What is public interest?

The word “public” has emerged in our discourse of recent months with some doubts whether that speaker or writer within our Legislature had made good to the meaning of the word in the context it was used. Elected officials in our CNMI government has been the Rubicon in translating meaning or confusion as they eloquently made references of the word either as a “noun” or “adjective” in their intended messages. In just about every introductory part of bills introduced or approved statutes of recent days made references to the phrase “in the public interest,” but made very little room expressing what this part of the introductory description really means. What is public interest, or is the interest of the public known and could be expressed in none controversial terms and justified by factual empirical information that purports the law of the bill or codified law? What and who is the “public” referred to in bills and codified laws affecting the lives of people in the CNMI?

We have public hearings to satisfy the due process aspect of the making and shaping of proposed laws that would eventually become what the public policy about issues like public lands, public education, public works, public health, public easements, public transportation, public safety, and other traditional governmental operations and services. The “public” in all these areas draws specific interest of special groups that are moved and engaged more vocal efforts advocating their guarded positions than others in forming and pursuing the “public interest” which may defer with what politicians based their public policy decisions.

More and more of our elected officials rely on public opinions polls and hearsay that runs afoul with other credible and substantive data which are conflicting and contradicting with the threshold of what really the “public interest” in consequential public policies. Hence, strange as it is, our leaders almost predictably say something about “public” in more context than ever before, had lost almost all sense of what the word might actually mean. The use of the word “public” comes in every direction and forms the ordinary person unnaturally assume that it must mean something.  When any elected official could not articulate in convincing and clarifying personal capacity about his/her conception and understanding of what the real and truthful “public interest” is in a bill or codified law, we have a problem. 

This should tell us that the “public” dimension of our lives is losing its vitality because our elected officials in our CNMI Legislature are waning confidence in their ability to govern with the laws that passed through both chambers of this branch of our government. And, above all, it would not matter that the “public” and “public interest” referenced in a bill or codified law gives rise to specific and only meaning, what makes the difference would be the subsequent statutory construction that follows, in which the law is subject to opinion by the court, repeal by the legislature, or consistently acted upon by executive performance.  If the “public interest” and “public” could not be intelligently articulated by some of our elected officials in our legislature, then why would one even vote on a bill absent full understanding who the “public” is and what is the “public interest”? Sadly, domination by that smallest “public” in our CNMI community particularly our few elitists in public offices, the educated, informed, intelligent, wealthy people, and mix that juggle the “public interest” into actionable and transmissible realities, and ended up being viewed by our community (common unity) as preferable to universal stupidity, or even democracy.  More than 99% of us are out of the game plan, because it is acceptable to let things sail down river until one could hopefully point out that something is not right and reversal of future directions will be the new order of the day at that point in time.

Hence, the only key questions to all these is to challenge our lawmakers by asking who the “public” and what the “public interest” being represented in and by the law based on factual and empirical data. Rational and rhetorical assumptions are adage for, with, and to the fools. We, as recipients of the laws drafted by our lawmakers and passed into laws, deserve a more explained and justified public policies that represents the “public” and the “public interest” of 99% of the community (common unity) who would never see and hear the day light of the issues being discussed and put to order for our benefit. Hence, the ultimate value that counts is:  what is the “public good”?  Which is the subject of subsequent discussions for your readers, and, are ordained and established in the CNMI Constitution. 

Francisco R. Agulto
Kannat Tabla, Saipan