Youth congress pass bill to legalize same sex civil unions
By Yvonne S. Lee
Pacific Daily News
April 10, 2009
The 27th Guam Youth Congress has passed a bill to legalize same sex civil unions on Guam. This is the second attempt by Speaker Derick Baza Hills to pass such a measure. A similar bill failed in the 25th Youth Congress by one vote.
As a Democrat, "I must press forward with realizing that every person is created equal, and all men carry the same weight in society," Hills said in a press release yesterday.
He cited recent coverage of same-sex marriage being legalized in Vermont and Iowa by major media outlets in the U.S. mainland, and said it would require action by the courts to "allow for equal rights" across America, according to a press release yesterday.
On April 7, Vermont became the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislative vote by overriding the governor's veto, according to the Associated Press. It was the fourth state to recognize gay marriage in the United States. The other states are Iowa, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Rhode Island and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages from other states; New Jersey and New Hampshire allow for same sex civil unions. In California and Oregon, statewide laws provide nearly all state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"I don't feel we should initiate same sex marriage... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow for equal rights for those with alternative lifestyles," Hills said.
Hills called for the Guam Legislature to introduce legislation to legalize same sex civil unions on island.
"We do have advocates in the Legislature ... I do feel and know that there are senators comfortable supporting this legislation," Hills said.
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, August 24, 2007
Legal Risks With Dandan Landfill Project
GovGuam faces legal risks in Dandan project
By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff
August 23, 2007
GOVERNMENT of Guam authorities who decided to pick Dandan as the site of a new landfill could be held accountable for the $10 million in public funds should further study support an option to condemn the area.
The risk of being questioned for the selection of Dandan came up yesterday as members of the Solid Waste Law Review Commission discussed the status of the pending court cases related to Guam’s solid waste management issues.
During the second meeting of the newly created commission, LRC chairman Sen. James Espaldon, R-Tamuning, talked about the synopsis of the pending litigations and the history of the landfill site selection efforts, as well as the status and scope of work that has been done in connection with GovGuam’s compliance with the consent decree to close the Ordot Dump and open a new landfill.
After Deputy Attorney General Patrick Mason briefed the commission on the four pending cases, representatives from the Guam Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Public Works were asked about the basis for selecting Dandan or Layon as the next landfill location.
The four cases are the USA v. GovGuam that resulted in the consent decree signed before the U.S. District Court of Guam; Pangelinan v. Camacho which questions the validity of the solid waste management agreement between GovGuam and GRRP; San Miguel v. Department of Public Works; and GRRP v. GovGuam pending before the Superior Court of Guam.
The case in federal court is waiting for a decision by Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood based on the report and recommendation made by Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan.
The cases of San Miguel and Pangelinan are both pending in the Supreme Court of Guam, while the GRRP lawsuit wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover $10 million from GovGuam for breach of the agreement is also pending in trial court.
Close to $10 million in government funds have been spent and an additional $20 million is needed to determine whether Dandan is suited for the landfill project.
Despite findings that Dandan has numerous environmental challenges and should be protected for water resources, the government is still considering Dandan pending the result of the nine-month hydrogeological study that will ascertain if the site is worth all the further mitigation expenses.
Atty. Ray Haddock of the Office of the Governor said there is an option to condemn the Dandan site, but they are waiting for the results of the further study before they decide to pick an alternative site.
The condemnation of the Dandan project could mean that the $10 million spent in the area was another waste of public funds.
A legal observer who requested anonymity told Variety that such waste of public funds could mean negligence and GovGuam officials could be held liable for their irresponsible dispersing of government monies.
The discussion on selecting Dandan heated up when Sen. Tina Muna Barnes, D-Mangilao, asked GEPA representatives about the basis and criteria used in the selection of the property.
Conchita Taitano, GEPA Air and Land Division director, said every single report was looked at, and there were 20 sites identified.
