« Open Thread XL | Main | Another citizens' initiative »

March 29, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Shuffle the cards good and re-deal the cards agian. No cheating this time guys!

Here we go again!! A shot across the bow from the President.

And the battle begins....

And the battle begins....

We will have no one to serve or fill vacated posts if we eliminate those " who don't follow the law." LOL. The greedy grubbing crooks that have been raping our beloved Belau can longer meet the standards expected of leaders in general. What sort of a pronouncement does this say about the caliber of our leaders? No problem, the standards will be ignored or the law will be changed. That has been the modus operatus of our leadership. Compromise of ideals and standards makes mediocrity acceptable. Way to go TR. Expect the best and settle for nothing less.


Thank you Emaid, Badrulchau, Diakelmad, Chedeng, Mosi, Uchel and Star for info and comments.

The senate majority and the Remengesau Administration consulted their legal counsels, and both counsels have different interpretations of the senate president election results. This is going to be one of our country’s landmark cases. But we, Palauans, do not need a constitutional law expert like Harvard University Law School’s Lawrence Tribe to provide us his legal opinion as to whether the senate president election was legal or illegal. Simple and easy! Palauan Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong was the First Constitutional Convention’s legal counsel, and so it is an opportune time for him to decide on this important legal matter facing our nation. I recommend that he avail himself to preside on this case.

While waiting for the court’s decision, let us continue to keep one another informed of what’s going on back home.



I am not too sure about the concept of "But we, Palauans, don't NEED..." It is that same attitude that will bring us into the pitholes that we ought to avoid.

Everything that happends in Palau is no longer a suprise for me. Something that is unlawful, scandelous, it seems to be in Palaus governmental system and nature NOT to follow written conduct and just be that typical greedy person that everybody loves to hate.

I dont get it.

Olekoi rebluu,

Chelchang kede mocha ra kerkeriil losiik ra kmo a senate miruul ra lemalt lotirakl ra Uchetmell a Llach er Belau ra lolilt ra mo beches el meredel ra senate el monguu a deruchal eluulba Reklai el mla modibus ra delongeled. A domes er Belau eng kora meruul aomosiroi el loltobedechur el tekoi. Mle sebechel mesemkoll ra delongerir ar senators lokiu a melmalt ma tabesuul lomeruul lortirakl ra kempo. Tial dilubech ra chelsel a Olbiil Era Kelulau a chochotii el kmo diakiang a kltalreng ma chomenguul ma chodanges era delongerir ar rumtechei er kid el ngarsel ngarbab el blai ra Olbiil Era Kelulau.

Tirkal lomtechei erkid ngerang me teuaisei, metemeral chebuul a beluad er Belau mar betok el mechebuul chad er Belau. E tir a meruul a uaisei el teletael el melai ra deruchall ra mo mengutling rsel ngarba el blai era Olbiil Era kelulau. Ngera chised mar meredel er kid lomtechei er kid a diak loltirakl ra Uchetmel a Llach e bolta rengrir sel lolilt ra menguteling er tir. Akmumdasu eng kokiu a mekngit el teletael lomruul ea uchel archad ra beluu amla choungek. Ngarngii a bebil er kid el kmal kesib a rengriir ra waitial mekngit lomeruul dilubech ra ulaol rtial blai. Sebeched el melkoi el kmo ngdiak el Joshua. A mondai a kirel a teletael lulkiu ngii e milngilt a Joshua. Walwaisei, eng mondai ra chochuur/chidisir a senators el meliilt ra meredel er tir. Locha dikired eldi mengiil ra kangkets iwatas malechub eng nguldesuel a kerkeriil el motuobed el kirel tial klou el mondai.

Tirkal lomtechei er kid a kirir el meruul a tekoi loltirakall a lechud archad er Belau. Mar mekerei el chad mar redil chomes e mesuub a rolel a melemalt ma ungil teletelel a doruul a ungil tekoi. Endi tial el tekoi ra chomlilt ra meredel ra senate a ngara kerkeriil. Ea kerkeriil a mo michii el kmo mle melmalt malechub mle diak loltirakl a llach ra lolilt ra meredel er tir.

Ngak a diak el metacharbesuul ra uldesuek a Joshua al President ra Senate, Dirrek el diak el mekngit ra uldesuek a Senator Surangel malechub Dengokl malechub Tmetuchl malchub ngidil tara senator el mo merredel ra senate. A mondai akmo a chomelilt ramo beches el president a kirel lotrirakl ra Uchetemel a Llach er Belau. Kired louspech ra kerkeriil er chelchal taem el mo sumecheklii tial mondai. Alsekum a kerkeriil akmo Joshua a dimo kiei el president ra senate ea rechad ra beluu al sorir e toldubech e cholngeseu erngii. Endii alsekum ea kerkeriil a kmul kmo diak. Ea senate a mo mellilt ramo beches el president lokiu a llach.

