Court Opinion

ID: 9900489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:23:51.831643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:06.407155
License: Public Domain

E-FILED
                                                            CNMI SUPREME COURT
                                                            E-filed: Oct 31 2023 10:23AM
                                                            Clerk Review: Oct 31 2023 10:23AM
                                                            Filing ID: 71236231
                                                            Case No.: 2022-SCC-0007-CIV
                                                            NoraV Borja

                              IN THE
                       Supreme Court
                              OF THE

  Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

RALPH DLG. TORRES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE
       COMMONWEALTH, AND THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
                       Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                 v.

   HOUSE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY & GOVERNMENTAL
OPERATIONS, 22ND NORTHERN MARIANAS COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATURE,
                       Defendant-Appellee.

             Supreme Court No. 2022-SCC-0007-CIV

                 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

                        Cite as: 2023 MP 10

                     Decided October 31, 2023

            JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
            JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE ROBERT J. TORRES, JR.
            JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS

             Superior Court Civil Action No. 21-0333-CV
           Judge Pro Tempore Timothy H. Bellas, Presiding
                  Torres v. House Standing Comm. on JGO, 2023 MP 10

CARBULLIDO, J.:
¶1      Plaintiffs-Appellants former Governor Ralph DLG. Torres and the Office
 of the Governor (collectively, “the Governor”) appeal a Superior Court Order
 dismissing this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the NMI Rules of Civil
 Procedure. For the following reasons, we DISMISS the appeal.
                       I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2     On December 4, 2021, the House Standing Committee on Judiciary &
 Governmental Operations of the 22nd Northern Marianas Commonwealth
 Legislature (“the Committee”) served the Governor with a subpoena. The
 subpoena “commanded” the Governor to appear before it during a scheduled
 Committee proceeding to testify on “government expenditures and related
 matters” and stated that failure to appear may subject Governor Torres to
 contempt pursuant to 1 CMC §§ 1306, 1307. App. at 35. Governor Torres did not
 appear to testify on the designated date, and the Committee voted to hold him in
 contempt. Subsequently, the Governor sued the Committee in the
 Commonwealth Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the subpoena violated
 Commonwealth law and that its enforcement would violate the NMI
 Constitution.
¶3     The Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the NMI
 Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the legislative immunity provided by the
 NMI Constitution should operate as an absolute bar to the Governor’s lawsuit.
 Appellee’s Br. at 15. The Superior Court agreed with the Committee and
 dismissed the case with prejudice. 1 The Governor now appeals that
 determination.
                                II. JURISDICTION
¶4      We have appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of the
 Commonwealth Superior Court. NMI CONST. art. IV, § 3. The Court lacks
 jurisdiction to decide cases that are moot. Govendo v. Micronesian Garment
 Mfg., Inc., 2 NMI 272, 281 (1991).
                                  III. DISCUSSION
¶5     We must first decide whether it would be prudent to assert jurisdiction.
 This Court has a duty to “decide actual controversies by a judgment which can
 be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions . . . or to
 declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the
 case before it.” Govendo, 2 NMI at 281 (quoting Wong v. Bd. of Regents, Univ.
 of Haw., 616 P.2d 201, 204 (Haw. 1980)).

1
    “Dismissal with prejudice . . . precludes later relitiga[tion of] the same claims.” DPL v.
    Blas, 2023 MP 7 ¶ 26 (quoting Papera v. Pa. Quarried Bluestone Co., 948 F.3d 607,
    610 (3d Cir. 2020)).
                  Torres v. House Standing Comm. on JGO, 2023 MP 10

¶6      Mootness occurs when events following the filing of a suit or appeal
 eliminate the actual controversy between the parties of the original dispute. See
 Oriental Crystal Ltd. v. Lone Star Casino Corp., 5 NMI 122, 123 (1997) (noting
 events that this Court has held to have mooted cases on appeal). The central
 question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstance since the
 start of litigation have forestalled any meaningful relief by the Court. West v.
 Sec’y of Dep’t of Transp., 206 F.3d 920, 925 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation
 omitted).
¶7      On January 5, 2023, the 22nd Session of the NMI House of
 Representatives adjourned sine die. The following Monday, the 23rd Session of
 the NMI House of Representatives was sworn in and began holding session. We
 take judicial notice of these facts.2
¶8      This case has been rendered moot by the adjournment of the 22nd Session
 of the NMI House of Representatives. The NMI House of Representatives is not
 expressly provided with any power to continue conducting business after the
 adjournment of a term. 3 The Constitution specifies that the members of the
 Legislature form “a continuous body” only for two years beginning the second
 Monday of January after a regular general election. NMI CONST. art. II, § 13;
 Mafnas v. Inos, 1 NMI 101, 106 (1990) (“[T]he Commonwealth Legislature is
 not continuous indefinitely but is a continuous body only for two years, after
 which it is adjourned sine die and replaced by a new legislature.”).4
¶9      Additionally, all representatives hold office for a term of two years. NMI
 CONST. art. II, § 3(a); 1 CMC § 1103(b). At the start of each Legislature, the
 House must “[c]hoose its presiding officer from among its members, establish
 the committees necessary for the conduct of its business, and promulgate rules
 of procedure.” 1 CMC § 1104(b). The NMI House of Representatives must
 essentially reestablish itself biannually to initiate any business. The 22nd
 Legislature, as a legal entity, ceased to exist in January 2023 and was overwritten

