‘Pay hike violates Constitution’

The CNMI Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the 80-percent pay hike enacted through Public Law 19-83 violates the CNMI Constitution by failing to provide the requirements needed to enact a legislative pay hike.

After reviewing the petitions of both parties involved in the Manibusan v. Larson case, the Supreme Court ruled that the legislative increase enacted by Public Law 19-83 (as well as previous public laws enacting legislative salary hikes) was unconstitutional because it contravened at least one of the mandates in Section 10 of the CNMI Constitution.

Section 10 requires that the advisory commission that is looking at a possible wage hike should pick a composite price index, review the percentage change of that CPI for the period since the last salary change, and make a salary recommendation that falls within the percentage change.

The Supreme Court instructed the Superior Court to resume proceedings and determine whether the salary increase should be deemed void from the very beginning (starting from the salary increases enacted in Public Law 4-32) or prospectively.

Comments

On an online post from one of the biggest critics of Public Law 19-83, Rep. Edwin K. Propst (Ind-Saipan) said that, although he favors the court’s ruling, he strongly believes that the law should be eliminated altogether.

“The 80-percent salary increases for elected officials must be retracted and corrected, but I would prefer to see it eliminated entirely as stated in my numerous comments in the local media and social media. Perhaps now is the time for the 20th Legislature to support H.B. 20-39, a bill Rep. Ed Villagomez and I introduced in February of 2017 that will eliminate the 80-percent salary increases for elected officials altogether,” he said.

Propst added that he and five other lawmakers stand firm in their belief that no one should receive the 80-percent pay hike.

“I want to thank my colleagues Reps. Vinnie Sablan, Ed Villagomez, B.J. Attao, and Ralph Yumul for voting against the 80-percent salary increases for elected officials. …The five of us withstood repeated attacks from many who said we should not receive the 80-percent salary increases since we voted against it, but we persevered and continued to insist that no one should receive the 80-percent salary increases because it is unconstitutional and unfair,” he said.

House Ways and Means Committee chair Rep. Angel Demapan (R-Saipan) said that, with the Supreme Court decision, the money that would have gone to legislative salaries can now be allotted to the Commonwealth Healthcare Corp.

“I am grateful that the court has finally made a decision on this matter. As we negotiated in the current fiscal year budget, in the event the court rules unfavorably, the funds for this purpose would go to CHCC to help defray the costs incurred as a result of uncompensated care and other services,” he said.

The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres also released a statement acknowledging the Supreme Court’s decision.

“We respect the Supreme Court’s decision, and we acknowledge their due diligence in fulfilling their constitutional duty on this important issue. It provides clarity to the process, which was the intent of the certified question,” it said.

According to the administration, it was the advisory commission’s intent to modernize the salary scale, with the focus not on the current legislature, but to encourage a future number of quality candidates, who would serve the Commonwealth with a commensurate wage.

“Our islands expect much of our public servants. We all want good government. The work and sacrifice to serve our community are a justification for a modernized compensation that reflects the evolving challenges of being an elected official,” they said.

House Speaker Rafael Demapan (R-Saipan), the author of the House bill that is now Public Law 19-83, refused to comment on the Supreme Court’s decision until he has read it in full.