The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) has denied a petition filed by Xiao Ru Liu challenging the authority of the Attorney General to prosecute her. The ruling, issued on March 20, 2006, affects Liu, who faces criminal charges, and sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of prosecutorial authority in the CNMI.
Liu was arrested on charges of assault and battery, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, and trespass. She filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and mandamus, seeking to prevent her prosecution by claiming that Attorney General Pamela Brown was not legally appointed. Liu argued that the CNMI Constitution mandates that the Attorney General must be responsible for prosecuting violations of Commonwealth law, and that the court could not delegate this responsibility to the “Office of the Attorney General.”
The Commonwealth opposed Liu's motion, stating that similar motions had been dismissed in other cases, including CNMI v. Peredo, which established that the office, rather than the individual, is responsible for prosecution. The trial court agreed with this interpretation and denied Liu's motion to dismiss her charges.
The Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido, Associate Justice Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, and Associate Justice Robert J. Torres, reviewed Liu's petition. They ruled that while they would not dismiss the petition outright, they would also not grant the writ of mandamus or certiorari. The court stated, "Liu has not established her 'clear and undisputed' right to issuance of the writ."
The court evaluated the five factors established in the case of Tenorio v. Superior Court, which guide the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The first two factors considered whether Liu had adequate means of relief and whether she would suffer irreparable harm. The court concluded that Liu could appeal if convicted, thus having an adequate remedy at law. They stated, "Petitioner concedes she has no right to be free from prosecution altogether."
Regarding the third factor, the court found that the trial court's decision was not clearly erroneous as a matter of law. The judge had relied on the Peredo case, which stated that the vacancy in the Attorney General's office does not prevent prosecutions. The court noted that Liu's challenge to the Attorney General's authority could be raised on appeal after her trial.
The fourth and fifth factors, which address whether the lower court’s order is an oft-repeated error or raises new legal questions, were also found not to favor Liu. The court pointed out that the issue of the Attorney General's appointment was not directly relevant to Liu's case, as the question was whether the office or the individual had prosecutorial authority.
The court also considered Liu's request for certiorari. They noted that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should only be granted when there is no other adequate remedy. The court concluded that Liu had a right to appeal and thus did not meet the threshold for certiorari review.
The ruling has significant implications for Liu, who will now face trial under the authority of the Attorney General. It clarifies that the prosecutorial function in the CNMI is vested in the office rather than the individual Attorney General. This decision could affect future cases involving challenges to the authority of the Attorney General in the CNMI.
Looking ahead, Liu may still appeal the decision after her trial concludes. The court's ruling does not prevent her from raising the issue of the Attorney General's appointment at that time. However, the court has indicated that the proper venue for addressing such challenges may be through a different legal process, such as a quo warranto action, which directly questions the qualifications of a government officer.