OAG asks judge Camacho to stop further proceedings

The Office of the Attorney General is requesting Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho to stop further proceedings pertaining to a motion to declare the 2016 Budget Act unconstitutional.

Assistant attorney general David Lochabay, counsel for the government, asserted that Camacho should stay further proceedings pending the CNMI Supreme Court’s decision on the government’s petition to prohibit the judge from hearing on the budget issue.

In the government’s motion to stay filed on Friday, Lochabay said they have shown that Camacho lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion to declare the 2016 Budget Act unconstitutional.

He said the government has also shown that it should be granted a stay of the proceedings under either of the formulations for considering a motion to stay.

Lochabay said litigants are entitled to a stay of the proceedings if they show a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury.

He added that litigants are also entitled to a stay of the proceedings if serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips sharply in the appellants’ favor.

On Thursday, Lochabay filed a petition, asking the CNMI Supreme Court to prohibit Camacho from proceeding with a hearing on the motion to declare the 2016 Budget Act unconstitutional.

On Friday, Camacho set a hearing of the motion to stay for April 29, 2016, to allow the opposing attorney to file opposition.

Attorney Michael Dotts has argued that the Budget Act of 2016 is unconstitutionally unbalanced under the CNMI Constitution because it did not provide for the payment of judgments in a reasonable amount.

Dotts is counsel for plaintiffs Jotonia B. Aguon, Timothy Cruz, and Gorgonny Camacho.

Aguon and Cruz are holding a $35,000 judgment against the government in connection with their lawsuit over the death of their child at the Commonwealth Health Center.

Gorgonny Camacho is holding a $10,000 judgment against the government in connection with his medical malpractice lawsuit against CHC.

To collect payment of the two judgments that were entered in 2013, Dotts filed motions for orders in aid of judgment. He asked the Superior Court to declare the 2016 Budget Act unconstitutional. The two cases were consolidated.

In the government’s motion to stay, Lochabay said there can be little doubt that the Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ standalone motion to declare the 2016 Budget Act unconstitutional.

“This is a post-judgment proceeding in lieu of further proceedings under a motion for an order in aid of judgment,” Lochabay said.

He said Camacho ordered plaintiffs to file the motion to declare because the court determined the motion for order in aid of judgment proceeding was not an appropriate vehicle to declare the 2016 Budget Act unconstitutional.

Lochabay said having made the determination that no jurisdiction was afforded by statutes providing for orders in aid of judgment, the court must have some other source of jurisdiction to hear this post-judgment motion.

“No other source of jurisdiction has been shown to exist,” said Lochabay, insisting that the defendant government has probable success on the merits.

On the irreparable injury issue, Lochabay said should Camacho not issue a stay, the government would be forced to expend scarce government resources litigating matter over which the court has no jurisdiction.

“There is more than a possibility here. There is a certainty,” he said.

On the serious questions issue, Lochabay said this case raises the most serious questions of Commonwealth law.

He said the CNMI Constitution grants to the Legislature the power of the purse and that only the Legislature can appropriate the funds necessary to operate the government.

“Only the Legislature can appropriate the funds necessary to pay these judgments. It is well settled that courts cannot order the Legislature to make an appropriation,” said Lochabay, citing the CNMI Supreme Court’s precedent ruling in Marine Revitalization Corp.’s lawsuit.