ANTONIO AMOR vs.POHNPEI STATE GOVERNMENT,

POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS

VOL. 2

[2 P. S. Ct. R 300]

ANTONIO AMOR,

Petitioner

vs.

POHNPEI STATE GOVERNMENT,

Respondent

Pohnpei Civil Action No. 146-86

Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court March 10, 1987

Petition for judicial review of Pohnpei Hospital Management action in dismissing petitioner from his government employment and of the Personnel Review Board's decision confirming the dismissal. Respondent brought motion for dismissal asserting that there was no statutory provision authorizing judicial review of administrative action, and that the Court had no jurisdiction as the petition was not timely filed. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice, dismissing the motion, held that under Section 27 (3) (e) and (f) of the State Public Service System Act of 1981 (S.L. 2L-57-81) and Section 51 of the Pohnpei Judiciary Act of 1982 (S.L. 2L-160-82) the Court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Board, and that the petition was timely filed.

1. Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Administrative or Agency Action - Presumption of Reviewability.

Unless restricted by law, the Court presumes that it hag jurisdiction to judicially review final administrative or agency actions.

[2 P. S. Ct. R 301]

2. Administrative Law -Administrative or Agency Action Judicial Review

There is reviewability except where (1) statutes preclude judicial review, or (2) administrative or agency action is committed to administrative/agency discretion by law.

3. Statutes - Construction - Judicial Review - Administrative or Agency Action

The Courts frequently interpret language that on its face seems to preclude judicial review not to do so, thus the Courts will interpret statutes precluding judicial review of administrative actions narrowly, and only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent do they restrict access to judicial review of administrative actions.

4. Statutes - Construction - Administrative or Agency Action - Presumption of Reviewability

Legislative silence about availability of review is normally not construed to show an intent to preclude review.

5. Statutes - Construction - Administrative or Agency Action - Presumption of Reviewability

Legislative silence cannot overcome the presumption of reviewability of administrative action.

6. Administrative Law - Administrative or Agency Action Exercise of Discretion - Judicial Review

Generally the lawful exercise of agency discretion is not reviewable, but the absence of statute precluding review wherever an agency exceeds the bounds of its discretion, or balances factors unreasonably in a given case the Court should stand ready to intervene.

7. Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights

The Court's intervention wherever an agency exceeds the bounds of its discretion or balances factors unreasonably in a given case assures the citizens of Pohnpei their, (fundamental rights as enumerated in Article 4 of the Pohnpei Constitution.

[2 P. S. Ct. R 302]

8. Administrative Law - State Public Service Employees - Disciplinary Action by Management Official

A management official is empowered as a disciplinary measure to either suspend, dismiss, or demote an employee of the State Public Service for specified causes. (S.L. 2L-57-81, Section 27 (1) and (2)).

9. Administrative Law - State Public Service System Employees Disciplinary Action by Management Official - Procedure

The procedures to be followed by a management official in the event of an adverse action against an employee of the State Public Service are provided for in Part 17 of the Public Service System Regulations

10. Administrative Law - State Public Service Employees - Disciplinary Action By Management Official - Appeal

Appeals from suspension, dismissal or demotion of a State Public Service employee by a management official as a disciplinary measure lie to a Personnel Review Board designated and constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 (3) et seq. of the State Public Service System Act (SL. 2L-57-81.)

11. Administrative Law - State Public Service Employees - Disciplinary Action By Management Official - Appeal Procedure

Details of the appeal procedure relating to the suspension, dismissal or demotion of a State Public Service employee by a management official as a disciplinary measure are contained in , Part 18 of the Public Service System Regulations.

12. Statues - Construction - Legislative Intent - Personnel Review Board Decisions - Reviewability

Though section 27 (3j (e) of the State Public Service System Ad of 1981 (SL. 2L-57-81) states that the decision of a Personnel Review Board "shall be final," when read in conjunction with section 27 (3) (f) it becomes clear that the Legislature did not intend that section 27 (3j(e) should cut off the rights of review of decisions of the Personnel Review Board in view of their finality.

[2 P. S. Ct. R 303]

13. Statutes - Construction - Personnel Review Board Decisions - Judicial Review

Where Section 27 (3)(f) of the State Public System Act (SL. 2L-5781) provides that "Disciplinary action taken in conformance with this section shall in no case be subject to review in the courts until the administrative remedies prescribed herein have been exhausted "(emphasis added), the Court construes this provision and concludes that the power and jurisdiction of the Court to review any decision of the Personnel Review Board is not precluded by the pertinent statute, and that the law assures such review after an aggrieved employee within the public service has exhausted his domestic remedies, namely the administrative remedies prescribed in Section 27 thereof.

