macmeekin.com 

Dan MacMeekin         Attorney at Law        Washington, DC, USA

Library … Articles …

Analysis of the Fourteen Proposed Amendments 

to the FSM Constitution (as amended) 

by John R. Haglelgam

^{Return to the article outline}

[Number of Justices on Supreme Court]

[67.7% of the voters in the August 27, 2002, referendum voted in favor of this amendment.  A 75% affirmative vote was required to pass the amendment, so the amendment failed.]

1. Committee Proposal No. 01-1:

This proposal will amend Section 2 of Article XI of the FSM Constitution. It sets the numbers of sitting justices on the Supreme Court at four at all times: three associate justices and the Chief Justice. Although it acknowledges that the Chief Justice has the authority to assign justices of the Supreme Court to any of the states where the court loads justify, it seems to mandate that at least one justice shall be assigned to each state.

If a vacancy occurs that reduces the number of sitting justices below the minimum of four, this proposed amendment authorizes the Chief Justice to appoint a justice pro tem who will fill the vacancy temporarily until a nomination is made by the FSM president and confirmed by the Congress. This proposal requires that a justice pro tem shall possess the same qualifications as the permanent justices on the court. The Chief Justice does not have this power under the current judicial article of the FSM Constitution.

Each justice of the Supreme Court is a member of both the trial and appellate divisions; only one justice may hear a case in the trial session. It takes at least three justices to hear an appellate case and the justice who heard the case at the trial level is prohibited from participating in the same case at the appellate division. It requires a majority of the sitting justices in an appellate case to render a decision.

^{Top of page}

ANALYSIS

This proposed amendment will make sure that at all times the FSM Supreme Court will have four justices to hear cases in the states. It will be unnecessary for the Chief Justice to appoint temporary justices from outside of the Court to hear cases in the appellate division on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the FSM states that currently have no resident justices will, under this proposal, have at least one justice assigned to each. Theoretically, the assignment of one justice to each of the four states will guarantee FSM citizens the rights to have their grievances heard in the Supreme Court.

This proposal will, however, definitely increase the budget of the Supreme Court to pay for salaries of the additional justice and his staff; to pay rental for office and housing; and to pay for office supplies. In this time of budget cutting and austerity measures, this proposal will definitely move our country in the opposite direction. In addition, investigating and adjudicating the crimes, which were once defined as major crimes, have now been devolved onto the states as their responsibilities. In other words, the current caseloads in the Supreme Court may not warrant an increase in the number of sitting justices. This brings me to the question of FSM citizens’ right to have their grievances heard in the Supreme Court. This is a serious concern because it deals with the fundamental right of our people. If people in the states that currently have no resident justices are in fact denied this constitutional right, then the concern for increased cost and inadequate court caseloads should not matter anymore.

©  John R. Haglelgam, March 4, 2002

^{Top of page}

^{Return to the article outline}

  Dan MacMeekin  2000 -2008            Disclaimer  - the fine print                February  24, 2008