Court, AG say joint session needed on E-Land lease, DPL tells Senate

The Department of Public Lands remains unable to move forward with the former Mariana Resort & Spa property due to the absence of legislative action in a joint session, DPL Secretary Sixto K. Igisomar told lawmakers during the Senate Standing Committee on Resources, Economic Development & Workforce Committee Meeting last Feb. 3.

“As you are aware, the lease was drafted with E-Land on this, and it came to the Legislature for your review on our concurrence,” he told committee chair Sen. Corina Magofna. “And the Legislature, the Senate, did a resolution to deny or not concur.”

Igisomar explained that while the Senate adopted a resolution rejecting the lease, the court has indicated that action by only one chamber does not constitute final legislative action.

“The court is not seeing your Senate-only resolution of ‘nay’ as to be defined as joint,” he said. “So just to be clear, the question of whether or not one House is enough to reject, would that suffice?”

The issue stems from litigation filed after a previous request for proposals for the former Mariana Resort property.

“The Mariana Resort RFP that was issued three years ago, they filed a TRO against the Commonwealth government because they believe they won that RFP,” Igisomar said. “So we went into court.”

While the temporary restraining order remains in place, the DPL cannot proceed with the property.

“Based on the TRO, it’s in court. We cannot touch Mariana Resort,” he said.

Igisomar said the Superior Court has made clear that legislative action must occur in a joint session.

“The court is explicit in its order that in order for DPL to move forward with the property, that both houses must jointly reject or disapprove the lease agreement,” he said.

Because no joint session has occurred, the department remains in limbo.

“DPL cannot move with the RFP with E-Land because DPL still at this time, is waiting for a decision by the Legislature in a joint resolution,” Igisomar said.

During questioning, Magofna sought clarification on whether the statutory requirement for a joint session applies only to approval of a lease and not to its rejection.

“The statutory language that we relied on is that the Legislature is required to call a joint session to approve the lease,” Igisomar said. “It was quite silent on the disapproval.”

Igisomar said the administration proceeded under the assumption that joint action was only required for approval.

“Logically, if one house decides not to approve, then the other house doesn’t have to take action,” he said. “But in order to move forward and approve the lease, that is when the joint session is required.”

Senate legal counsel Antonette R. Villagomez said the issue ultimately depends on how the court interprets legislative action.

“As far as the letter, again, it would depend on what the court is willing to accept as appropriate,” Villagomez said. “Statutorily, there is no requirement that the lease be rejected through a joint resolution in a joint session. The only requirement is to approve the lease in that way.”

Sen. Paul Manglona pressed DPL on whether legislative inaction effectively forces approval of the lease to avoid continued litigation.

“I don’t think that you can put the Legislature in that position where if you don’t approve it, there’s an ongoing lawsuit,” Manglona said.

“That’s not what we’re saying,” Igisomar responded, declining to elaborate further and citing pending litigation.

Manglona later said the committee must respond decisively once it reviews correspondence from the Attorney General.

Magofna said she would obtain and distribute the Attorney General’s letter to committee members and determine next steps.

“I will reach out to the Senate president to request a copy of the letter from the AG, and I will be sure to share it with the committee members,” she said.

The Attorney General’s Office’s position was outlined in a Jan. 6, 2026, letter from Attorney General Edward Manibusan to Senate President Karl King-Nabors and House Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez.

“My office represents the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Department of Public Lands (‘DPL’) in a lawsuit pending before the Superior Court, Mariana E-Land Corporation v. Commonwealth, Civil Action No. 21-0214,” Manibusan wrote.

Mariana E-Land filed the lawsuit seeking to compel DPL to enter into a lease agreement for the former Marianas Resort property based on terms it proposed in response to an RFP that, according to Manibusan, “did not conform to DPL’s regulations.”

“To resolve this lawsuit, DPL and E-Land have negotiated lease terms consistent with the revenues offered by E-Land’s RFP that satisfy all regulatory requirements,” Manibusan wrote.

Manibusan noted that Commonwealth law requires legislative approval in joint session for leases involving more than five hectares of public land for commercial use.

“1 CMC § 2806(d) requires the approval of the Legislature in joint session for any lease that transfers an interest in more than five hectares of public land for use for commercial purposes,” he wrote.

The Senate rejected the lease through Senate Resolution No. 24-10 on Sept. 12, 2025, but no joint session has taken place.

“At a status conference before the court on Dec. 15, 2025, the parties apprised the court of the Senate’s rejection of the lease agreement, and the court noted that there has not been a joint session addressing the lease,” Manibusan wrote.

“A joint session is needed to either approve the lease or to formally reject it so the parties can move forward in this litigation,” he wrote.

An order issued by Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho following a Dec. 16, 2025, status conference echoed that position.

“As for the lease at issue, only the Senate rejected the proposed lease, and no joint session has occurred,” the order states.

Camacho ordered both parties to “update the court regarding any further legislative or procedural developments relevant to the progress of this case.”