From the original list of prospective sites, the number was reduced to 12, then to six, and then to the top three candidates: Lonfit, Sabanan Batea, and Dandan/Layon.
Taitano added that GovGuam didn’t have a lot of money to conduct environmental impact studies on all potential landfill sites and the elimination of Guatali was based on its failure to meet several criteria such as slope, size and the presence of faults.
Guam Resource Recovery Partners coordinator David Sablan, however, informed the commission that the criteria were not part of the U.S. Environemntal Protection Agency’s standards and were only created by GEPA officials.
Silence ensued when an observer asked LRC members whether it was proper to spend $10 million on the location without proper property acquisition.
Attorney General Alicia Limtiaco said government work on site-specific projects can actually begin with acquired simple ownership and not a whole ownership.
However, the observer questioned why government funds had to be used on a location that has a number of challenges.
The same challenges prompted senators to introduce a bill that prohibits GovGuam from using public funds in any landfill construction site in the absence of property ownership.
The San Miguel case also aimed to prevent GovGuam from further expenditure on the Dandan project while stressing that Guatali has been identified as the primary site for new landfill and Malaa as the secondary site under Public Law 23-95.
Barnes added that a study conducted by the Guam Waterworks Authority recommended that Dandan not be used as a landfill site.
“The study made in January stated that the water level has kept re-surfacing and it will need additional infrastructure to meet the environmental challenges. The study was not released to the public,” she told the commission.
While LRC recognized that their decision-making is tied to the pending cases, the members agreed to outline viable alternative recommendations should the courts issue a decision on the pending litigations.
The commission will meet again on Wednesday morning.
By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff
August 23, 2007
GOVERNMENT of Guam authorities who decided to pick Dandan as the site of a new landfill could be held accountable for the $10 million in public funds should further study support an option to condemn the area.
The risk of being questioned for the selection of Dandan came up yesterday as members of the Solid Waste Law Review Commission discussed the status of the pending court cases related to Guam’s solid waste management issues.
During the second meeting of the newly created commission, LRC chairman Sen. James Espaldon, R-Tamuning, talked about the synopsis of the pending litigations and the history of the landfill site selection efforts, as well as the status and scope of work that has been done in connection with GovGuam’s compliance with the consent decree to close the Ordot Dump and open a new landfill.
After Deputy Attorney General Patrick Mason briefed the commission on the four pending cases, representatives from the Guam Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Public Works were asked about the basis for selecting Dandan or Layon as the next landfill location.
The four cases are the USA v. GovGuam that resulted in the consent decree signed before the U.S. District Court of Guam; Pangelinan v. Camacho which questions the validity of the solid waste management agreement between GovGuam and GRRP; San Miguel v. Department of Public Works; and GRRP v. GovGuam pending before the Superior Court of Guam.
The case in federal court is waiting for a decision by Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood based on the report and recommendation made by Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan.
The cases of San Miguel and Pangelinan are both pending in the Supreme Court of Guam, while the GRRP lawsuit wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover $10 million from GovGuam for breach of the agreement is also pending in trial court.
Close to $10 million in government funds have been spent and an additional $20 million is needed to determine whether Dandan is suited for the landfill project.
Despite findings that Dandan has numerous environmental challenges and should be protected for water resources, the government is still considering Dandan pending the result of the nine-month hydrogeological study that will ascertain if the site is worth all the further mitigation expenses.
Atty. Ray Haddock of the Office of the Governor said there is an option to condemn the Dandan site, but they are waiting for the results of the further study before they decide to pick an alternative site.
The condemnation of the Dandan project could mean that the $10 million spent in the area was another waste of public funds.
A legal observer who requested anonymity told Variety that such waste of public funds could mean negligence and GovGuam officials could be held liable for their irresponsible dispersing of government monies.
The discussion on selecting Dandan heated up when Sen. Tina Muna Barnes, D-Mangilao, asked GEPA representatives about the basis and criteria used in the selection of the property.