14. Administrative Law - Personnel Review Board

The personnel Review Board being the highest level in the administrative machinery available to an aggrieved employee of the Executive Branch for redress, it is at that level that an employee of the Branch exhausts his administrative remedies and his right to have recourse to the Court ripens.

15. Courts - Power to Review Administrative Actions

The Court's power to review administrative actions is prescribed particularly in Sections 51, 52, 53 and 54 of the Pohnpei Judiciary Act of 1982 (S.L. 2L-160-82)]

16. Administrative Law - Petition for Review of Administrative Action Time for Filing

There is no provision in the Public Service System Act, nor in the Public Service System Regulations which prescribes the time for' petitioning the Court for review.

17. Civil Procedure - Petition for Review of Administrative Action - Time for Filing - Rules

The Court has not promulgated rules prescribing the time within which an grieved employee of an agency may file his petition to the Court for review of the agency's action.

[2 P. S. Ct. R 304]

18. Administrative Law - Petition for Review of Administrative Action Time for Filing

Where no provision is otherwise made prescribing the time limit for filing a petition for review of agency action and the petition filed falls within the six years limitation period under 6 TTC 305 the petition is timely filed.

Counsel for Petitioner Ander Norman of

Micronesian Legal Service Corp.

Counsel for Respondent Joses R. Gallen

EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice

Petitioner on August 26, 1986, petitioned the Court for judicial review of the Pohnpei Hospital Management's action of January 24, 1986, in dismissing him from his government employment as an X-ray Technician I, and the Personnel Review Board's decision of April 23, 1986, confirming the Pohnpei Hospital Authority action in dismissing petitioner. He alleges his dismissal deprived him of his property rights without legal due process and is in violation of Article 4, Section 4, of the Pohnpei Constitution.

Respondent Pohnpei Government brought a motion for dismissal asserting that

(1) there is no statutory provision authorizing judicial review

[2 P. S. Ct. R 305]

of administrative action;

(2) petitioner's petition was not timely filed as it was filed 119 days (April 28,1986 - August 26,1986) after the Person nel Review Board confirmed the Pohnpei Hospital Management decision to dismiss, hence the Court has no jurisdiction.

Oral argument was presented on February 6, 1986. Upon consideration of the points and authorities submitted and oral argument of counsel I think the motion should be denied.

REASONING

I. Presumption of Reviewability

[1-2] Unless restricted by law, we must presume that this Court has jurisdiction to judicially review final administrative or agency actions. In other words there is reviewability except where (1) statutes preclude judicial review or (2) administrative or agency action is committed to administrative/ agency discretion by law. See these U.S. cases for example, discussing this presumption of judicial reviewability. Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140-141 (1 fl67), 87, S.Ct.1507; Bowen v. Academy of Family Physicians106 S. Ct

[2 P. S. Ct. R 306]

2133 (1986).

[3] The Courts frequently interpret language that on its face, seems to preclude judicial review not to do so. This means that the Courts will interpret statutes precluding judicial review of administrative actions narrowly. Only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent do they restrict access to judicial review of administrative actions. See cases cited supra.

[4-5] Legislative silence about availability of review is normally not construed to show an intent to preclude review. Therefore, legislature silence cannot overcome the presumption of reviewability of administrative action. Kingsbrank Jewish Medical Center v. Richardson, 486 F. 2d 663 (1973), citing Abbot Laboratories v.Gardner, supra.

[6-7] Generally, however, the lawful exercise of agency discretion is not reviewable. But in the absence of statute precluding review wherever an agency exceeds the bounds of its discretion, or balances factors unreasonably in a given case, the Court should stand ready to intervene. Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Live Inc., 356 U.S. 309; 78 S,., Ct. 752. Otherwise, the enforcement of the fundamental rights of our

[2 P. S. Ct. R 307]

citizens as enumerated in Article 4 of the Constitution of Pohnpei cannot be assured.

