Pueblo v Sanchez Valle

SANCHEZ VALLE NO ACALLA LAS MENTIRAS DEL PPD

 

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 10.58.09 AM

A pesar del contundente golpe que PR v. Sánchez Valle le acaba de propinar al ELA, aún hay voces que niegan la realidad de las consecuencias de la opinión. Héctor Ferrer, al que distingo y aprecio, salió de la reunión del PPD del viernes y dijo así:

 

Ferrer, en tanto, precisó que la reformulación del ELA se fundamentaría en una relación no colonial ni territorial, y que se basaría en la soberanía del pueblo, buscará ampliar al ámbito de gobierno propio de los puertorriqueños, preservarla ciudadanía estadounidense y, al mismo tiempo, la identidad nacional puertorriqueña, y promoverá desarrollar la presencia internacional de la Isla.

 

El problema con esta visión es que la Juez Kagan le cerró las puertas a ésta interpretación cuando dijo a las páginas 16-17 de su opinión en Sánchez Valle:

All that separates our view from petitioner’s is what that congressional recognition means for Puerto Rico’s ability to bring successive prosecutions. We agree that Congress has broad latitude to develop innovative ap­proaches to territorial governance, see U. S. Const., Art. IV, §3, cl. 2; that Congress may thus enable a territory’s people to make large-scale choices about their own politi­cal institutions; and that Congress did exactly that in enacting Public Law 600 and approving the Puerto Rico Constitution—prime examples of what Felix Frankfurter once termed “inventive statesmanship” respecting the island. Memorandum for the Secretary of War, in Hear­ings on S. 4604 before the Senate Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 22 (1914); see Reply Brief 18–20. But one power Congress does not have, just in the nature of things: It has no capacity, no magic wand or airbrush, to erase or otherwise rewrite its own foundational role in conferring political authority. Or otherwise said, the delegator cannot make itself any less so—no matter how much authority it opts to hand over. And our dual-sovereignty test makes this historical fact dispositive: If an entity’s authority to enact and enforce criminal law ultimately comes from Congress, then it cannot follow a federal prosecution with its own. That is true of Puerto Rico, because Congress authorized and approved its Constitution, from which prosecutorial power now flows.

En síntesis, la autoridad última sobre PR la tiene el Congreso. Más aún, en el argumento oral del caso, la Juez Kagan preguntó a la abogada del Solicitor General, el representante del Gobierno Federal en la vista, lo siguiente:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Do you think it’s not possible, Ms. Saharsky I mean, putting aside whether Congress has done it here, but you think it’s simply not possible for Congress to confer sovereignty in the sense   that would matter for the Double Jeopardy Clause?

MS. SAHARSKY: Well, it certainly could by making it a State

 

JUSTICE KAGAN: Yes

 

MS SAHARSKY: or by making it independent.

 

JUSTICE KAGAN: But but but not short of that.

 

MS. SAHARSKY: We think that that would just be fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional design. . .

 

Ésta es la posición oficial del Gobierno de Obama. Más aún, en el Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status éste dijo a la página 26:

Third, consistent with the legal conclusions reached by prior Task Force reports, one aspect of some proposals for enhanced Commonwealth remains constitutionally problematic—proposals that would establish a relationship between Puerto Rico and the Federal Government that could not be altered except by mutual consent This was a focus of past Task Force reports The Obama Administration has taken a fresh look at the issue of such mutual consent provisions, and it has concluded that such provisions would not be enforceable because a future Congress could choose to alter that relationship unilaterally (Congress similarly could elect to enact legislation violating a treaty with a foreign country or to legislate over the opposition of one or more States )

En síntesis, EL ELA ES UNA MENTIRA y no se puede mejorar. Lo que hay es estadidad o independencia. Y por si acaso, el antes mencionado informe de Casa Blanca dice a la página 25 lo siguiente:

Free Association is a type of independence A compact of Free Association would establish a mutual agreement that would recognize that the United States and Puerto Rico are closely linked in specific ways as detailed in the compact Compacts of this sort are based on the national sovereignty of each country, and either nation can unilaterally terminate the association.

Así que no se dejen confundir, la libre asociación, república asociada o como quieran llamar a la “soberanía” no es más que la independencia con un tratado con USA que cada parte puede terminar unilateralmente.

PS: El PNP que se ponga a educar al Pueblo sobre las MENTIRAS del ELA. Yo se que la campaña para la Gobernación es importante pero este documento lo debe hacer la Comisión Estadista, no este servidor.

 

Advertisements

The @SCOTUSBLOG COLUMN ON PR v. SANCHEZ VALLE

 

 

Today one of the most respected writers on the Supreme Court, Lyle Denniston, and for whom I have the great respect, wrote a piece in SCOTUSBLOG about PR v. Sánchez Valle, a case to be argued on January 13, 2016. Lyle, however, missed a few issues of great importance.

 

He says, “True sovereignty is what they say they want.” I differ. What they want is to say that sovereignty comes from the People of Puerto Rico and not from Congress as the PR Supreme Court and the Obama administration say. Moreover, true sovereignty would be independence according to the Bush, Jr. and Obama administrations Task Force Reports on PR say.