Conchita Taitano, GEPA Air and Land Division director, said every single report was looked at, and there were 20 sites identified.
From the original list of prospective sites, the number was reduced to 12, then to six, and then to the top three candidates: Lonfit, Sabanan Batea, and Dandan/Layon.
Taitano added that GovGuam didn’t have a lot of money to conduct environmental impact studies on all potential landfill sites and the elimination of Guatali was based on its failure to meet several criteria such as slope, size and the presence of faults.
Guam Resource Recovery Partners coordinator David Sablan, however, informed the commission that the criteria were not part of the U.S. Environemntal Protection Agency’s standards and were only created by GEPA officials.
Silence ensued when an observer asked LRC members whether it was proper to spend $10 million on the location without proper property acquisition.
Attorney General Alicia Limtiaco said government work on site-specific projects can actually begin with acquired simple ownership and not a whole ownership.
However, the observer questioned why government funds had to be used on a location that has a number of challenges.
The same challenges prompted senators to introduce a bill that prohibits GovGuam from using public funds in any landfill construction site in the absence of property ownership.
The San Miguel case also aimed to prevent GovGuam from further expenditure on the Dandan project while stressing that Guatali has been identified as the primary site for new landfill and Malaa as the secondary site under Public Law 23-95.
Barnes added that a study conducted by the Guam Waterworks Authority recommended that Dandan not be used as a landfill site.
“The study made in January stated that the water level has kept re-surfacing and it will need additional infrastructure to meet the environmental challenges. The study was not released to the public,” she told the commission.
While LRC recognized that their decision-making is tied to the pending cases, the members agreed to outline viable alternative recommendations should the courts issue a decision on the pending litigations.
The commission will meet again on Wednesday morning.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Desecration of Chamorro Remains at Okura
Cristobal’s group seeks a stop on digging at burial site
By Mar-Vic Cagurangan
Variety News Staff
August 7, 2007
FORMER senator Hope Cristobal, president of the Coalition for the Protection of Ancient Cemeteries, has asked the Guam Preservation Review Board to order a stop on further digging at Gun Beach, where an ancient burial site has been discovered.
Cristobal asked the board to “cease all ongoing archeological activity and save to what is left of the ancestral cemetery.”
But Patrick Lujan, deputy historic preservation officer, said the existing law prohibits the government from interfering with private projects.
Guam Okura Hotel, which owns the Tumon property, is undertaking a $30 million development project on the site, where 280 ancient human remains had been dug up.
“The law that we have upholds the rights of private property owners. So we cannot just go there and stop them from whatever they are doing,” Lujan told Variety.
He said the government has no reason to stop the project because the landowner has complied with the mitigation requirements which are among the conditions under the permit issued to the property owner.
Cristobal said members of the coalition disagree with the way it is currently written as it fails “to protect ancient Chamorro remains, or acknowledge that indigenous Chamorro traditions should be recognized as legitimate cultural items for national protection.”
“Inside the legal document, however flawed, the key language which, if interpreted in a more progressive way, could function to protect ancient burial grounds from shoddy archeology and mitigation preservation, which the coalition does not count as true preservation,” Cristobal said.
“This issue is inextricably tied to our political status of dispossession,” she added.
Cristobal also asked the preservation board to stop the developer’s plan to ship the remains that had been removed from the site off-island via the U.S. Postal Service.
The coalition is also demanding that Okura Hotel redesign its project in way that would allow the burial site to remain in its original place.
The group is also calling for the creation of a Chamorro Burial Council that will serve as a community resource and advisory group that will deal with issues related to ancient burial sites.
Cristobal criticized the Historic Preservation Board for its failure to provide public information about what has been found in the development site.
But Lujan said the board didn’t make public disclosure about the discovery of the remains because “we were concerned about potential looting and further destruction of the area.”
“We rather hold information until a study is completed and released,” he added.