II. THE POHNPEI STATUTE

[8-12] The State Public Service System Act of 1981, S.L. 2L-57-81, the applicable statute in this case, provides in Section 27 for disciplinary action against employees in the State Public Service. Subsections (1) and (2) empower a management official to either suspend, dismiss or demote an employee for specified causes. Part 17 of the Public Service System Regulations provide for the procedures to be followed by a management official in the event of an adverse action against an employee. Appeals from such suspension, dismissal or demotion lie to a Personnel Review Board designated, and constituted in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 3 of Section 27, et. seq. Details of the appeal procedure are contained in Part 18 of the Public Service System Regulations. Section 27, Subsection (3) (e) of 2L-5781 states that "the decision of the Board shall be final." Reading of this subsection leads one to believe that the decision of the Personnel Review Board is final and is not

[2 P. S. Ct. R 308]

subject to review by a court of competent jurisdiction. But Subsection (3) (e) should not be read in isolation from the other provisions of the statute. When read in conjunction with Subsection (3) (f) it becomes clear that the Legislature did not intend that subsection (3) (e) should cut off the rights of review of decisions of the Personnel Review Board in view of their finality.

Subsection (3) (f) of Section 27 provides as follows

"(f) Disciplinary action taken in conformance with this Section shall in no case be subject to review in the courts until the administrative remedies prescribed herein have been exhausted." (Emphasis added)

[13] In construing Subsection (3) (f) I conclude that the power and jurisdiction of this Court to review any decision of the Personnel Review Board is not precluded by the pertinent statute. State Law 2L-57-81 assures such review after an aggrieved employee within the public service has exhausted his domestic remedies, namely the administrative remedies prescribed in Section 27 thereof

[14] The Personnel Review Board is the highest level in

[2 P. S. Ct. R 309]

the administrative machinery available to an aggrieved employee of the Executive Branch for redress. It is at that level that an employee of the Executive Branch exhausts his administrative remedies and his right to have recourse to the Court ripens.

[15] There is plenty of authority supporting this conclusion. Article 10 Section 4 (2) and Section 20 of the Pohnpei Judiciary Act - (2L-160-82) confer original jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases within the jurisdiction of Pohnpei State to the Pohnpei Supreme Court. The Pohnpei Supreme Court's power to review administrative actions is prescribed particularly in the following sections of the Judiciary Act of 1982.

Section 51. Pohnpei Supreme Court Review of Administrative Actions.

(a) The Pohnpei Supreme Court shall have the authority to review all actions of any agency of the Government of this State in actor dance with this Act or the provisions of any other statute or regulation that provides for a broader scope of judicial review.

(b) For the purpose of this Act, any agency means each authority of the Government of this State, but does not include the State Legislature or the courts of this State.

Section 52. Right of Review. A person suffering legal wrong

[2 P. S. Ct. R 310]

because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled

to judicial review thereof by the Pohnpei Supreme Court. Such action in the Pohnpei Supreme Court may seek relief in addition to or other than money damages and may state a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted unlawfully, or failed to ad lawfully in an official capacity or under color of legal authority. The State Government may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the State Government. Any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein affects the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any appropriate legal or equitable ground.

Section 53. Action Reviewable. Agency action otherwise made reviewable by statute and any final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. Agency action is also subject to review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to review on the review of the final agency action. Except as otherwise expressly required by statute, agency action otherwise final is final for the purposes of this section whether or not there has been presented or determined an application for a declaratory order, for any form of reconsideration, or, unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and provides that the action meanwhile is in operative, for an appeal to a superior agency authority.

When an administrative agency act is being reviewed by Court, the agency may postpone the effective date of its action as prescribed in Section 54 infra.

Section 54. Relief Pending Review. When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action talcgn by it, pending judicial review. On such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the reviewing court, including the court to which a case may be

[2 P. S. Ct. R 311]

taken on appeal from or on application for certiorari or other writ to a reviewing curt, may issue all necessary and appropriate process

to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings.

III. LATE FILING

[16-18] There is no provision in the Public Service System Act nor in the Public Service System Regulations which prescribes the time for petitioning the Court for review. This Court has not promulgated rules prescribing the time within which an aggrieved employee of an agency may file his petition to this Court for review of the agency's action. In view of the above, we must next resort to the statute of limitations of action, 6 TTC Chapter 7. This action falls within the six years limitation, 6 TTC 305. Hence, I rule that the petition is timely filed.

