(b) Local Court Jurisdiction. The legislature may vest in the local courts jurisdiction over all causer in Guam over which any court established by the Constitution and laws of the United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be subject to the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the District Court of Guaur by section 1424(b) of this title.

(c) Local practice & procedure, local judges. The practice and procedure in the local courts and the qualifications and duties of the judges thereof shall be governed by the laws of Guan and the rules of those courts.

Thank you for your consideration of this measure.

Sincerely yours,

Charles H. Troutman

CHARLES H. TROUTMAN

Compiler of Laws

Appendices A and B

Testimony of Charles H. Troutman

Compiler of Laws

Re: H.R. 521
Appendix A
Page 1

In Re Request of the Governor, 2002 Guam 1 [5] (2/7/2002) http://www.justice.gov.gu/supreme/op2002Guam01.htm

[5] The Organic Act provides for the creation of the Supreme Court in general terms:

1. Local Courts: Appellate Court Authorized.

(a) Composition; establishment of local appellate court.

The local courts of Guam shall consist of such trial court or courts as may have been or may hereafter be established by the laws of Guam, On or after the effective date of this Act

[January 5, 1985], the legislature of Guam may in its discretion establish an appellate court.

48 U.S.C. § 1424-1(a) (1987) (emphasis added). The Legislature argues the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited by the language of the above-referenced section to that of an "appellate" court. However, section 1424-1(a) merely states that "the legislature of Guam in its discretion may establish an appellate court." It does not define appellate court. The Legislature refers to the generic definition of appellate court in Black's Law Dictionary to support its position that an appellate court does not review matters of first instance and is not a trial court. However, reliance on the dictionary definition is unsound in light of the provision of the Organic Act which provides:

Local Court Jurisdiction. The legislature may vest in the local courts jurisdiction over all causes in Guam over which any court established by the Constitution and laws of the United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be subject to the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the District Court of Guam by section 1424(b) of this title.

48 U.S.C. § 1424-1(b) (1987). This section of the Organic Act gives the Legislature broad authority to define the jurisdiction of local courts, The Legislature attempts to distinguish "local court" as used in section 1424-1(b) from "appellate court" as used in section 14241(a). However, section 1424-1(a) defines "local courts" as "such trial court or courts as may have been or may hereafter be established by the laws of Guam." Thus, the Supreme Court of Guam, as a court established by the laws of Guam, is included within the definition of "local court." The language of section 1424-1 is not ambiguous. Because section 1424-1 gives the Legislature the authority to grant jurisdiction to local courts, the Legislature may grant jurisdiction to the Supreme Court as it deems fit. Moreover, unlike other state constitutions which define the respective jurisdiction of each court in that state, the Organic Act does not define or limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Guam. Cf. State ex rel. Neer v. Indus. Comm'n, 371 N.E.2d 842, 843 (Ohio 1978) (holding that because the Ohio constitution limited the court of appeals' original jurisdiction to certain matters not including declaratory judgments, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to render that type of j

Testimony of Charles H. Troutman

Compiler of Laws

Re: H.R. 521

Appendix A
Page 1

judgment). The only limitation placed on the Legislature's power to grant jurisdiction is in regards to causes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. 48 U.S.C. § 14241(b). A declaratory judgment under section 4104 is not a cause within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Therefore, it is within the Legislature's Organic Act powers to grant this court such original jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny the Legislature's motion to dismiss and hold that this court has jurisdiction to consider a request for declaratory judgment pursuant to section 4104.

Testimony of Charles. Troutman

Compiler of Laws

Re: H.R. 521
Appendix B
Page 1

NOTES TO 7 GUAM CODE ANNOTATED § 4104:

1985 SOURCE: Article 4(c) Constitution of Florida, as modified by Massachusetts Constitution, Article of Amendment No. 85 amending Art. 2 of Ch. 3 of the Mass. Constitution.

1985 COMMENT: Several states permit the governor, and Massachusetts permits the Governor, Legislature and Council, to seek opinions from their respective Supreme Courts on matters respecting the duties of the Governor and Legislature. It has been this drafter's experience that such a grant of jurisdiction would have solved many serious questions which have arisen, but which have lacked a forum for decision.

Under the usual rule, no case may be brought until it has ripened into a “case or controversy". This section will permit important issues to be decided before that time and will avoid the necessity of creating harm to some party in order to have a decision. Thus, a Massachusetts Opinion of the Justices determined certain powers of the Legislature and Governor before any employees had to be laid off. This Section would permit a better resolution of serious questions than occurred in the 1978 District Court decision of Wong v. Camina wherein the Court decided a question relating to federal grants. No defendant was forthcoming, so the case was decided essentially on a default. This Section would permit a full hearing in such cases and decisions rendered under this Section would be binding.

Note that the language permits the Governor to request opinions as the operation of the Executive Branch, including questions involving separation of powers, and the Legislature to request opinions on the operation of that Branch, but does not permit one Branch to request opinions as to the operation of the other where that operation does not impinge on the requesting branch's operations. The purpose of this limitation is to avoid one branch trying to regulate the other through the courts.

[A letter submitted for the record by The Hon. Antonio R. Unpingco, Speaker, 26th Guam Legislature, on H.R. 521 follows:]

As the Speaker of the Guam Legislature I would like to express my views on HR. 521 and
respectfully request that this letter be included as testimony in the printed record of thee hearing.
The United States Congress rightfully granted Guam's lawmakers the authority to create a
Supreme Court of Guam, which it enacted in 1994. It is my hope that the people of Guam be
allowed to do likewise for both the Executive and Legislative Branch in the future. Since 1996
the Supreme Court of Guam has thrived under local law, hearing appeals and rendering decisions
in many cases. Unfortunately HR 521 has the different and unacceptable effect of federally
determining local government operations in the judicial branch.

There is no compelling reason for Congress to regulate the administrative operations of Guam's
courts to protect or promote federal interest. I feel the greater federal interest is to promote self-
government over Guam's internal affairs. Absent a breakdown in the effective and efficient
operation of the courts or rule of law under the Organic Act, a federal mandate altering local law
would indeed represent a backward step in Guam's evolution toward a greater self-government
and self determination. Such is not the case on Guam. I ask that any provisions concerning the
internal structure of the courts be left to local law.

I hope this assists you in your deliberation of HR. 521. I thank you for the opportunity to allow
me to express my views on H.R. 521. I hope and trust the Committee will do the right thing and
preserve the existing state of federal law granting local self-government to Guam.

Respectfully,

Speaker Antonio R. Unpingco

[Letters submitted for the record by Mark R. Warnsing, Deputy Counsel to the Goveror, State of Illinois, on H.R. 791 follow:]

It has come to my attention, that during the Houac Committee on Resources hearing on H. R. 191, you told the Committec I had made certain disparaging comments to you regarding the Ottawa land claim in Illinois during a meeting in the late 1990's. You as well as I know that I never made any such comment to you or any other representative of the Tribe. I ask that you issue a retraction of the statement you made to the Committee on Resources rogarding myself. The meetings that we had with you and the other representatives of the Ottawa Tribe were always amicable, so I do not understand why you would make such a statement now.

Anyone that has dealt with me in the 20 plus years I have been in public service, will tell you that I always conduct myself in a professional, ethical and businesslike manner. They would be as shocked, as I, that someone would attribute such a disparaging, insensitive and stupid comment to myself. Again, I ask that you please retract your statement regarding myself made to the Committee.

Sincerely;

maaniwan

thing

Mark R Warnsing
Deputy Counsel to the Governor

Cc: The Honorable J. D. Hayworth

The Honorable Janics V. Hansen
Tho Honorable Timothy Johnson