48 U.S.C. § 1422c(a). See Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 Guam 4, P8 (recognizing the Guam Legislature's compliance with section 1422c(a) through the enactment of Title 4 GCA § 4101 et seq.); Brown v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 818 F.2d 706 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that Congress's mandate to the Guam Legislature to establish a merit system for appointments and promotions was not limited by the Governor's authority to establish and maintain the educational system). Second, the Legislature may limit the Governor's power by "otherwise providing . . . under the laws of Guam."
C. Issues raised for the first time on appeal Generally, this court will not entertain an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Tanaguchi-Ruth+Associates, 2005 Guam 7, P 78; Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 Guam 4, P 20; B.M. Co. v. Avery, 2001 Guam 27 P 33; Dumaliang, 2000 Guam 24 P 12. In Dumaliang v. Silan, 2000 Guam 24 P 12, this court enumerated certain exceptions to the general rule precluding appellate review of newly-raised issues.
See RA, tab 94 at 2 (Opp'n Mot. & Cross Mot., Feb. 21, 2014). "[A]s a matter of general practice, 'this court will not address an argument raised for the first time on appeal.'" Tanaguchi-Ruth & Assocs. v. MDI Guam Corp., 2005 Guam 7 ¶ 78 (quoting Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 20) (citing B.M. Co. v. Avery, 2001 Guam 27 ¶ 33; Guam Bar Ethics Comm., 2001 Guam 20 ¶ 39). "This rule applies where a party fails to raise an argument in a postjudgment motion."
As a general rule, "'this court will not address an argument raised for the first time on appeal.'" Tanaguchi-Ruth & Assocs. v. MDI Guam Corp., 2005 Guam 7 ¶ 78 (quoting Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 20). This rule is discretionary:
As a general principle, this court will not address an issue in the first instance on appeal. See Univ. of Guam v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 20 (declining to address an argument raised by the appellant for the first time on appeal); B.M. Co. v. Avery, 2001 Guam 27 ¶ 33, supplemented, 2002 Guam 19; Guam Bar Ethics Comm. v. Maquera, 2001 Guam 20 ¶ 39. Further, we generally do not address issues introduced in a reply brief that are not discussed in a party's initial brief, as they have been deemed waived.
[*P26] As a general rule, this court will not evaluate an argument which was not presented for consideration to the trial court. See Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm'n (Foley), 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 20 (declining to address argument raised by appellant for first time on appeal); B.M. Co. v. Avery, 2001 Guam 27 ¶ 33; Guam Bar Ethics Comm. v. Maquera, 2001 Guam 20 ¶ 39. Further, raising a constitutional speedy trial violation will not be treated the same as asserting a statutory right. Naich, 2013 Guam 7 ¶ 48.
The jurisdiction of the CSC is reviewed de novo as a matter of statutory interpretation. Mesngon v. Gov't of Guam, 2003 Guam 3 ¶ 8; Univ. of Guam v. Civil Serv. Comm'n (Foley), 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 5. Statutory interpretation always begins with the language of the statute. Aguon v. Gutierrez, 2002 Guam 14 ¶ 6. The plain meaning will prevail where there is no clearly stated legislative intent to the contrary.
Accordingly, we need not reach the merits of whether Kishore has properly moved to withdraw deemed admissions or whether such withdrawal is warranted in the present case. In addition, because the trial court has not actually addressed this issue at the summary judgment stage, we are reluctant to address it in the first instance on appeal. See Univ. of Guam v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 20 (declining to address an argument raised by the appellant for the first time on appeal); B.M. Co. v. Avery, 2001 Guam 27 ¶ 33, supplemented, 2002 Guam 19; Guam Bar Ethics Comm. v. Maquera, 2001 Guam 20 ¶ 39. As this dispute is being remanded, it is prudent to decline further examination until the Superior Court has had the opportunity for initial evaluation of the admissions issue.
This court has held that "[u]nder Guam's merit system, if one is hired by competing with other eligible persons for a position, that person has been hired as a classified employee, (unless hired in the excepted service as specified in 4 GCA § 4102)."Carlson v. Perez, 2007 Guam 6 ¶ 32; see also Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 8 ("Employees hired under the merit system are known generally as 'classified employees.'"). Additionally, "[a]n employee who has successfully completed his probationary term upon entrance into the government of Guam is afforded the job protections of the personnel laws and rules, i.e., he or she attains permanent status into the classified service." Blas, 2000 Guam 12 ¶ 22; see also Port Authority R. & Regs. 4.901 ("A permanent appointment is granted to an employee after successfully completing a probationary period in the permanent position.").
Br. at 3 (Sept. 2, 2014). "[A]s a matter of general practice, 'this court will not address an argument raised for the first time on appeal.'" Tanaguchi-Ruth & Assocs. v. MDI Guam Corp., 2005 Guam 7 ¶ 78 (quoting Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 20). Indeed, this court may only exercise discretion to review new issues "(1) when review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process; (2) when a change in law raises a new issue while an appeal is pending; and (3) when the issue is purely one of law."