The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands recently ruled on a significant dispute between Governor Ralph DLG. Torres and Attorney General Edward E. Manibusan regarding their respective powers. The court's decision clarifies who has the authority to appeal legal cases and whether the governor can hire outside counsel without the attorney general's consent. This ruling affects how legal matters are handled in the Commonwealth and sets important precedents for future governance.
The conflict arose after the governor and attorney general had differing opinions on whether to pursue appeals in certain cases. The court addressed two certified questions: whether the attorney general has the authority to decline to appeal an adverse judgment against the Commonwealth, and whether the governor or government agencies can hire outside counsel to prosecute an appeal without the attorney general's approval. The court answered the first question affirmatively and the second negatively, establishing clear boundaries for the powers of these elected officials.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Ralph DLG. Torres, the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Edward E. Manibusan, the Attorney General. The dispute centers around the authority of the attorney general to decline appeals and the governor's ability to hire outside legal counsel without the attorney general's permission.
The conflict began after the attorney general refused to appeal decisions in two significant cases, Radich v. Guerrero and Murphy v. Guerrero, against the governor's wishes. The situation escalated when the attorney general also declined to appeal a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Davis v. Commonwealth Election Commission, which held that certain provisions of the Northern Mariana Islands Constitution violated the U.S. Constitution. In response, the governor and the Commonwealth Election Commission directed a private attorney to file an appeal without the attorney general's consent, leading to further disputes.
On November 13, 2017, Torres and Manibusan submitted two certified questions to the Supreme Court to resolve their ongoing conflict. The court's jurisdiction to hear the case was based on the constitutional provision allowing elected officials to certify disputes regarding their powers.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court, led by Associate Justice John A. Manglona, ruled that the attorney general has the discretion to decline to appeal adverse judgments, even if the governor or a government agency wishes to pursue the appeal. The court stated, "the attorney general may decline to appeal an adverse judgment despite the wishes of the governor or a client government agency." Furthermore, the court determined that the governor or any client agency cannot hire outside counsel to prosecute an appeal without the attorney general's authorization.
This ruling emphasizes the independence of the attorney general's office and clarifies that the attorney general's authority is central to legal representation for the Commonwealth. The court noted that the attorney general's discretion in prosecuting cases is a critical aspect of maintaining a consistent legal policy within the Commonwealth.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the governance of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. It reinforces the attorney general's role as the chief legal officer and establishes that the governor cannot unilaterally override the attorney general's decisions regarding legal matters. This decision may affect how future legal disputes are handled, particularly in cases where the governor and attorney general have differing opinions.
Additionally, this ruling sets a precedent for the relationship between elected officials in the Commonwealth, emphasizing the importance of checks and balances within the government. The decision may also influence how other jurisdictions interpret similar conflicts between executive officials.
What's Next
The ruling can potentially be appealed, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases. The outcome of this case may lead to further discussions about the roles and responsibilities of the governor and attorney general in the Commonwealth.