e Presiding Judge of the Superior Court shall prescribe the order of business and randomly assign the cases to the Judges, Referees, and Hearing Officers of the Court in conformance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Supreme Court. During the Presiding Judge’s temporary absence or temporary disability, his or her duties shall be performed by his or her designated appointee. Appointment shall be on a rotating basis among all the Judges of the Superior Court. The Presiding Judge shall be responsible for preparing the annual budget of the Superior Court and its divisions for the review, recommendation and approval of the Judicial Council.

SOURCE: Added by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993), amended by P.L. 23-
086:4 (Apr. 29, 1996). Repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-139:32 (Feb.
7, 1998). Amended by P.L. 27-031:13 (Oct. 31, 2003).

§ 4104. I Maga’lahi and I Liheslatura May Request
Declaratory Judgment.
I Maga’lahen Guåhan, in writing, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan, by resolution, may request declaratory judgments from the Supreme Court of Guam as to the interpretation of any law, federal or local, lying within the jurisdiction of the courts of Guam to decide, and upon any question affecting the powers and duties of I Maga’lahi and the operation of the Executive Branch, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan, respectively. The declaratory judgments may be issued only where it is a matter of great public interest and the normal process of law would cause undue delay. Such declaratory judgments shall not be available to private parties. The Supreme Court of Guam shall, pursuant to its rules and procedure, permit interested parties to be heard on the questions presented and shall render its written judgment thereon.

SOURCE: Added by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993), repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-061:3 (Sept. 17, 1997). Repealed by P.L. 28-146:1 (August 15, 2006). Added by P.L. 29-103:2 (July 22, 2008).

1985 SOURCE: Article 4(c) Constitution of Florida, as modified by
Massachusetts Constitution, Article of Amendment No. 85 amending Art.
2 of Ch. 3 of the Mass. Constitution.

1985 COMMENT: Several states permit the governor, and Massachusetts permits the Governor, Legislature and Council, to seek opinions from their respective Supreme Courts on matters respecting the duties of the Governor and Legislature. It has been this drafter’s experience that such a grant of jurisdiction would have solved many serious questions which have arisen, but which have lacked a forum for decision.

Under the usual rule, no case may be brought until it has ripened into a “”case or controversy””. This section will permit important issues to be decided before that time and will avoid the necessity of creating harm to some party in order to have a decision. Thus, a Massachusetts Opinion of the Justices determined certain powers of the Legislature and Governor before any employees had to be laid off. This Section would permit a better resolution of serious questions than occurred in the 1978
District Court decision of Wong v. Camina wherein the Court decided a question relating to federal grants. No defendant was forthcoming, so the case was decided essentially on a default. This Section would permit a
full hearing in such cases and decisions rendered under this Section would be binding.

Note that the language permits the Governor to request opinions as the operation of the Executive Branch, including questions involving separation of powers, and the Legislature to request opinions on the operation of that Branch, but does not permit one Branch to request opinions as to the operation of the other where that operation does not impinge on the requesting branch’s operations. The purpose of this limitation is to avoid one branch trying to regulate the other through the courts.