7 FSM Intrm. 600-601

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT

TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Chuuk State Supreme Court v. Umwech (I),

7 FSM Intrm. 600 (Chuuk S. Ct. Tr. 1996)

[7 FSM Intrm. 600]

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT and

SOUKICHI FRITZ, in his capacity as Chief Justice,

Chuuk State Supreme Court,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MARCELLINO UMWECH, in his capacity as

Governor of Chuuk State,

Defendant.

CSSC - CIVIL NO. 113-96

FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

Richard H. Benson

Special Trial Division Justice

Hearing: September 23, 1996

Decided: October 2, 1996

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: Mark Sokkappa, Esq.

P.O. Box 187

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendant: Wesley Simina, Esq.

Chuuk Attorney General

P.O. Box 189

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTE

Constitutional Law ) Chuuk ) Executive Powers

For the Chuuk Governor to veto a bill he must both disapprove it and return it to the house in the legislature in which it originated within ten days of it being presented to him. Otherwise it becomes law in like manner as if he had signed it. Chuuk State Supreme Court v. Umwech (I), 7 FSM Intrm. 600, 601 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1996).

[7 FSM Intrm. 601]

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

RICHARD H. BENSON, Special Trial Division Justice:

This case was heard on September 23, 1996 on the sole issue of whether to grant the plaintiffs declaratory judgment that "Chuuk State Legislature No. 3-19-95 cannot be applied to the plaintiffs." The plaintiffs contend that when Act 3-21 became law, State Law 3-95-19 no longer applied to them.

The testimony received and arguments made were only as to whether Act 3-21 became law. It is uncontested that Act 3-21 was enacted by the Chuuk State Legislature and presented to the Governor for his consideration on July 22, 1996. It is also uncontested that more than ten days remained on July 22 before the legislature would adjourn sine die. Thus the Governor had ten days within which to act. Chk. Const. art. V, § 14(a). The Chuuk Constitution provides that for the Governor to veto a bill he must both disapprove it and return it to the house in the legislature in which it originated within ten days of it being presented to him. Otherwise it becomes law. Id.

Based on the testimony received and after considering the arguments of counsel, I make the following finding of fact: The Governor did not return Act 3-21 to the legislature with his disapproval and objections within the ten days permitted by the Constitution of the State of Chuuk, article V, section 14(a). Based upon this finding I make the following conclusion of law: Because of the failure set out in the finding of fact, Act 3-21 became law in like manner as if signed by the Governor.Id.

If so advised, the plaintiffs may by motion assert their right to declaratory judgment based on this ruling.


	CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION Cite as Chuuk State Supreme Court v. Umwech (I), 7 FSM Intrm. 600 (Chuuk S. Ct. Tr. 1996) [7 FSM Intrm. 600] CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT and SOUKICHI FRITZ, in his capacity as Chief Justice, Chuuk State Supreme Court, Plaintiffs, vs. MARCELLINO UMWECH, in his capacity as Governor of Chuuk State, Defendant. CSSC - CIVIL NO. 113-96 FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW Richard H. Benson Special Trial Division Justice Hearing: September 23, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: Mark Sokkappa, Esq. P.O. Box 187 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 For the Defendant: Wesley Simina, Esq. Chuuk Attorney General P.O. Box 189 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 * * * * HEADNOTE Constitutional Law ) Chuuk ) Executive Powers For the Chuuk Governor to veto a bill he must both disapprove it and return it to the house in the legislature in which it originated within ten days of it being presented to him. Otherwise it becomes law in like manner as if he had signed it. Chuuk State Supreme Court v. Umwech (I), 7 FSM Intrm. 600, 601 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1996). [7 FSM Intrm. 601] * * * * COURT'S OPINION RICHARD H. BENSON, Special Trial Division Justice: This case was heard on September 23, 1996 on the sole issue of whether to grant the plaintiffs declaratory judgment that "Chuuk State Legislature No. 3-19-95 cannot be applied to the plaintiffs." The plaintiffs contend that when Act 3-21 became law, State Law 3-95-19 no longer applied to them. The testimony received and arguments made were only as to whether Act 3-21 became law. It is uncontested that Act 3-21 was enacted by the Chuuk State Legislature and presented to the Governor for his consideration on July 22, 1996. It is also uncontested that more than ten days remained on July 22 before the legislature would adjourn sine die. Thus the Governor had ten days within which to act. Chk. Const. art. V, § 14(a). The Chuuk Constitution provides that for the Governor to veto a bill he must both disapprove it and return it to the house in the legislature in which it originated within ten days of it being presented to him. Otherwise it becomes law. Id. Based on the testimony received and after considering the arguments of counsel, I make the following finding of fact: The Governor did not return Act 3-21 to the legislature with his disapproval and objections within the ten days permitted by the Constitution of the State of Chuuk, article V, section 14(a). Based upon this finding I make the following conclusion of law: Because of the failure set out in the finding of fact, Act 3-21 became law in like manner as if signed by the Governor.Id. If so advised, the plaintiffs may by motion assert their right to declaratory judgment based on this ruling.