By Mar-Vic Cagurangan
Variety News Staff
August 7, 2007
FORMER senator Hope Cristobal, president of the Coalition for the Protection of Ancient Cemeteries, has asked the Guam Preservation Review Board to order a stop on further digging at Gun Beach, where an ancient burial site has been discovered.
Cristobal asked the board to “cease all ongoing archeological activity and save to what is left of the ancestral cemetery.”
But Patrick Lujan, deputy historic preservation officer, said the existing law prohibits the government from interfering with private projects.
Guam Okura Hotel, which owns the Tumon property, is undertaking a $30 million development project on the site, where 280 ancient human remains had been dug up.
“The law that we have upholds the rights of private property owners. So we cannot just go there and stop them from whatever they are doing,” Lujan told Variety.
He said the government has no reason to stop the project because the landowner has complied with the mitigation requirements which are among the conditions under the permit issued to the property owner.
Cristobal said members of the coalition disagree with the way it is currently written as it fails “to protect ancient Chamorro remains, or acknowledge that indigenous Chamorro traditions should be recognized as legitimate cultural items for national protection.”
“Inside the legal document, however flawed, the key language which, if interpreted in a more progressive way, could function to protect ancient burial grounds from shoddy archeology and mitigation preservation, which the coalition does not count as true preservation,” Cristobal said.
“This issue is inextricably tied to our political status of dispossession,” she added.
Cristobal also asked the preservation board to stop the developer’s plan to ship the remains that had been removed from the site off-island via the U.S. Postal Service.
The coalition is also demanding that Okura Hotel redesign its project in way that would allow the burial site to remain in its original place.
The group is also calling for the creation of a Chamorro Burial Council that will serve as a community resource and advisory group that will deal with issues related to ancient burial sites.
Cristobal criticized the Historic Preservation Board for its failure to provide public information about what has been found in the development site.
But Lujan said the board didn’t make public disclosure about the discovery of the remains because “we were concerned about potential looting and further destruction of the area.”
“We rather hold information until a study is completed and released,” he added.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Defending Japan's Constitution
Who will defend Japan's Constitution?
April 29, 2007
Special to The Japan Times
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the beginning of April that the government was establishing a "panel of experts" to examine the question of whether to "revise the current interpretation of the Constitution," in order to permit Japan to engage in collective self-defense activities.
This is an outrageous proposition from the perspective of constitutional law, and yet the announcement appears to have been met with little more than a murmur. Regardless of whether one may feel strongly that Japan ought to participate in collective self-defense operations, or that Article 9 should be amended, this latest step in the emasculation of Article 9 seriously endangers the normative power and integrity of the entire Constitution.
First, let us recall that there is already a strong movement toward an extensive revision of the Constitution, in accordance with the amendment process provided for in the Constitution. The government is currently pushing a referendum law through the legislature for the purpose of implementing that process.
While the DPJ opposes the current version of the proposed referendum law in its detail, it is not opposed in principle. While there continue to be voices of dissent in both parties, the leadership of both the LDP and the DPJ seek to amend Article 9 specifically to permit Japan's participation in collective self-defense and other international peace and security operations. If they are able to persuade a sufficient number of both houses of the Diet and the population of Japan, the Constitution will be so amended. If they cannot, then it is the will of the nation that it not be so amended.
Second, it is entirely nonsensical for a government to speak of "revising an interpretation" of a constitution as a matter of formal policy. Constitutions can be revised through amendment, and the interpretations of constitutions may evolve incrementally over time through court decisions, but governments do not "revise" or establish "new" interpretations of a constitution. Interpretation of the Constitution of Japan is the purview of the courts, and the amending process provided for in the Constitution is the sole mechanism for formally changing the Constitution itself.
The amending process of a constitution is set in place both to ensure an orderly mechanism for change, but also to ensure that the pre-commitments to the fundamental principles established in the constitution cannot be too easily changed. The Constitution of Japan provides for a process that requires, in addition to the consent of two thirds of both houses of the Diet, the vote of the people of Japan to endorse any proposed revision. The government cannot short-circuit that process by way of some back-room "re-interpretation."
