. He said Manibusan is statutorily barred from suing the Finance secretary.

In fact, he said, Manibusan’s claim is not ripe because PL 19-83 does not authorize the Finance secretary to pay the salaries.

He asserted that Larson has no standing as a defendant because she has no stake in the litigation and has no authority to implement the pay hike.

Gregory said Manibusan’s conduct violates the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, since he is suing an existing client.

Gregory said the Office of the Attorney General’s failure to defend Larson and the fact that she is unrepresented violate the Rules.

He noted that on its face, most of Manibusan’s claims that certain pay increases are illegal are barred by the CNMI statute of limitations of six years.

In her declaration, Larson cited, among other things, that as the vice chairperson of the Lottery Commission, she also seeks legal advice from the OAG as the Finance secretary. She relies on the AG for review of all contracts, legal opinions and other things. Finance is also an active member of the Consumer Counsel Task Force.

“With this lawsuit, I have serious concerns and grave doubts about the AG’s ability to represent me regarding these and several other matters which are pending,” she said.

The secretary believes that it is unfair to force her to defend a statute when she has no opinion on the ultimate issues posed by Manibusan’s lawsuit.

“That is the job of the attorney general. I really have no stake or interest in this,” Larson added.

Manibusan’s lawsuit alleges that PL 19-83, which provided the salary increases, is unconstitutional because the Advisory Commission that recommended the increase was not validly constituted, and the increase recommended by the commission for the Legislature exceeded the change in an “accepted price index” since the last time the salary was adjusted.

Manibusan asked the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent Larson from implementing the law.