By Zaldy Dandan – Variety Editor
Mr. AG, we need your comments
OVER a month ago, the local Society of Professional Journalists called on the CNMI attorney general — an elected official — to “engage with the press in an open forum regarding issues of public concern.” CNMI SPJ urged the AG “to exercise more transparency” and discuss with the media “the people’s business and what the community has a right to know about the work of the AG. We hope to hear from the AG not only during campaign season, but also when he is doing the work he campaigned to do.”
In response, the AG assured CNMI SPJ’s president that he would schedule a press conference this month.
We hope it happens soon, now that his office is proposing regulations that would grant it the authority to issue investigative subpoenas in criminal and consumer protection cases. A private lawyer has described the proposal as “disturbing,” and other attorneys have expressed similar concerns.
The main question is not why the AG should have subpoena authority, but whether his preferred method — through regulation — is valid. Lawyers have noted that the AG is “trying to do by regulation what it cannot do without the Legislature.”
Is that true, Mr. AG?
Is it also true that your proposed regulation “is as dangerous to personal liberty as the chief prosecutor of our Commonwealth initiating prosecutions without oversight by the courts or a grand jury”?
The public has 30 days to comment on the proposal from its publication date — Oct. 15, 2025 — in the Commonwealth Register. Why was there no press release from the AG about that?
In any case, we can think of no better way to generate informed comments on the proposed regulation than by having the AG explain it to the public and respond to questions and comments, especially those from the legal community.
Belief versus outcome
THOSE were heady days — when House Legislative Initiative 17-2, the proposal to make the AG an elected official, was finally passed by both houses of the Legislature over 13 years ago. Similar proposals had been introduced in previous legislatures, but none were approved. In November 2012, voters made it official, with 81.6% of them approving H.L.I. 17-2.
What was there not to like? Supporters agreed that the AG’s office “should be free of any political influence or interference.” No one, however, seemed to notice that by making the AG an elected official, s/he would have to go out and solicit votes — like any other politician.
Never mind. According to the proposal’s proponents, because an elected AG would be accountable to the people, s/he would “function independently and ensure the enforcement of Commonwealth law to the fullest extent….”
How did that work out?
Similar — well, grandiose — claims were made on behalf of the proposal to make the Open Government Act applicable to the Legislature, which was approved by two-thirds of the valid ballots cast in the Nov. 2009 election. This initiative was supposed to create a more informed and more engaged public who would insist on “retaining control” over the Legislature. Moreover, it was expected to produce more “quality” legislation and make bills driven by “special interests” easier to spot and block.
It seemed that reality had other plans.
Zaldy Dandan is the recipient of the NMI Society of Professional Journalists’ Best in Editorial Writing Award and the NMI Humanities Award for Outstanding Contributions to Journalism. His four books are available on amazon.com/.
