FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE (May 26, 2017 – Hagåtña) – On this date last year, Therese M. Terlaje officially announced that she would run for senator with one of her primary goals being to make the government of Guam more transparent and equip the people of Guam with knowledge and information so that they can make decisions, and be inspired to act on things that make sense for their families. Exactly one year later, Bill No. 71-34 (COR), introduced by Senator Therese Terlaje (D-Yoña), was passed by the Guam Legislature setting the effective date of an Executive Order to be midnight of the day it is transmitted to the Guam Legislature and to the Compiler of Laws, who is responsible for publishing legal evidence of the Executive Orders and all the laws of Guam.

Terlaje stated, “Prior to this legislation, there was no existing guarantee that the people of Guam would be notified of any of the Governor’s Executive Orders. In fact, none of the Executive Orders issued in 2017 were transmitted to the Legislature or to the Compiler of Laws, and none were published on the Governor’s or the government of Guam’s websites to date. The public should have immediate access to any vital information regarding changes in government operations, laws, and rules and regulations.”

Expanding on the objective of Bill No. 71-34 (COR) to improve government transparency, Senator Terlaje introduced three additional bills this month focused on increasing the public’s access to information on changes in agency fees for services, rules and regulations, and operational changes. Bill 91-34 (COR) is related to promoting affordable access to updated and searchable laws, rules and regulations, Executive Orders, Attorney General opinions, and court decisions. Bill 101-34 (LS) is relative to ensuring a public hearing is held prior to the adoption of any agency rules and regulations. Bill 102-34 (LS) is relative to increasing public awareness of the economic impact of rules and regulations.

“Once all the people of Guam can access all relevant information, our discussions will be more productive and the people of Guam will not be vulnerable to being fooled over and over. I think this is a huge task but crucial. I hope to gain the support of my colleagues to embrace the input of the people, and in turn to use the checks and balance of the legislative branch seriously as it was designed,” stated Terlaje.

For more information, please call the Office of Vice Speaker Therese M. Terlaje at (671) 472-3586.

(Hagåtña – May 24, 2017) Lengthy discussion took place this afternoon, on Bill 79-34, which proposes to establish the Guam Council of Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency. With the intent to further strengthen the bill, Vice Speaker Therese Terlaje introduced several amendments that would urge the Council to include as part of their duties, review of the impact of federal activities on the local environment. Specifically, as part of the Council’s mandate to “prioritize and focus policy recommendations on climate change resilience, ecosystem and biodiversity protection, waste management and pollution control and environmental governance,” Terlaje’s amendments proposed that the Climate Change Council review issues of military and federal activities including testing, detonations, and the removal of one thousand acres of limestone forest for the live-fire training range complex (LFTRC) at Northwest Field on Andersen Air Force Base.

While the amendments did not get the support to pass, Terlaje emphasized, “These are concrete environmental impacts that we can actually address and hopefully prevent today, including the removal of forests and direct destruction of coral reef, which promote sea level rise, coastal erosion and contamination of water resources. All of these are critical issues that are currently impacted by military and federal activities in Guam and the larger region.”

Terlaje asked her colleagues to respond to events that directly disturb the environment today and ultimately pose threats to the safety and strength of the island to survive the environmental hazards of global warming. She stated, “No one can afford to say this is someone else’s job. We have to be on the cutting edge. We cannot afford to be behind in the information as it becomes available. I am hoping that the Council’s recommendations are going to help the people of Guam immediately and not become just another report that is put on the shelf.”

For more information, please call the Office of Vice Speaker Therese M. Terlaje at (671) 472-3586.

We are forever grateful for the  wisdom and  knowledge of our elders and everything they have done for all generations of Guåhan!  Biba Manåmko’ and Biba Senior Citizens Month!

 

Resolution Nos. 51-34 (LS) and No. 52-34 (LS) were introduced during the March 9, 2017 session within hours after Vice Speaker Terlaje learned about the threatened lawsuit against the Chamorro Land Trust Commission (CLTC) and a day after the Davis v. Guam District Court decision was released. It was urgent that both resolutions be passed immediately given the April 7th appeal deadline for the Davis case, and the CLTC deadline of January 2017 (2 months ago). The matters discussed in Resolution Nos. 51-34 (LS) and 52-34 (LS) are complicated legal issues that will require extensive analysis and immediate decisions by the Attorney General and Governor of Guam. The resolutions were meant to show the support and solidarity of the Legislature with the Executive Branch and the AG, and in no way prevent the government of Guam from seeking other options. There were enough votes and support from the other senators during the March 9th session to pass both resolutions, but Senator Michael F.Q. San Nicolas and a couple of other senators requested that a public hearing be held. Speaker Cruz indicated that a special session would be called as soon as a public hearing was held, since the next session was not planned until after April 17th. Unfortunately, Speaker Cruz left off-island on the day of the public hearing, which was held five working days after the March 9 session.