2
    Under NMI Rule of Evidence 201, the Court may judicially note “a fact that is not
    subject to reasonable dispute” because it can be accurately and readily determined from
    sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” NMI R. EVID. 201(b)(2).
    This Court has also previously taken judicial notice of the termination of prior
    Commonwealth Legislatures. See Sablan v. Tenorio, 4 NMI 351, 363 (1996) (“The
    Court takes judicial notice of the fact that during the pendency of this appeal, the Ninth
    Commonwealth Legislature ceased to exist . . . .”).
3
    Generally, pending matters before legislative bodies expire when the legislature’s term
    expires. See In re Status of Certain Tenth Legislature Bills, 5 NMI 155, 157 (1998)
    (“All bills which were pending in the Tenth Legislature died after final adjournment.”)
    (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis removed).
4
    In contrast, a continuing body, such as the United States Senate, may “continue its
    committees through the recess following the expiration” of a session. McGrain v.
    Daughtery, 273 U.S. 135, 181 (1927) (internal quotation marks omitted).
                Torres v. House Standing Comm. on JGO, 2023 MP 10

 wholesale by the 23rd Legislature. See Mafnas, 1 NMI at 106; Sablan, 4 NMI at
 356 n.10.
¶ 10      The Committee of the 22nd House was established under the Rules of the
  NMI House of Representatives adopted at the initiation of the 22nd Legislature.
  See H. R. Res. 22-01, 22nd Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (N. Mar. I. 2021), App. A at Rule
  VII, § 1 and Rule VIII, § 4 (creating the House Standing Committee on Judiciary
  and Governmental Operations). The Committee cannot continue as a legal entity
  beyond the termination of the authorizing Legislature. See In re Status of Certain
  Tenth Legislature Bills, supra at ¶ 8 n.3; see also Swing v. Riley, 90 P.2d 313,
  316 (Cal. 1939) (“The power to investigate by committees is subsidiary to the
  legislative power. When the main power ceases, the auxiliary power dies with
  it.”). Following the termination of the 22nd House and establishment of the 23rd
  House, the Committee of the 23rd House of Representatives is a distinct entity
  governed by separate Rules and comprised of new members. The Committee of
  the 22nd House—the defendant-appellee—no longer exists.
¶ 11     Of note, this case is also moot because former Governor Torres left office
  in January 2023. This appeal was brought jointly by former Governor Torres in
  his official capacity as Governor and the Office of the Governor. While the Office
  continues under the direction of a newly elected Governor, former Governor
  Torres no longer has authority to act in any official capacity and he is not named
  as a plaintiff-appellant in his personal capacity.
¶ 12     As both issues on appeal stem from the applicability of legislative
  immunity for a legislature that no longer exists against a Governor who has left
  office, no actual controversy exists. Absent a live controversy between adversary
  parties, this Court has discretion to not declare any rule of law or reach the merits
  of the appeal. Govendo, 2 NMI at 281. We exercise this discretion and decline to
  review this case.
¶ 13      We acknowledge the existence of an exception to the mootness doctrine
  for issues that are capable of repetition yet evading review. See In re
  Commonwealth, 2022 MP 5 ¶ 9. Nonetheless, we opt not to invoke this exception
  in the present case. Though the matter at hand may bear significant public
  importance, the circumstances that gave rise to this controversy—specifically,
  the tenures of former Governor Torres and the 22nd Session of the NMI House
  of Representatives—have both concluded. This change in circumstance
  significantly diminishes the likelihood of this particular issue recurring in the
  same manner and then evading appellate review again. As previously asserted in
  Govendo, we believe that “judicial power to resolve public disputes in a system
  of government where there is a separation of powers should be limited to those
  questions capable of resolution and presented in an adversary context.” 2 NMI at
  281 n.12 (quoting Life of the Land v. Land Use Comm’n, 623 P.2d 431, 438
  (Haw. 1981)). Given the absence of a continuing actual controversy, we are
  hesitant to engage with such a consequential matter of separation of powers
  without a clear adversary context.
                  Torres v. House Standing Comm. on JGO, 2023 MP 10

                                  IV. CONCLUSION
¶ 14     Our conclusion that this appeal is moot does not approve or disapprove of
  the decision by the Superior Court to dismiss the suit below under Rule 12(b)(6).
  As noted by the United States Supreme Court:
         [M]ootness, however it may have come about, simply deprives us
         of our power to act; there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we
         were disposed to do so. We are not in the business of pronouncing
         that past actions which have no demonstrable continuing effect
         were right or wrong.
         Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998).
 For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal.

         SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2023.

 /s/
F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
Justice Pro Tempore

 /s/
ROBERT J. TORRES, JR.
Justice Pro Tempore

 /s/
ARTHUR R. BARCINAS
Justice Pro Tempore

                                         COUNSEL

Joseph E. Horey, Richard C. Miller, Saipan, MP, Gilbert J. Birnbrich, Office of the Governor, and
Ross H. Garber, Washington, DC for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Joseph L.G. Taijeron, Jr., Brendan Layde, CNMI House of Representatives for Defendant-
Appellee.

                                           NOTICE

This slip opinion has not been certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for publication
in the permanent law reports. Until certified, it is subject to revision or withdrawal. In any
event of discrepancies between this slip opinion and the opinion certified for publication,
the certified opinion controls. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the
Clerk of the Supreme Court, P.O. Box 502165 Saipan, MP 96950, phone (670) 236–9715,
fax (670) 236–9702, e–mail Supreme.Court@NMIJudiciary.gov.