Accordingly, Respondent State's motion to dismiss Denied. This Court shall review the constitutionality of the final action of the Government of Pohnpei in dismissing plaintiff from his employment as an X-Ray technician at the Pohnpei Hospital. A notice of such review shall follow. It is so Ordered.


	POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS VOL. 2 [2 P. S. Ct. R 300] ANTONIO AMOR, Petitioner vs. POHNPEI STATE GOVERNMENT, Respondent Pohnpei Civil Action No. 146-86 Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court March 10, 1987 Petition for judicial review of Pohnpei Hospital Management action in dismissing petitioner from his government employment and of the Personnel Review Board's decision confirming the dismissal. Respondent brought motion for dismissal asserting that there was no statutory provision authorizing judicial review of administrative action, and that the Court had no jurisdiction as the petition was not timely filed. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice, dismissing the motion, held that under Section 27 (3) (e) and (f) of the State Public Service System Act of 1981 (S.L. 2L-57-81) and Section 51 of the Pohnpei Judiciary Act of 1982 (S.L. 2L-160-82) the Court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Board, and that the petition was timely filed. 1. Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Administrative or Agency Action - Presumption of Reviewability. Unless restricted by law, the Court presumes that it hag jurisdiction to judicially review final administrative or agency actions. [2 P. S. Ct. R 301] 2. Administrative Law -Administrative or Agency Action Judicial Review There is reviewability except where (1) statutes preclude judicial review, or (2) administrative or agency action is committed to administrative/agency discretion by law. 3. Statutes - Construction - Judicial Review - Administrative or Agency Action The Courts frequently interpret language that on its face seems to preclude judicial review not to do so, thus the Courts will interpret statutes precluding judicial review of administrative actions narrowly, and only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent do they restrict access to judicial review of administrative actions. 4. Statutes - Construction - Administrative or Agency Action - Presumption of Reviewability Legislative silence about availability of review is normally not construed to show an intent to preclude review. 5. Statutes - Construction - Administrative or Agency Action - Presumption of Reviewability Legislative silence cannot overcome the presumption of reviewability of administrative action. 6. Administrative Law - Administrative or Agency Action Exercise of Discretion - Judicial Review Generally the lawful exercise of agency discretion is not reviewable, but the absence of statute precluding review wherever an agency exceeds the bounds of its discretion, or balances factors unreasonably in a given case the Court should stand ready to intervene. 7. Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights The Court's intervention wherever an agency exceeds the bounds of its discretion or balances factors unreasonably in a given case assures the citizens of Pohnpei their, (fundamental rights as enumerated in Article 4 of the Pohnpei Constitution. [2 P. S. Ct. R 302] 8. Administrative Law - State Public Service Employees - Disciplinary Action by Management Official A management official is empowered as a disciplinary measure to either suspend, dismiss, or demote an employee of the State Public Service for specified causes. (S.L. 2L-57-81, Section 27 (1) and (2)). 9. Administrative Law - State Public Service System Employees Disciplinary Action by Management Official - Procedure The procedures to be followed by a management official in the event of an adverse action against an employee of the State Public Service are provided for in Part 17 of the Public Service System Regulations 10. Administrative Law - State Public Service Employees - Disciplinary Action By Management Official - Appeal Appeals from suspension, dismissal or demotion of a State Public Service employee by a management official as a disciplinary measure lie to a Personnel Review Board designated and constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 (3) et seq. of the State Public Service System Act (SL. 2L-57-81.) 11. Administrative Law - State Public Service Employees - Disciplinary Action By Management Official - Appeal Procedure Details of the appeal procedure relating to the suspension, dismissal or demotion of a State Public Service employee by a management official as a disciplinary measure are contained in , Part 18 of the Public Service System Regulations. 12. Statues - Construction - Legislative Intent - Personnel Review Board Decisions - Reviewability Though section 27 (3j (e) of the State Public Service System Ad of 1981 (SL. 2L-57-81) states that the decision of a Personnel Review Board "shall be final," when read in conjunction with section 27 (3) (f) it becomes clear that the Legislature did not intend that section 27 (3j(e) should cut off the rights of review of decisions of the Personnel Review Board in view of their finality. [2 P. S. Ct. R 303] 13. Statutes - Construction - Personnel Review Board Decisions - Judicial Review Where Section 27 (3)(f) of the State Public System Act (SL. 2L-5781) provides that "Disciplinary action taken in conformance with this section shall in no case be subject to review in the courts until the administrative remedies prescribed herein have been exhausted "(emphasis added), the Court construes this provision and concludes that the power and jurisdiction of the Court to review any decision of the Personnel Review Board is not precluded by the pertinent statute, and that the law assures such review after an aggrieved employee within the public service has exhausted his domestic remedies, namely the administrative remedies prescribed in Section 27 thereof. 