The public hearing notice was sent out on March 9, 2017, with ample time for senators to consult with or invite interested parties to participate in the public hearing. The hearing lasted over 5 hours; only Senator San Nicolas and Vice Speaker had questions for the panel. One attorney was asked to wait for further questioning by Senator San Nicolas after the other testifiers had their turn. The attorney waited, but Senator San Nicolas left before the hearing was concluded without resuming his questions to the attorney.

The audio from the public hearing was uploaded to the Legislature website and attached to the committee report, along with all written testimony, a digest, and all other requirements per the standing rules.

The committee report was filed with the Committee on Rules but the COR Chair refused to approve it for upload to the website prior to the March 17, 2017 session. The report was made available on the session floor.

Discussion on the resolutions was halted by a motion of Senator Morrison which Vice Speaker Terlaje did not support. Senator San Nicolas left the room during the vote. Both resolutions were adopted.

These resolutions do nothing to change current Guam policy and simply convey that the Legislature supports the defense of current policies and preservation of options at this time. Nothing in this resolution prevents the pursuit of all avenues available to the government of Guam, nor prevents any senator from proposing another policy or course for the government and people of Guam.

Transcript from 34^th Guam Legislative Afternoon Session on March 8, 2017

Legislative Session Remarks of Vice Speaker Therese Terlaje on Resolution 27-34 (COR):

It is irrefutable that Veterans of Guam who served the U.S. Military deserve the respect and attention of the United States government. It is commendable that lawyers from Guam recognize these disparities and step up and help our veterans. There are many other concrete ways that we lawyers and non-lawyers can assist veterans. For example, we have Vietnam Veterans who still are not receiving Agent Orange disability benefits because of the discouraging paperwork and process they must go through.

Their service in Vietnam entitles those are diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, or other illnesses to a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange an entitlement to medical, disability, survivor, and other benefits and compensation. Yet the lengthy, complicated, discouraging claims process discourages them. And we attorneys and non-attorneys should work together to help these veterans gain this immediate and concrete relief; and these winnable claims.

It is also equally irrefutable that the citizens of Guam are being treated unequally by the United States and face many serious injustices that require immediate action, most notably the impending live fire range being built at Northwest Field that threatens our ancient village, critical habitat, endangered species, and causes permanent injury to land that should be returned to original landowners. Voting rights as proposed in this Resolution does not give us adequate tools to protect our homelands. The people of Guam and other territories deserve to determine for themselves their governance and political status.

Resolution 27-34 (COR) proposes to recognize the “We the People Project” for advancing voting rights for the people of Guam and other territories. And to commend the “We the People Project” for advocating for the voting rights of the people of Guam.

While the resolution at first glance appears commendatory, it is being treated as a substantive resolution, and indeed, it may be interpreted by third parties as a substantive endorsement of the underlying merits or arguments of the case. In short, the resolution may have unintended consequences for the people and government of Guam, including possibly the government’s ability to intervene in the case should intervention become necessary at some stage of litigation. The government of Guam’s position in the underlying case has not yet been fully vetted, and may be controlled by current policy as contained in statute, which mandates that the government pursue decolonization and a plebiscite pursuant to UN directives. The Segovia case has the potential to impose on Guam a vote for president without a corresponding vote of the people to enter into one of three internationally recognized political statuses, as a state fully incorporated into the United States, as a state in free association with the United States, or an independent country.

Thus, the case may have broader legal consequence inasmuch as it may upset a political process that ensures self-determination for the people of Guam. A right this important – if it is to be given up – must be thoroughly considered and consciously surrendered. We should not allow it to be impliedly conceded through the adoption of a commendatory resolution.

In a similar case brought by the same “We the People Project”–against the wishes of the government of American Samoa. Congressman Faleomavaega, the Congressman who recently passed away, and the American Samoa government argued that Congress and the people of American Samoa, not the courts, should decide whether to extend birthright citizenship to American Samoa.  They argue: (1) that the imposition of birthright citizenship by judicial fiat would have unintended negative consequences for the culture of American Samoa, including the ability to protect the people’s ownership of their customary lands–which Congress has long protected; and (2) that the imposition of birthright citizenship would upset a political process that ensures self-determination for the people of unincorporated territories.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in favor of the government of American Samoa. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States in February 2016. And in June, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, upholding the decision in favor of American Samoa. It should be of grave concern to us, in Guam, that the We the People Project brought this lawsuit against the wishes of the American Samoa government and many of the people themselves.