 

Lyle also says, “The Island’s nearly four million people have debated for decades whether to seek statehood, and they still cannot agree whether to try for it.” This is incorrect. In the plebiscite of 2012, the voters rejected by 54% vote against the current status, and for those, 61% voted for statehood. See here and here.

 

Moreover, Lyle seems not to like the idea that a territory is subject to total Control by Congress. This is, however, the state of the law. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, does not start as Lyle put is but by saying “Congress shall have the power to dispose of” in reference to territories. In addition, the last two cases to deal with PR’s status, Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1 (1978) and Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980), both reaffirm Congressional power over PR except for fundamental rights. And this was after 1952.

 

In addition, Lyle’s narrative of the Sánchez Valle case has to be qualified. The power of the territories to create crimes and prosecute them comes from Congress and since Congress makes federal laws, you cannot accuse a person in both federal and territorial courts for the same crimes. See, Grafton v. U.S., 206 U.S. 333 (1907) and Puerto Rico v. Shell Co., 302 U.S. 253 (1937). But, this doctrine changed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles federal appeals from PR, from U.S. v. López Andino, 831 F.2d 1164 (1st Cir. 1987) on.

 

The decision in López Andino is peculiar. From the start, at page 1167, Judge Bownes makes clear that the federal crimes are different from the Commonwealth crimes and hence, there is no double jeopardy. The Court could have stopped there, as Judge Torruella’s concurrence points out but Judge Bownes continues for little less than a page to conclude that the Federal Government and Puerto Rico are two different sovereigns. See pages 1167-68. He concludes saying “Puerto Rico’s status is not that of a state in the federal union, but, its criminal laws, like those of a state, emanate from a different source than the federal laws.” Page 1168. Judge Bownes, quoting from Examining Bd. of Eng’rs, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 594 (1976), continues to argue that Law 600, the Federal Relations Act relevant to PR, gave the PR “the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with the states of the Union.”

 

By contrast, Judge Torruella’s concurrence with the result makes it clear that double jeopardy did not ensue since the crimes were different and questions the Court’s discussion in the power to prosecute separate from Congressional power. Different from the majority, he spends almost 6 pages explaining his view, which can be synthesized as follows:

 

Not the least of the majority’s errors stem from the fact that it overlooks that the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act (Pub.L. 600) is merely an act of Congress. It is not a treaty, and certainly not a part of the Constitution. Thus, under well-established constitutional precedent, as an act of Congress it does not bind future Congresses. Like any other act of Congress it may be repealed, modified, or amended at the unilateral will of future Congresses. Thus, as will be further discussed post, the ultimate source of power in Puerto Rico, even after the enactment of P.L. 600, is Congress, a situation that deprives Puerto Rico of the rudiments of sovereignty basic to the application of the “dual sovereignty” rule. (Citations omitted)

 

Judge Torruella continues with citations from the Congressional record where time and again, PR officials tell Congress that even after Law 600 was enacted, it would have the same power over PR as before, see pages 1173 on. The US Senate hearings show that is was “well understood” that the Constitution would have no effect on the territorial stats of the island. During the Senate hearings, the Committee’s legal counsel that “[i]t is our hope and it is the hope of the Government, I think, not to interfere with the relationship but nevertheless the basic power inherent in the Congress of the United States, which no one can take away, is in Congress.” Hearings before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on S.J. Res. 151, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 40-47 (1952).

 

This shows us that the Andino opinion is not without critics. The 11th Circuit in U.S. v. Sánchez, 992 F.2d 1142 (11th Cir. 1993) (this Circuit covers, among others, the state of Florida) where the Court declined to adopt the Andino opinion and instead was persuaded by Judge Torruella’s concurrence. Judge Hill in his opinion states that Congress is the “source of prosecutorial authority for the territories and for the Federal Government and therefore prosecutions in the territorial courts are not protected by the dual sovereignty doctrine from application of the Double Jeopardy Clause.” US v. Sánchez, at page 1150. He defined the legal question as:

 

Our inquiry does not end here, however. The Florida district court concluded that the reasoning underlying the above-quoted portion of Puerto Rico v. Shell was overridden by the passage of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, Pub.L. 600, ch. 446, 64 Stat. 319 (1950) (codified at 48 U.S.C. § 731 et seq. (1989)), and, implicitly, that Puerto Rico is no longer a territory as that term was understood in the early part of this century. We must decide, therefore, whether the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico pursuant to the Federal Relations Act so changed the status of Puerto Rico that it must now be considered a separate sovereign for the limited purpose of the dual sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. (pages 1050-51)

 

After a careful analysis from pages 1047-1153, Judge Hill concluded as follows:

 

The development of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has not given its judicial tribunals a source of punitive authority which is independent of the United States Congress and derived from an “inherent sovereignty” of the sort supporting the Supreme Court’s decisions involving the states (Heath, supra) and Native American tribes (Wheeler, supra). Congress may unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or regulations of its choice. Despite passage of the Federal Relations Act and the Puerto Rican Constitution, Puerto Rican courts continue to derive their authority to punish from the United States Congress and prosecutions in Puerto Rican courts do not fall within the dual sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

 

It is based on this scenario that the PR Supreme Court decided Sánchez Valle. Interestingly, in the case of Franklin California v. Puerto Rico at page 47, also to be argued soon by the Supreme Court, decided on July 6, Judge Lynch quotes López Andino, but not from the majority opinion but Judge Torruella’s, saying that PR is constitutionally a territory. See also, Davila-Perez v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 202 F.3d 464, 468 (1st Cir. 2000). Maybe a change of heart in the First Circuit.

