Nicholas challenged the trial court’s decision but the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.
Associate Justice Kathleen Salii, Associate Justice Lourdes F. Materne and Associate Justice Alexandra F. Foster in their opinion order on September 3 agreed with the trial division’s determination that Nicholas does not meet the residency qualifications for candidates outlined in Article IX, Section 6 of the Palau Constitution.Nicholas sued the Palau Election Commission when the latter disqualified him from seeking a seat at the Senate, OEK last year.Palau Election Commission determined that Nicholas did not meet the residency requirement for membership in the OEK and was ineligible to hold office and could not be on the official ballot.Nicholas is a citizen of Palau but he and his family are based in Saipan. He has been living in Saipan since 1989.The Supreme Court dismissed his lawsuit against the Palau Election Commission and ruled that Nicholas did not meet the five-year residency requirement of the Constitution.The Supreme Court ruled that Nicholas has zero years of continuous presence in Palau immediately preceding the election.But Nicholas challenged the Supreme Court’s decision and argued that he never left Palau and has been a resident of Angaur ever since.Nicholas argued that although his wife and kids are in Saipan, he always thought of returning to Palau.He said he keep on coming back to Palau to attend funerals and family functions.The Appellate Division in affirming the trial court’s order stated that Nicholas does not have a residence in Palau.The Justices said that Nicholas clan owns land on Angaur including his childhood home. However, when he visits Palau, he stays in a hotel and has not stayed in the house he described as his “family home” for 25 years.Nicholas has lived Saipan for 20 years and has built a home for his family. The order stated that 95 percent of his business is conducted in Saipan and has only handled two legal matters in Palau in the last five years.“These facts clearly show that Saipan is the center of appellant’s domestic, social and civil life,” the Justices order state.“However valid a justification for moving to a place, that explanation does not negate his choice, exercised constantly over the last 20 years, to not reside in Palau. It is not essential that the place be the one where he would prefer to live or to which he is sentimentally most attached. He has not shown that Palau is his domicile and for that reason, he is not a resident for the purposes of Article IX, Section 6 of the Palau Constitution and not eligible to hold office in the OEK,” the justices said.
