By Nazario Rodriguez Jr.
Horizon news staff

The Supreme Court Trial Division declared that Senator Joshua Koshiba did not get the required five votes to make him as Senate President.
Associate Judge Lourdes Materne issued its judgment on Friday April 20 in Civil Action No. 07-104 in favor of the plaintiffs Yukiwo P. Dengokl, Santy Asanuma and Surangel Whipps Sr. and against defendants Koshiba, Mlib Tmetuchl, and Alan R. Seid saying that the election of the presiding officer of the Senate requires at least five votes.
Materne said that Koshiba was not elected President of the Senate in accordance with the Constitution and that he does not hold such office.
It would be recalled that a Resolution that was introduced by Seid that seeks to make Koshiba as replacement of the late Senate President Johnny Reklai got a 4-3 vote during a special session on March 27.
Immediately thereafter, Koshiba presided over the sessions but Dengokl, Asanuma and Whipps, along with Sen. Caleb Otto, refused to recognize Koshiba and went to the court.
However, the court said that an injunction was also issued and Koshiba is enjoined from acting as Senate President unless and until an election that complies with the requirements of Article IX, Section 13 elevates him to that office.
Materne also ruled against the plaintiffs’ claim for monetary damages.
Rachel Dimitruk and Roman Bedor are the counsels for the plaintiffs while Johnson Toribiong and Raymond L. Souza are counsels for the defendants.
On the same day, Materne ordered the granting in part of defendants’ motion to dismiss and awarding declaratory and injunctive relief.
In that order, Materne noted that plaintiffs have abandoned their request for a declaration that Senate Resolution 7-111 has no legal force or effect, apparently on the theory that such a declaration may run afoul of the Speech and Debate Clause.
She further added that whether third parties who interacted with the Senate during the time that Koshiba held himself out as the presiding officer can rely upon his purported authority to act on behalf of that body is not properly before the Court.
On the question of jurisdiction of the case, the Court said that the Palau Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and has the duty to decide disputes involving another branch of government.
Materne said that the defendants argued that even if the Court has jurisdiction, it should dismiss the case because it involves a political question.
But Materne ruled that there was no political question at issue because it is the duty of the Court to construe the Constitution and determine whetehr defendants complied with its provision.
On Standing, the plaintiffs seek declaratory relief but Materne said that such relief is available whenever a declaration "will serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal relations of the parties or terminate the uncertainty and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.
She said the plaintiffs maintained that an election in which they participated was not carried out in accordance with the law and they seek a declaration to that effect.
Materne said that such suits are regularly heard by the courts and defendants have not identified any impediment that would preclude plaintiffs from challenging an illegality in the election process.
On the issue of speech and debate Clause, Materne said that the immunity offered by this Clause insures that legislators are free to represent the interests of their constituents without fear that they will later be asked to defend their speech of their vote before the courts.
She said that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is therefore granted with regards to plaintiff’ claim for monetary damages.
On the mootness issue, the defendants offered no legal or factual support for their theory that the "Reading and Adoption of the Journal" on April 15 ratifies the actions taken during those sessions.