‘Make appropriate amendments, produce fair rules’

Editor’s Note: Rep. Sheila Babauta (D-Saipan), delivered the following remarks in the Senate chamber during the public comments section of the session last Monday, Feb. 28, 2022.

Hafa adai, tirow, kaselehlie maingko honorable members of the Senate. My name is Sheila Jack Babauta and I’m here to provide public comment on the Senate Impeachment Rules. I am here in my official capacity as a Precinct 4 representative in the 22nd House of Representatives.

It’s been 47 days since the governor was impeached in the House and, although I’m grateful that there are finally impeachment rules made public, I want to state for the record that these rules are clearly biased and I’m extremely disappointed in the process in which they were adopted: lacking transparency and sufficient notice.

There are two issues I’d like to highlight, the first being Rule 5, Burden of Proof at Hearing requiring “clear and convincing evidence” as the standard of proof, which is unreasonably high.

This is not a criminal case.

Even the CNMI Supreme Court does “not view the Senate impeachment trial as comparable to a civil or criminal proceeding. It is a uniquely legislative and political function” as stated in the letter signed by Chief Justice Castro and Associate Justices Inos and Manglona on Jan. 28, 2022.

The clear and convincing standard of proof is higher than the standard that would have been used for the Gov. Fitial trial. The “clear and convincing” standard of proof is even higher than the standard used in the Trump impeachment trials.

Why? Why are we setting the standard higher than the one used to impeach the President of the United States? There is no standard listed in our CNMI Constitution, and there is no standard listed in the U.S. Constitution, so the unreasonably high standard of “clear and convincing evidence” is clearly meant to work in favor of the governor.

The second issue I’d like to highlight is the limitation on representation and use of legal counsel, limiting the House prosecutors to only the House speaker or, if he declines, only the chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, or if he declines, only the House member selected by the Senate president. This is simply unfair.

The House, which has the burden to prove, only has one prosecutor. The governor, who has no burden of proof whatsoever, has no limitations on his counsel. The House prosecutor is not an attorney, and even with the assistance of two House counsels, only the House prosecutor can ask questions, raise objections, make motions, and make the opening statement and closing argument. The governor’s counsel will be an attorney with training and experience and, again, will have no limitations.

It’s clear that the Senate is limiting our ability to present a robust case and conduct a fair trial. This impeachment process will set precedence. Because this is a first in CNMI history, future CNMI legislatures will look to us, the 22nd Legislature, for guidance on the process and rules.

This is not the example we should be modelling. It is problematic and one-sided. It exerts a chilling effect, ultimately discouraging any future House of Representatives who might want to pursue oversight of the executive or judiciary branch, deterring the House from exercising its clear constitutional right to initiate impeachment proceedings.

The emphasis of the impeachment process is on the significant effects of the governor’s conduct, undermining the integrity of office, neglect of constitutional duties and oath of office, abrogation of power, and abuse of the governmental process.

I urge this body to make appropriate amendments to produce impeachment rules that are fair to the process and the people.

SHEILA THERESE J. BABAUTA (Special to the Saipan Tribune)
Sheila Babauta is a member of the House of Representatives of the 22nd Legislature, representing Precinct 4.