14. Administrative Law - Personnel Review Board The personnel Review Board being the highest level in the administrative machinery available to an aggrieved employee of the Executive Branch for redress, it is at that level that an employee of the Branch exhausts his administrative remedies and his right to have recourse to the Court ripens. 15. Courts - Power to Review Administrative Actions The Court's power to review administrative actions is prescribed particularly in Sections 51, 52, 53 and 54 of the Pohnpei Judiciary Act of 1982 (S.L. 2L-160-82)] 16. Administrative Law - Petition for Review of Administrative Action Time for Filing There is no provision in the Public Service System Act, nor in the Public Service System Regulations which prescribes the time for' petitioning the Court for review. 17. Civil Procedure - Petition for Review of Administrative Action - Time for Filing - Rules The Court has not promulgated rules prescribing the time within which an grieved employee of an agency may file his petition to the Court for review of the agency's action. [2 P. S. Ct. R 304] 18. Administrative Law - Petition for Review of Administrative Action Time for Filing Where no provision is otherwise made prescribing the time limit for filing a petition for review of agency action and the petition filed falls within the six years limitation period under 6 TTC 305 the petition is timely filed. Counsel for Petitioner Ander Norman of Micronesian Legal Service Corp. Counsel for Respondent Joses R. Gallen EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice Petitioner on August 26, 1986, petitioned the Court for judicial review of the Pohnpei Hospital Management's action of January 24, 1986, in dismissing him from his government employment as an X-ray Technician I, and the Personnel Review Board's decision of April 23, 1986, confirming the Pohnpei Hospital Authority action in dismissing petitioner. He alleges his dismissal deprived him of his property rights without legal due process and is in violation of Article 4, Section 4, of the Pohnpei Constitution. Respondent Pohnpei Government brought a motion for dismissal asserting that (1) there is no statutory provision authorizing judicial review [2 P. S. Ct. R 305] of administrative action; (2) petitioner's petition was not timely filed as it was filed 119 days (April 28,1986 - August 26,1986) after the Person nel Review Board confirmed the Pohnpei Hospital Management decision to dismiss, hence the Court has no jurisdiction. Oral argument was presented on February 6, 1986. Upon consideration of the points and authorities submitted and oral argument of counsel I think the motion should be denied. REASONING I. Presumption of Reviewability [1-2] Unless restricted by law, we must presume that this Court has jurisdiction to judicially review final administrative or agency actions. In other words there is reviewability except where (1) statutes preclude judicial review or (2) administrative or agency action is committed to administrative/ agency discretion by law. See these U.S. cases for example, discussing this presumption of judicial reviewability. Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140-141 (1 fl67), 87, S.Ct.1507; Bowen v. Academy of Family Physicians106 S. Ct [2 P. S. Ct. R 306] 2133 (1986). [3] The Courts frequently interpret language that on its face, seems to preclude judicial review not to do so. This means that the Courts will interpret statutes precluding judicial review of administrative actions narrowly. Only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent do they restrict access to judicial review of administrative actions. See cases cited supra. [4-5] Legislative silence about availability of review is normally not construed to show an intent to preclude review. Therefore, legislature silence cannot overcome the presumption of reviewability of administrative action. Kingsbrank Jewish Medical Center v. Richardson, 486 F. 2d 663 (1973), citing Abbot Laboratories v.Gardner, supra. [6-7] Generally, however, the lawful exercise of agency discretion is not reviewable. But in the absence of statute precluding review wherever an agency exceeds the bounds of its discretion, or balances factors unreasonably in a given case, the Court should stand ready to intervene. Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Live Inc., 356 U.S. 309; 78 S,., Ct. 752. Otherwise, the enforcement of the fundamental rights of our [2 P. S. Ct. R 307] citizens as enumerated in Article 4 of the Constitution of Pohnpei cannot be assured. II. THE POHNPEI STATUTE [8-12] The State Public Service System Act of 1981, S.L. 2L-57-81, the applicable statute in this case, provides in Section 27 for disciplinary action against employees in the State Public Service. Subsections (1) and (2) empower a management official to either suspend, dismiss or demote an employee for specified causes. Part 17 of the Public Service System Regulations provide for the procedures to be followed by a management official in the event of an adverse action against an employee. Appeals from such suspension, dismissal or demotion lie to a Personnel Review Board designated, and