S11195702 Laucala (FTF)

Savita Fesaietu Romanu LW113

MAJOR INDIVIDUAL ASSINGMENT-CASE BRIEF

Ngiraterang v Ngarchelong State Assembly [2021] PWSC 18 (7 July 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU APPELLATE DIVISION

2021 Palau 18 Civil Appeal No. 20-032 Appeal from Civil Action No. 20-006

Ngarchelong State Governor

Richard Ngiraterang

Appellant

19th Ngarchelong State Assembly, Represented by its Speaker DWIGHT NGIRAIBAI,

Appellee

2021 Palau 18 Civil Appeal No. 20-032 Appeal from Civil Action No. 20-006

Judgement of: Honorable Kathleen M. Salii

Counsel: Johnson Toribiong for Appellant and Raynold B. Oilouch for appellee.
S11195702 Laucala (FTF)
Savita Fesaietu Romanu LW113

Procedural History

A summary judgement was conducted by the trial division for the Appellee. The trial found that
the appellant had breached the Ngarchelong constitution. (Appellee won)

Facts

The governor (Appellant) followed the legislative procedure by introducing Ngarchelong’s state
budget firstly to the 19th Ngarchelong State Assembly (Appellee). The appellee than adjusted the
state budget and progressed to pass the amended budget bill (budget bill (NSGPL No. 19-01, D1,
D2, D3)). This bill was then given to the appellant for approval which was not granted. However,
the appellant made alterations to the budget bill like typing new reduced dollar amounts. After
the state governor (appellant) made these changes he signed the bill into the law (appealed law)
and sent a letter to the 19th State Assembly(appellee) with a list of particular disapprovals and
reductions as stated in the Appealed law than compared to the budget bill. During 19th state
Assembly’s fourth special session the appellee tried to overrule the appealed law (voting).
However, the overruling was repudiated and the appealed law is still in force. The appellee then
looked for a legal remedy in the trial division. The trial court convicted the appellant. This
judgement is now on appeal in the appellate division.

Issue 1

Whether the process of the amendment of the budget bill falls within the Ngarchelong state
constitution and if the 19th state Assembly had authorization of veto power to veto the State
governor’s amendments and passing of the repealed law.

Holding 1

Due to section 6 of the Ngarchelong constitution the Appellant and the appellee were acting
within their constitutional authorization of quashing the bill and ability to overrule the veto on
the bill.

Issue 2
S11195702 Laucala (FTF)
Savita Fesaietu Romanu LW113

Whether the overruling of the governor’s Veto by the Assembly is accomplished.

Holding 2

The decision of the trial court and the Constitution contradicts each other as one did not take in
the consideration of the vacancies whereas the Constitution is ambiguous on the word member.
This concludes that evidence and precedents on veto overrides are to be collected.

Rationale

The court found that based on section 6 (veto procedure) of the Ngarchelong constitution when a
bill is introduced to the to the governor by the state assembly the governor can motion the bill
into law without amendments, the bill automatically becomes the law and the governor can veto
the bill send it back or reduce and dissent items for a spending bill to be proposed to the State
Assembly. This means that the legislative branch is supposed to be the last one to decide
however, this can be hindered if the governor directly sanction the bill into law. In the courts
decision on whether the state assembly’s veto override was successful is based on Section (b) or
(d) of the Ngarchelong constitution the state assembly did not have enough votes (2/3) to
overrule the decisions on the budget bill as based on the Assembly being presented without
vacancies. This however, contradicted the trial court’s ruling as the votes were counted without
the vacancies. According to the Ngarchelong constitution the word member is been mentioned.
Nevertheless, the word member is not defined in the Constitution which means that the law is
ambiguous. Therefore, the case was remanded and vacated.

Commentary

To comment, the court’s decision is important. The court had decided to remanded and vacate
the case. This is probably due to the lack of information that was presented before the courts for
the veto bill. However, for the veto procedure the appellee and the appellant were both within the
authorization of the constitution. These decisions made by court despite the case been remanded
or vacated can be used as a precedent for future cases that have the same issues.