At the public hearing on this resolution, there were no witnesses to testify. The President and Founder of We the People Project, as said earlier, submitted written testimony on this measure. And there was some discussion about this underlying case affecting American Samoa. The digest from the public hearing indicates, and I quote, page 3 of the digest, “Chairman San Nicolas thanked Vice Speaker for her statements and echoed her statements on the American Samoa state government not supporting the original case. Chairman San Nicolas indicated it is because of that reason that I Liheslaturan should chime in on the issue, one way or the other, considering that the only voice being heard now at the federal level is that of a particular state government not supporting the case, and in turn that can be extrapolated as to whether or not the other U.S. territories support the case. Chairman San Nicolas indicated that the time is now to decide on the issue, and that the Resolution can help that cause.”

I would like to read a short quote from the U.S. Court of Appeals, when they ruled in favor of American Samoa. And I quote “We can envision little that is more anomalous under modern standards than the forcible imposition of citizenship against the majoritarian will. To hold the contrary would be to mandate an irregular intrusion into the autonomy of the Samoan democratic decision-making. An exercise of paternalism if not overt cultural imperialism offensive to the shared democratic tradition of the United States and modern American Samoa. For the foregoing reasons the district court is affirmed.”

In the citations of the last paragraph, they cite the United Nations charter. They cite excerpts from the Atlantic Charter, US and UK, August 1941, endorsing respect for the right of all peoples to choose which government in which they want to live. They cite Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points address to joint session of Congress in determining all questions of sovereignty, the interest of the population’s concern must have equal weight of the equitable claims of government; who’s title is to be determined. The underlying decision in the same case where the court said, “American Samoans take pride in their unique cultural and political practices and they celebrate its history free from conquest or involuntary annexation from foreign powers.”

The plaintiffs in this action are six United States citizens who are former residents of Illinois and who now reside in Puerto Rico, Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands, plus two organizations that promote voting rights in United States Territories. The plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act contending that it violates their equal protection and due process rights by barring them from casting absentee ballots in Illinois for federal elections due to their residence in the United States Territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, while allowing United States citizens who were previously qualified to vote in Illinois and currently reside in the United States Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands or in a foreign country to cast absentee Illinois ballots.

When Mr. Segovia resided in Illinois, he voted for President; he now votes in Guam elections. The other plaintiff, from Guam, moved to Guam. When he resided in Illinois, he voted for President. He now votes in Guam elections. So while this case reports to advocate for Guam voting rights, it really advocates for persons who used to live in Illinois to have absentee voting rights in Illinois.

The court ruled against the We the People project in both of their motions for summary judgment and when talking about the right to interstate travel: “neither the UOCAVA nor Illinois MOVE infringe upon the plaintiffs’ right to leave Illinois and travel to a U.S. territory. They are free to come and go as they please, although their decisions to relocate to Puerto Rico, Guam or the USVI have come at a cost. They moved outside of the State of Illinois and became residents of U.S. territories “in a constitutional scheme that allocates the right to appoint electors to States but not territories.” By moving to their respective territories, the plaintiffs gained the rights and privileges of citizens of their new residence. Their loss of the right to vote in federal elections was not caused by the UCOAVA or Illinois MOVE, but by their own decision to relocate.”

Guam has similar state interests as Illinois, and we have experienced challenges to our voting laws that we here at the Legislature have passed. We saw one recently in the Davis case that may seriously impact Guam’s decision to proceed with a plebiscite. As a member of the Guam Legislature, I object to Guam’s Legislature interfering with Illinois voting, I mean if the individual plaintiffs are successful then more power to them but as the Guam Legislature, I do not think it is our place. I do not want other states to come here and tell us that their residents should be voting in our elections, contrary to our laws. I do not want other countries to tell Guam or other territories who should be voting under our election statues. I just think that it is we, the people of Guam, who should decide our status. We must decide if voting rights, voting for president, if we took all the people of Guam or even all the Chamorros on Guam and in the States, put them all together and gave them this right to vote, does that help us?

That’s what we really need to decide before we move on to any kind of endorsement for that type of a voting right because it looks to me like that type of voting right will not help us in our pursuit for control over our lands or any type of control to stop live fire training and testing in our waters. That’s not what we get with this type of voting rights and the people of Guam have spoken about this. At the very least, it demands that more input be made. This is one of those things that the Guam legislature sends Congress, or United Nations, and United States advocates in the United Nations against Guam, saying that they’ve already decided the issue. They do not need the plebiscite. But I just think we do not need by purpose or accident, to give them any other ammunition that could be used against us.

We have to be very careful; we have had the benefit of learning from other countries that have made their choices in political status. We’ve seen the mistakes sometimes they made; how overbearing the United States is in that process and I think that we just need to protect ourselves from everything possible. And keep ourselves focused on what we have already decided to be our mission. So I ask my colleagues, at the very least, set this on for more hearings or to vote this down. I thank you very much.