constituted in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 3 of Section 27, et. seq. Details of the appeal procedure are contained in Part 18 of the Public Service System Regulations. Section 27, Subsection (3) (e) of 2L-5781 states that "the decision of the Board shall be final." Reading of this subsection leads one to believe that the decision of the Personnel Review Board is final and is not [2 P. S. Ct. R 308] subject to review by a court of competent jurisdiction. But Subsection (3) (e) should not be read in isolation from the other provisions of the statute. When read in conjunction with Subsection (3) (f) it becomes clear that the Legislature did not intend that subsection (3) (e) should cut off the rights of review of decisions of the Personnel Review Board in view of their finality. Subsection (3) (f) of Section 27 provides as follows "(f) Disciplinary action taken in conformance with this Section shall in no case be subject to review in the courts until the administrative remedies prescribed herein have been exhausted." (Emphasis added) [13] In construing Subsection (3) (f) I conclude that the power and jurisdiction of this Court to review any decision of the Personnel Review Board is not precluded by the pertinent statute. State Law 2L-57-81 assures such review after an aggrieved employee within the public service has exhausted his domestic remedies, namely the administrative remedies prescribed in Section 27 thereof [14] The Personnel Review Board is the highest level in [2 P. S. Ct. R 309] the administrative machinery available to an aggrieved employee of the Executive Branch for redress. It is at that level that an employee of the Executive Branch exhausts his administrative remedies and his right to have recourse to the Court ripens. [15] There is plenty of authority supporting this conclusion. Article 10 Section 4 (2) and Section 20 of the Pohnpei Judiciary Act - (2L-160-82) confer original jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases within the jurisdiction of Pohnpei State to the Pohnpei Supreme Court. The Pohnpei Supreme Court's power to review administrative actions is prescribed particularly in the following sections of the Judiciary Act of 1982. Section 51. Pohnpei Supreme Court Review of Administrative Actions. (a) The Pohnpei Supreme Court shall have the authority to review all actions of any agency of the Government of this State in actor dance with this Act or the provisions of any other statute or regulation that provides for a broader scope of judicial review. (b) For the purpose of this Act, any agency means each authority of the Government of this State, but does not include the State Legislature or the courts of this State. Section 52. Right of Review. A person suffering legal wrong [2 P. S. Ct. R 310] because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof by the Pohnpei Supreme Court. Such action in the Pohnpei Supreme Court may seek relief in addition to or other than money damages and may state a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted unlawfully, or failed to ad lawfully in an official capacity or under color of legal authority. The State Government may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the State Government. Any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein affects the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any appropriate legal or equitable ground. Section 53. Action Reviewable. Agency action otherwise made reviewable by statute and any final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. Agency action is also subject to review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to review on the review of the final agency action. Except as otherwise expressly required by statute, agency action otherwise final is final for the purposes of this section whether or not there has been presented or determined an application for a declaratory order, for any form of reconsideration, or, unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and provides that the action meanwhile is in operative, for an appeal to a superior agency authority. When an administrative agency act is being reviewed by Court, the agency may postpone the effective date of its action as prescribed in Section 54 infra. Section 54. Relief Pending Review. When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action talcgn by it, pending judicial review. On such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the reviewing court, including the court to which a case may be [2 P. S. Ct. R 311] taken on appeal from or on application for certiorari or other writ to a reviewing curt, may issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings. III. LATE FILING [16-18] There is no provision in the Public Service System Act nor in the Public Service System Regulations which prescribes the time for petitioning the Court for review. This Court has not promulgated rules prescribing the time within which an aggrieved employee of an agency may file his petition to this Court for review of the agency's action. In view of the above, we must next resort to the statute of limitations of action, 6 TTC Chapter 7. This action falls within the six years limitation, 6 TTC 305. Hence, I rule that the petition is timely filed. Accordingly, Respondent State's motion to dismiss Denied. This Court shall review the constitutionality of the final action of the Government of Pohnpei in dismissing plaintiff from his employment as an X-Ray technician at the Pohnpei Hospital. A notice of such review shall follow. It is so Ordered.