Hall e knguu tial techalll e kulngit er kemiu kid el kau beltik el reng malchuub engkid el sengkio er Belau. Malechuub e kedimedengei el kmo a koted ma ucheled a Belau alta kechad ra Oikuul, Ngermid, Nerbeched, Choll, Ollei malechub eke chad ra state ra Artingal, Oldias, Odasangel, Kerradel, Ongedechuul, Ngerbungs. Malechuub ekdi tara betik arnguum er Belau mar chad er Belau. A kulngit er kau mom senkio. E molmolm meliilt ra momtechei er kid era Olbiil Era Kelulau mamo Daitori ra beluad.

Dirrek el kid ar chad er Belau a kired ekmal mo kmak el rokui e ngiltii a tara kohosia el mometechei er kid ra Olbiil Era Kelulau ertial mei el klou el tokubets el senkio. Kede ngiltii a chad el momtechei kid elngii a melmalt ra tekoi loruul el diak lbor sei eldi mochosiik auchul a klingiolel a bedengel ma chududel. Dirrek el kired losiik era chad elngii a momtechei er kid el sebechel menguul a lechuud archad er Belau. Diak el chelsechusem ra mekngit lomruul. E cheliseksikd ra llach e mla tomall a mekngit lomruul. Melmalt e tabesuul a chomerelel ra churelel ra tekoi ra buai. Diak el cheblad e melmalt. E ngangii a dechal ma klekeikeng er ngii ra choretel a tekoi ra buai Ngarngii chomguul ma odanges erngiil el mora rechad. Dirrek el diak el mekngit al ngarngii a skulel malchub eng klaodengei erngii ra ungil lomeredel. Kirel siosikii e sebehel sumechokl a metacherbesuul el tekoi. Kladikm el sebechel mengedecheduch rasekd. Diak el medakt el mekengii a ngerel el kirel a chelbirukl ma mekngit ra llach lomeruul. Dirrek el diak el sowad a chad el momtechei er kid el dilmuuk eleng diak a ungil luldesuel. Adang uaisei ngdiak.




Your are absoluteley right. I can see your lucid logic behind your point.

Ergo, the gist of your statement is well taken. Yes, I just have to be careful when expressing myself.

Precise, excellent and helpful comment! Good job!




Maybe you can help. Is the senate precluded by the constitution from reorganizing between the time a seat is declared vacant and the election and installation of a successor?

There seems to be a power struggle in the Senate,and, until we make changes we will never get anywhere.

Out of curiousity, what exactly is the role of the vice president of the senate and why didn't Melib fill this position?


Ngaukai, we keep spending money for this kinds of issues, but our hospital is in need of medicine for our people and the equipments are outdated. What are we going to do? Who is wise among them or somewhere, who can lead us?


I have just finished my research, and the case has no legal precedence. Give me some time to do more research. I will get back to you.
I also would like to provide some answers to your previous questions.



Well, I don't know how you do your research? What documents are looking at?

For your information, you need not look for any document but our Constitution the Supreme law of the land. Our governmetn is government of the law.

So, read once in Article IX(9) Sec. 13. and if don't understand then and only then you are hard to understand but to hire a lawyer to help. I hope I was helping you to understand the words on its face in Constitution to understand. "OEK shall erect presiding officer by majority members of that house." A belkul a kmo a blai era Senate a ngarngii a 9 (tetiu ar chedal)members malewaisei, a majority a 5 (teim a edal). Ma Sen. Joshua Koshiba a chouspech era 5 votes eldiak el 4 votes. Ea Senators a diak el sebechir ditir e melibech era majority era senate le tiang a Constitution louspech er sengkyo erkid el melodech (referundum to vote for amendment).

OR you may ask any Palau High School student like I was to read and translate for you.

Thanks and God help.

Alii el Rokui...

A kora dimle duum a lomes elkmo ngera beches el chais..

Emaidechedui..You are right.
Article 9 section 13 in the Belau Constitution does say that they need a majority to elect the presiding officer..but what it doesnt say is that that majority be
a specific number..so with the vacant seat there are 8 senators with a simple majority being 5..so all the senate needs is 5 of those 8 as the majority to select a presiding officer.
They cannot select a presiding officer with less then 5..Its a violation of the Constitution.

If the senate did not follow that simple of a majority rule in their selection of the presiding officer then there might be cause to have it addressed in the courts.