Which brings us to the third problematic aspect of the prime minister's announcement. Aside from the fact that it does an end run around the amending process, the "revision" study is being conducted by an extra-constitutional body appointed by the executive. Of the three branches of government, the executive is the least empowered to have any say in how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It should be recalled that the Constitution provides that the legislature (the Diet) is the highest organ of state (Art. 41); that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, and that no law, ordinance or other act of government that is contrary to the Constitution is valid (Art. 98); and that the courts are vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or other official act (Art. 81).
It is not the role of the executive to be mandating interpretations of the Constitution, and any action that the government may take on the basis of some new "re-interpretation" may still be held to be unconstitutional and invalid by the courts. The body to which the executive has turned to do the actual work of analyzing the issue of interpretation, is one that is not provided for in the Constitution at all -- the "panel of experts" is an extra-constitutional body that has no authority whatsoever to interpret the Constitution.
Finally, the "revision" that is sought is patently contrary to any reasonable interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution. Article 9 provides, in part, that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." It also provides that the "right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."
Using Japanese military forces, including Japan-based antimissile defense systems and Japanese naval vessels operating with allied forces in international waters, to engage the military forces of other countries when Japan is not directly under attack, can only ever be interpreted as the use of force for means of settling international disputes.
Moreover, Japan would most certainly expect to enjoy all the rights, protections and obligations under the laws of war that belligerents are entitled to under international law in such circumstances, a status that Article 9 specifically renounces. The Supreme Court of Japan has held that while Japan retains a right to self-defense under Article 9, it is limited to only such measures that are for the protection of Japan (in the so-called Sunakawa case).
The Cabinet Legislation Bureau has consistently maintained that Article 9 forbids participation in collective self-defense or the deployment of troops abroad for military operations. For the government to now try to argue that notwithstanding what the Constitution plainly states, and what the courts have said it means, and what past governments have accepted as binding, that Japan can now do the opposite, is to do great violence to the Constitution of Japan.
There is an amendment process for a reason, and it can be used to achieve the objectives of having Japan play a more robust role in the area of international collective security. Careful study leading up to such amendments will also ensure that other checks and balances can be built into the revised Constitution to ensure that there is sufficient democratic accountability and civilian control as Japan engages in more extensive international operations. To try to circumvent that process undermines the entire structure of the Constitution.
If Article 9 can be merely interpreted away, why not other provisions? A democracy allows its Constitution to be undermined at its peril, and the erosion of constitutional controls on a country seeking greater military influence will almost certainly alarm its neighbors.
Craig Martin, a Canadian lawyer and a graduate of Osaka University Graduate School of Law, is currently working on a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania, focusing on the interaction of international and constitutional constraints on the use of armed force.
The Japan Times: Sunday, April 29, 2007
(C) All rights reserved
April 29, 2007
Special to The Japan Times
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced at the beginning of April that the government was establishing a "panel of experts" to examine the question of whether to "revise the current interpretation of the Constitution," in order to permit Japan to engage in collective self-defense activities.
This is an outrageous proposition from the perspective of constitutional law, and yet the announcement appears to have been met with little more than a murmur. Regardless of whether one may feel strongly that Japan ought to participate in collective self-defense operations, or that Article 9 should be amended, this latest step in the emasculation of Article 9 seriously endangers the normative power and integrity of the entire Constitution.
First, let us recall that there is already a strong movement toward an extensive revision of the Constitution, in accordance with the amendment process provided for in the Constitution. The government is currently pushing a referendum law through the legislature for the purpose of implementing that process.
