Opinion
Supreme Court Case No. CRQ17-001
July 7, 2017, Decided
Appearing for Petitioner: I Maga'låhen Guåhan: Arthur B. Clark, Esq., Sandra Cruz Miller, Esq., Office of the Governor of Guam, Adelup, Guam.
Appearing for Respondent: I Liheslaturan Guåhan: Julian Aguon, Esq., Blue Ocean Law, PC, Hagåtña, Guam.
ORDER
This matter comes before the court upon the filing of a Request for Declaratory Judgment by the Governor of Guam, Eddie Baza Calvo, on June 9, 2017. The Governor seeks a declaratory judgment (1) interpreting section 1423b of the Organic Act of Guam as it relates to what constitutes the affirmative vote of the members of the Guam Legislature sufficient to pass a bill, and (2) interpreting section 1423i of the Organic Act of Guam as requiring the presentation of Bill 1(1-S) to the Governor for executive action.
Title 7 GCA § 4104 permits the Governor of Guam or the Guam Legislature to request declaratory judgments from this court in certain circumstances. See 7 GCA § 4104 (added by Guam Pub. L. 29-103:2, July 22, 2008). Before this court may exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment pursuant to section 4104, three requirements must be satisfied:
First, the subject matter of the issues must be appropriate under 7 GCA § 4104 - that is, it must involve "the interpretation of any law, federal or local, lying within the jurisdiction of the courts of Guam to decide," or "any question affecting the powers and duties of I Maga'låhi and the operation of the Executive Branch, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan, respectively." Second, the issue or issues raised must be "a matter of great public interest." Finally, "the issue must be such that its resolution through the normal process of law is inappropriate as it would cause undue delay."
In re Request of I Mina'Trentai Dos Na Liheslaturan Guahan Relative to the Use of Funds from the Tax Refund Efficient Payment Trust Fund, 2014 Guam 15 ¶ 12 (citations omitted).
While we find that the first issue raised by the Governor—the interpretation of section 1423b of the Organic Act of Guam as it relates to what constitutes the affirmative vote of the members of the Guam Legislature sufficient to pass a bill—meets the requirements for section 4104 review, we do not agree that the second requested issue—the interpretation of section 1423i of the Organic Act of Guam as requiring the presentation of Bill 1(1-S) to the Governor for executive action—is appropriately before us. While the Governor frames the second issue as requesting an "interpretation" of law, in reality, his question seeks this court to determine whether the Legislature is required to present Bill 1(1-S) to him for executive action. Thus, the Governor's second question does not merely affect his powers and duties, but rather it affects the powers, duties, and operations of the Legislature. These types of questions are generally not appropriate for section 4104 review. See In re Request of I Mina' Trentai Dos Na Liheslaturan Guahan, 2014 Guam 15 ¶ 14 ("The language of section 4104 clearly states that the petitioning branch of government may only request a declaration of the powers and duties affecting that branch." (citing 7 GCA § 4104)). Moreover, we are not inclined to issue a declaratory judgment concerning the Legislature's duties in respect to the specific bill in controversy, Bill 1(1-S), where the enforcement authority normally originates in the first instance with the Superior Court.
In light of the foregoing, the parties in their briefs are to address the first issue raised by the Governor, but not the second, as we decline to consider the latter.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2017.
/s/ F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
Associate Justice
/s/ JOHN A. MANGLONA
Justice Pro Tempore
/s/ KATHERINE A. MARAMAN
Chief Justice