Associate Justices Kathleen M. Salii, Lourdes F. Materne and Alexandra F. Foster in an opinion order on October 31, affirmed the decision of Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong when it ruled in favor of the Palau Election Commission and dismissed the action filed by Delegates Mario S. Gulibert, Lucio Ngiraiwet, Speaker of the House Antonio Bells and Floor Leader Sabino Anastacio.
The Delegates sued the PEC and its officials Chairman Santos Borja and members Gregorio Decherong, Benjamin Yobech and Sally Techitong Soalblai when the Board determined that they are ineligible to seek re-election.Chief Justice granted summary judgment in favor of the Palau Election Commission and the Delegates filed a timely appeal on the matter.The Delegates moved the Supreme Court to overturn the trial court’s decision and argued that the trial court failed to properly construe the Amendment’s language as ambiguous.The Delegates argued that the trial court erroneously relied on the absence of explicit prospective language to find that the Amendment applied retrospectively.Supreme Court in affirming the trial court’s decision said that the trial court correctly identified the proper analysis when it stated “if language of the Fourth Amendment is clear and unambiguous, the court must apply the Constitution according to its plain and obvious meaning.”The Supreme Court said the trial court then determined that the Amendment’s language was clear in counting terms prior to 2004 against Legislators with the exception that no legislators elected in 2004 would be barred until that term ended.“Accordingly, despite a misleading statement in the trial court opinion, the trial court analyzed the Amendment’s language properly,” the Associate Justices said in their order.The Justices said “although the appellants make excellent efforts in support of their position, their interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is just not convincing. A straight forward reading of the text contains a plain meaning; that terms served prior to 2004 count against every candidate, while the limitation will not be exercised against incumbents until 2008.”The Justices said the Delegates arguments that the Fourth Amendment is ambiguous because it lacks an explicit directive couldn’t succeed.“There is no question that the Fourth Amendment was passed in the 2004 election and that the four year term ends in 2008,” the Justices said.
