Education leaders urge House to preserve 25% PSS constitutional guarantee amid proposed definition of general revenues

Lawrence Feherin Camacho, the state education chief and commissioner of education for the Commonwealth Public School System, told the House that Article 15, Section 1 of the CNMI Constitution guarantees a stable funding floor and that recent legislative proposals would weaken that promise.

"Article 15 e of our CNMI constitution is not just a budget rule. It is a promise," Camacho said during the public-comment period, arguing that the 25% guarantee must be calculated on general revenues as the Supreme Court interpreted them. He cited the fiscal-year 2025 figures presented by the governor and said, by his calculation, PSS should have received $42,400,000 but the legislature appropriated $31,700,000 — a shortfall he described as "$10,700,000" and as a consequence for teachers and instructional days.

The matter is now the subject of House Legislative Initiative 24-1 and related statutory proposals that would, according to their text, define "general revenues" and allow certain deductions (debt service and statutory obligations) before calculating the PSS share. Representative BJ Attell formally introduced HLI 24-1 to the chamber and referred it to the committees on education and ways and means.

Dora Borhamura, teacher representative to the CNMI Board of Education, told lawmakers that HLI 24-1 contradicts the CNMI Supreme Court's slip opinion in the certified-question matter (2020 MP 2) and that the court has warned against allowing broad reclassification of general revenue into "special revenues." Borhamura quoted the constitution and urged caution in redefining the revenue base used to compute the PSS guarantee.

Macy B. Tenorio, a member of the State Board of Education, also addressed the House and urged legislators to respect the court's analysis, including the court's concern that mere articulation of a purpose does not alone convert a revenue stream into a constitutionally protected special revenue. Tenorio suggested that any lingering questions be resolved in the courts rather than by repeated constitutional initiatives.

On the floor, the House's Committee on Education issued Standing Committee Report 24-37 recommending passage of House Bill 24-33, which would statutorily define the scope of "general revenues." Representative Roman Beneventi asked the House to hold further action until a revised budget from the administration is available; Representative John Paul Sablan and other members urged placing the bill on the bill calendar so that committee and floor deliberations could proceed. The floor adopted the committee report and placed the legislation on the bill calendar after discussion.

Discussion versus formal action: public comment and Board of Education statements were part of the public-comment record; HLI 24-1 was officially introduced and referred to committees; Standing Committee Report 24-37 recommending passage of HB 24-33 was adopted by the House and the bill was placed on the bill calendar for future action. No change to the constitution or final appropriation for PSS was enacted during this session.

Why it matters: The issue raises a constitutional question about whether debt service and other statutory obligations should be deducted before calculating the 25% funding floor for PSS. Education officials said the constitutional guarantee and a Supreme Court interpretation intended to protect PSS from political fluctuations; proponents of the initiative have argued for statutory clarity. Further action will depend on committee work, the administration's revised budget submissions, and possibly judicial resolution.