This letter is submitted as testimony in favor of the passage of House Resolution 521, introduced by Guam Delegate Robert Underwood. The undersigned members of this firm are all members in good standing of the Guam Bar Association, as well as the bars of several states of the United States. We have each chosen to live in Guam and practice our profession here. Several of our lawyers have practiced law in Guam for over 20 years. We have personally witnessed the evolution of the Guam judiciary to what it is today. That evolution has been a tortured one. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the Guam law creating the first Guam Supreme Court on the basis that Congress had not clearly expressed its intentions to deprive the citizens of Guam of direct access to the federal courts. Congress later rectified that situation by amending Guam's Organic Act, which functions as Guam's constitution, to allow the Guam Legislature to create a new supreme court. Due to the vagaries of local politics, that did not occur for many years. In the intervening years, the Guam judicial system remained headless, the statutes on the books contemplating the existence of the now defunct Supreme Court. In the absence of a functioning Supreme Court, unintended power devolved to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Guam's trial court. Appeals continued to go the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam, a federal court, which had no administrative responsibilities with respect to the Superior Court. The vacuum caused by the decapitation of the Guam judicial system resulted in the aggrandizement of power in the Presiding Judge, power that many in the legal profession believe has been abused. This power has been preserved and enhanced as the result of local politics. Our consequence of this process has been a serious erosion of confidence in the integrity and independence of Guam's judiciary. With the recreation of the Guam Supreme Court it was hoped that confidence in the judicial system would be restored. Unfortunately, however, local politics took over once more and Guam's Legislature tacked on a rider to a completely unrelated piece of legislation, stripping the Supreme Court of its administrative supervisory powers over the Superior Court and reinvesting the Presiding Judge with the mutated powers that had previously evolved. This situation has fortuitously been corrected as a byproduct of a federal appellate court decision dealing with a different issue, but the Guam judicial system remains vulnerable to local political maneuvering. There is nothing precluding the Guam Legislature from once again, in the middle of the night, revamping the judiciary to suit the current political whim or to satisfy the most recent political bargain. The people of Guam require and deserve a judiciary in which they can have confidence. In other jurisdictions under the U.S. flag, politicization of the judicial branch, as has occurred on Guam, would not be possible, inasmuch as the independence of the judiciary is protected by constitutional provisions. Guam's residents enjoy no such protection, as, just as in the case of the Supreme Court, local politics have not favored the process for Guam to adopt a constitution of its own, even though Congress has authorized that process to go forward. In the meantime, the Organic Act remains the de facto constitution of Guam. In the Organic Act, Congress promised the citizens of Guam a republican form of government, one with three co-equal branches that check and balance one another. Delegate Underwood's proposed legislation would fulfill Congress' promise by elevating the judiciary to a truly co-equal status, a status that would have to be honored and respected by the other two branches of the government of Guam. We are cognizant of the desire of Congress to defer to local elected officials in matter relating to selfgovernment. However, this is a case in which such benign neglect harms, rather than advances, the political maturation of Guam. Unless the judiciary is also allowed to mature and develop into a sound and independent institution, the political evolution of Guam itself will continue to be stunted and malformed. [A statement submitted for the record by The Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Lieutenant Governor of Guam, on H.R. 521 follows:] Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Lieutenant Governor of Guam, on H.R. 521 Chairman Hansen and Members of the Committee on Resources: I am submitting this statement in support of H.R. 521 and I would kindly request that my testimony be entered into the record. H.R. 521 would amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam. I believe that this legislation is appropriate and necessary for the proper operation of the Judicial branch of Guam. Mr. Chairman, I was a Member of the 21" Guam Legislature in 1993 when the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Act was passed establishing the Supreme Court of Guam. I was proud to have had a role is shaping this local legislation and it was a great honor when the Supreme Court was installed during my first term as Lieutenant Governor. Governor Gutierrez and the Guam Legislature had done a fine job in appointing and confirming outstanding jurists to serve on our Guam Supreme Court, and our Supreme Court has matured over the years. The question before Congress is whether the provisions of H.R. 521 are needed to clarify the role of the Supreme Court. I believe that this bill is indeed necessary to ensure that the Judicial branch is unified and insulated from political pressure. The Judicial branch has been buffeted by political maneuvering as control of the administrative and policy making process has been contested between the Supreme Court and the Superior Court. This is not what was envisioned by the authors of the local legislation. We believed we were enacting legislation that was creating a Supreme Court, with all that the term means, Supreme in every sense of the word, and as has been the practice for all similar Judicial systems throughout the United States. H.R. 521 would clarify that the Supreme Court has distinct responsibilities in making Judicial policy and in administering the functions of the Superior Court and local court divisions. That we need this legislation is a clear indication that the Judicial branch has problems and that political interference has managed to seep into the Court processes on Guam. In 1998, in his State of the Judiciary Report to the people of Guam, Chief Justice Peter Siguenza stated that, "this branch was broken." In 1999, then Chief Justice Benjamin Cruz stated in his report to the people that, "things have gone from bad to worse." A 9' Circuit decision earlier this year restored the supremacy of the Guam Supreme Court and began a process of recovery. H.R. 521 is needed to eliminate the interference of local politics in our court system. I commend the Committee for taking up this bill and I thank you for your kind consideration of my statement in support of H.R. 521. [A letter submitted for the record by Terrence M. Brooks, et al., Brooks Lynch & Tydingco LLP, on H.R. 521 follows:] Subject: Dear Mr. Chairman House Resolution 521 re: Amendment of the Organic Act of Guam for the As attorneys of this law firm, and as members of the Guam Bar Association, we would like to take this opportunity to thank the House Committee on Resources for holding a public hearing on this important matter. House Resolution 521 has been introduced by Congressman Robert A. Underwood in order to finally settle the dilemma surrounding the Territory of Guam's judicial structure. The Organic Act of Guam, adopted by Congress on August 1, 1950, functions as Guam's constitution. Nevertheless, an attempt was made in 1977 to create Guam's own constitution. When the first Guam Constitution was drafted in December of 1977, the supreme court was recognized as the highest court of Guam. In addition, the chief justice was the administrative head of the judicial system. However, for various reasons unrelated to the judicial section of the proposed 1977 Guam Constitution, the voters of Guam rejected the proposed 1977 Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1977 struck down a Guam law which attempted to create the Supreme Court of Guam, The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress did not empower the Guam Legislature to create a supreme court. Congress in 1984 amended the Organic Act to authorize the Guam Legislature to create an appellate court through passage of the 1984 Omnibus Territories |