More than a dozen private attorneys on Saipan are voicing strong opposition against a House Bill that would expand the NMI Attorney General’s investigative subpoena powers.

"We feel that the legislation with all the lawyers is ill-conceived and poorly drafted and more so more concerned, dangerous, and inappropriate for our citizens," Attorney Robert Torres told KUAM News.

Torres and 15 private attorneys strongly oppose a bill by House lawmakers that would create an investigative subpoena process for the NMI Attorney General to use. Torres, who is a former NMI Attorney General, and the attorneys penned a letter to Senators urging them to reject the legislation, which they describe as an affront to constitutional rights.

He said, "Attorney General investigators would be issuing subpoenas for their financial records, for their cell phone records, for their communications, for their documents that they produce into their homes. Compel them into the room up at the the Attorney General's office, have their lawyer stand outside, put them under oath, and if they refuse to answer, bring them to court to be prosecuted. What citizens, including members of the legislature, would be comfortable and trust that much law enforcement authority?"

Senator Celina Babauta is the chair of the committee on Judiciary, Government, and Law. Babauta plans to introduce a Senate substitute version of the bill that addresses some of the concerns next week.

She said in a statement to KUAM: “This bill is not about giving unchecked power to one agency…”

She added, “The substitute bill ensures that the authority to issue subpoenas will have judicial oversight and must be approved by a judge, ensuring they comply with legal requirements and are not issued arbitrarily."

Babauta said, “A robust justice system requires a balance between individual rights and public safety…”

But, there are still objections. Charity Hodson is a private attorney who signed the letter. She’s also president of the NMI Bar Association.

She said, "It could work right. if there were a grand jury process or if there was some other process set up to where there would be, there would be an adequate basis for an investigative subpoena. I think the big issue here is that there's this verbiage that this is a process that is in every jurisdiction and that it's ridiculous that the AG doesn't have subpoena power. But the fact is that he does have subpoena power. And that's why when there is a criminal case, if you're trying to get a search warrant or if there's actually a criminal case filed and you do discovery within that process. And so the issue here is really, it's specific to investigative subpoenas, which we know that our administrative agencies already have. But giving that unbridled power to one agency without any checks and without any oversight, that's the issue. And I think that in that context, that it should never be something that's proposed or upheld. "

Senate President Edith Deleon Guerrero shares some of those concerns. She told KUAM in a statement, “We should be concerned when individual constitutional rights are at a great risk of being violated through legislation that is driven without sound mind but with such hatred and vindictiveness even to the point of mocking or labeling citizens through their jaundice eyes as criminals who under the law are innocent until proven guilty. This unchecked madness is dangerous to our society and a threat to justice.”

Meanwhile, House lawmaker Marissa Flores, who introduced the bill, told KUAM, “I look forward to the Senate taking up the bill.”

The legal community is also concerned about privacy violations.

Hodson explained, "In our CNMI Constitution, we’ve expressly said that privacy is a fundamental right that's protected here under the CNMI constitution, which shouldn't be should not be violated unless there's a compelling interest to touch upon that, to touch upon that interest. And so and so it is different here. And the CNMI stands out as saying that this is a constitutional protection. And so particularly a bill like this, it doesn't address that provision of the Constitution or how they plan on safeguarding against any potential violations of that, nor do you see any language about any compelling interest."

The attorneys hope for more public, transparent dialogue on the bill before Senators take a vote.

Torres said, "We just want to make sure -- who investigates? DPS, OPA, Customs and others can investigate. We just want the Attorney General to do the one thing that he can do well, prosecute and his investigators should assist in prosecuting. And to the extent that they need to do additional follow up work, they can do that and they can get warrants and they can get other tools, but too much power is dangerous."