 

The Federal Government’s intervention, which would make it impossible for it to prosecute those who had been prosecuted first in Puerto Rico for the same crimes, may the preamble to the defense of Financial Control Board proposed by Senator Hatch in December. Let’s see what happens.

 

 

Again, I have the greatest respect for Lyle, but I think he left something of great importance out in this controversy.

El 2016 en “Veremos”

 

 

Llegó el 2016. ¿Que nos traerá? ¿Bendiciones, cambios, desastres, oportunidades? Nadie sabe. Lo que si sabemos es que cambios vendrán inevitablemente.

 

Dado el impago de $37.3 millones por PR, tan temprano como el lunes podrían comenzar las demandas. No es probable pero siempre es posible. Veremos que pasa.

 

Entre enero a marzo de 2016, el Congreso prometió discutir el problema económico de PR. La propuesta del Tesoro de un Súper Capítulo 9, más fondos, y una Junta de Control Financiero que respete la autonomía de PR es una quimera. Con suerte tendremos la Junta de Control del Senador Hatch, un Capítulo 9 regular controlado por la Junta, y unos pocos billones de ayuda. La pregunta va a ser cuando entrarán en vigor estas propuestas ya que entre mayo y julio PR tiene que pagar casi $2.5 billones en bonos. A eso añadimos los reintegros que no se han pagado y los suplidores de bienes y servicios que suman casi $500 millones y veremos la difícil situación de un gobierno que se rehúsa a hacer los cambios fundamentales que se necesitan; reducción de agencias y corporaciones públicas, municipios, contratos a los amigos del alma etc. Hay vistas en la Cámara el 11 de enero sobre el Capítulo 9 y otras medidas de ayuda y una el 26 de enero en el Senado sobre la Junta de Control Financiero. Veremos que ocurre.

 

A esto sumamos que a más tardar en junio el SCOTUS decidirá los casos de Acosta v. Franklin California (quiebra criolla) y PR v. Sánchez Valle (doble exposición). Dada la posición y argumentos esbozados por el Gobierno Federal, la probabilidad de triunfo del ELA es baja. Ahí se desmoronará la idea del que hubo algo diferente en 1952. Eso va a exacerbar la pugna dentro del PPD y puede que en el 2016 ese partido decida si es uno abiertamente colonial o uno de independencia/soberanía. Claro, el SCOTUS no tiene que adoptar la posición del Verrilli, quien es el abogado de Obama en este asunto. El SCOTUS puede decir que aunque PR esta bajo la Clausula Territorial para efectos del la 5ta Enmienda tiene soberanía separada, etc., etc., pero creo que esta vez le harán caso a Verrilli.

 

Este año es probable que Fiscalía Federal radique más casos de corrupción relacionados a la pandilla de Anaudi Hernández, Sally López & Co. Estos casos pueden llegar al Presidente de la Cámara, el hermano del Gobernador o hasta la misma Fortaleza. Esto puede cambiar fundamentalmente como vemos la política en PR.

 

Finalmente, tendremos las elecciones, que serán plebiscitarias, quiéranlo o no los políticos. El PNP va a decir que esta elección es vital por que puedes perder los derechos de ciudadanía etc. y Bernier ya dijo que quiere un ELA no colonial y no territorial. ¿Qué partido y que visión de PR para el futuro es vital para el desarrollo económico de PR? Al mismo tiempo, si tenemos una Junta de Control Financiero, el Gobernador y la legislatura van a importar mucho menos de lo usual (y eso es mucho decir).

 

La Junta no debe controlar la lucha por la estadidad. La Junta va a dedicarse a hacer los cambios necesarios al Gobierno de PR para evitar los desmanes que han causado los partidos. La imposición de la Junta, sin embargo, va a atrasar la estadidad y de igual forma va a atrasar la soberanía. El Congreso no va a conceder la estadidad a PR a menos que ponga su casa en orden. En este momento, el Congreso republicano cree que el Gobierno de PR es una cueva de ladrones, corruptos y demócratas de la mala calaña. Por el otro lado, ningún Congreso va a darle a un territorio la facultad de impagar a sus ciudadanos sin que estos tengan remedios de una corte federal y de las garantías constitucionales federales. Pero la lucha por la estadidad debe continuar por todos los medios.

 

Así que estemos atentos a lo que ocurra en el 2016.