While the DPJ opposes the current version of the proposed referendum law in its detail, it is not opposed in principle. While there continue to be voices of dissent in both parties, the leadership of both the LDP and the DPJ seek to amend Article 9 specifically to permit Japan's participation in collective self-defense and other international peace and security operations. If they are able to persuade a sufficient number of both houses of the Diet and the population of Japan, the Constitution will be so amended. If they cannot, then it is the will of the nation that it not be so amended.
Second, it is entirely nonsensical for a government to speak of "revising an interpretation" of a constitution as a matter of formal policy. Constitutions can be revised through amendment, and the interpretations of constitutions may evolve incrementally over time through court decisions, but governments do not "revise" or establish "new" interpretations of a constitution. Interpretation of the Constitution of Japan is the purview of the courts, and the amending process provided for in the Constitution is the sole mechanism for formally changing the Constitution itself.
The amending process of a constitution is set in place both to ensure an orderly mechanism for change, but also to ensure that the pre-commitments to the fundamental principles established in the constitution cannot be too easily changed. The Constitution of Japan provides for a process that requires, in addition to the consent of two thirds of both houses of the Diet, the vote of the people of Japan to endorse any proposed revision. The government cannot short-circuit that process by way of some back-room "re-interpretation."
Which brings us to the third problematic aspect of the prime minister's announcement. Aside from the fact that it does an end run around the amending process, the "revision" study is being conducted by an extra-constitutional body appointed by the executive. Of the three branches of government, the executive is the least empowered to have any say in how the Constitution is to be interpreted. It should be recalled that the Constitution provides that the legislature (the Diet) is the highest organ of state (Art. 41); that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, and that no law, ordinance or other act of government that is contrary to the Constitution is valid (Art. 98); and that the courts are vested with the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or other official act (Art. 81).
It is not the role of the executive to be mandating interpretations of the Constitution, and any action that the government may take on the basis of some new "re-interpretation" may still be held to be unconstitutional and invalid by the courts. The body to which the executive has turned to do the actual work of analyzing the issue of interpretation, is one that is not provided for in the Constitution at all -- the "panel of experts" is an extra-constitutional body that has no authority whatsoever to interpret the Constitution.
Finally, the "revision" that is sought is patently contrary to any reasonable interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution. Article 9 provides, in part, that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." It also provides that the "right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."
Using Japanese military forces, including Japan-based antimissile defense systems and Japanese naval vessels operating with allied forces in international waters, to engage the military forces of other countries when Japan is not directly under attack, can only ever be interpreted as the use of force for means of settling international disputes.
Moreover, Japan would most certainly expect to enjoy all the rights, protections and obligations under the laws of war that belligerents are entitled to under international law in such circumstances, a status that Article 9 specifically renounces. The Supreme Court of Japan has held that while Japan retains a right to self-defense under Article 9, it is limited to only such measures that are for the protection of Japan (in the so-called Sunakawa case).
The Cabinet Legislation Bureau has consistently maintained that Article 9 forbids participation in collective self-defense or the deployment of troops abroad for military operations. For the government to now try to argue that notwithstanding what the Constitution plainly states, and what the courts have said it means, and what past governments have accepted as binding, that Japan can now do the opposite, is to do great violence to the Constitution of Japan.
There is an amendment process for a reason, and it can be used to achieve the objectives of having Japan play a more robust role in the area of international collective security. Careful study leading up to such amendments will also ensure that other checks and balances can be built into the revised Constitution to ensure that there is sufficient democratic accountability and civilian control as Japan engages in more extensive international operations. To try to circumvent that process undermines the entire structure of the Constitution.
If Article 9 can be merely interpreted away, why not other provisions? A democracy allows its Constitution to be undermined at its peril, and the erosion of constitutional controls on a country seeking greater military influence will almost certainly alarm its neighbors.
Craig Martin, a Canadian lawyer and a graduate of Osaka University Graduate School of Law, is currently working on a doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania, focusing on the interaction of international and constitutional constraints on the use of armed force.
The Japan Times: Sunday, April 29, 2007
(C) All rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)