Our constitution is unfortunately so much like the US Constitution that the interpretation of some of its Articles can be tricky and open to differring definitions.

Now the opponents of the selection made recently by the senate may use the same Article you sighted but a differrent Section..Section 7 to invalidate what the Senate did.

Article 9 Section 7 of the Constitition says: A vacancy in the OEK shall be filled for the unexpired term by a special election to be held in accordance with law. If less than one hundred eighty (180) days remain in the unexpired term, the seat will remain vacant until the next regular general election.

They may argue that since there is a vacant seat in the senate selecting a presiding officer is premature and maybe a violation of the constitution. It maybe in violation of the very same aritcle and section that gives the senate its powers to select a presiding officer. Since there is a vacant seat a majority is
a moot point till that seat is filled....something to that effect.

Its like I said..interpretion of the constitution can be tricky..

Let see what they come up with..


mesulang ra ungil omesaod.

Tia kid ker: A senate rules of procedure eng kmul kmo ngerang el kirel a tekoi el "majority"? e mekerang a lolilt ra mo "president" er tir?



I can re-call correctly that we the framers. Wrote it as written in our constitution in Article IX(9)Sec.13. perfectly clear and understood by many. "Each House of the Olbiil Era Kelulau shall elect a presiding office by a majority members of that house". So, how many members of the Senate 9? Yes, so 5 is majority members who votes.

13 Bades. "A derta er a ikal blai er a Olbiil Era Kellulau a mo ngiltii a mo mengeteklel a urrerel lokiu a kengei er a klou er a tedobech er a ildisir a rechedal".

Malewaisei, tel rechedal a blai era Senate, OEK? Te tiu (9) a rechedal a Senate.mada klou era tedobech a 5 teim el senators a mle vote elngii klou era tedobech era ildisir a rechedal.

Both English and Palauan are easily read and understood by any Palau High Schools students.

I believe you understand both but you do not want agree. Because you favored 4 senators or wrong doers in the senate led by Diaz, Alan, Dean & V-President of the senate.
These senators read and adviced by their staffs and legal counsel but they decided to take matters in their own hands with 4 votes less than 5 majority of the 9members.

I hope by now that after everyone who read my clear mail/messages. All agreed with me that Dean and his group made wrong decision by force their ideas, made senate looked ugly, disoriented, misleading, ect. Although Dean President called senate into special session last Saturday but could not achieved quorum. Because the other four senator do not recognized Deano as President of the Senate. Dean had been acting like militant that when he speak everybody listen and agree all the time. But time/tide had turned against him just Big liar mouth Diaz "Kulkolk" "Tulchoid" is (GUILTY of all crimes/charges in the COURT of laws).

WARNING:::Big Mouth - "Watch your big & liar mouth. When you always spoke in your radio. What you will always "say" shall be used against in the COuRT or LAW.

Nevertheless, you have been found in the COURT of Law "GUILTY". So, maybe use your feet not your mouth to avoid further suit and damages to you.

"Kmesang mamesekum me kemengang engoldiu e kemo chou tubedobed elmo klou era tedobech".


Good Blessing for Palauan people.


Dean JK, please stand up for the truth to protect our constitution.

The politically correct is to do it for the second time to resign from senate presidency. If I recall correctly, you resigned your president seat in the senate 3rd OEK. When you were told by one senator that former senator Tommy Remengesau,jr. proposed resoslution to remove you the senate presidency.

I know your under pressure by senator Alan, Mlib, and Diaz. So, resign and let Vice President continue in acting for president until you negotiate with the other 4senators or until when new elect senator wins May 9th, 2007 special election.

Although, your militant leadership will never convince Surangel group to join your group. They have filed complaint and they do not accept you as president of the senate until the Court says so. They don't believe nor trust any of you. They are not stupid nor maroons like Dias 3X guilty i the court of laws. Ha ha ha ha. Is it full moon? if yes, then beware of lunatic he might Tulick you.

I know you understood me by now. You are hero.


I wonder sometimes why so many palauans are so mired with political rhetoric, ehehehe.

Filling up a vacant seat In the senate is not a big deal to me. Does it to you? My brothas and sistas? Someone have been put in there which was quick and simple. You our leaders were quick to do your jobs and that is what we are looking for. When a problem arise, we want you to perform and find a solution to it quick. Some tasks will take time but filling up a seat must be done and done fast!

You have done your jobs and so congratulations! Now move on to bigger and better things.

Palau should be concerned about the future and not be “trapped” in the black hole of political democratic laws.

Rome was at one time a powerful superpower but it was brought down because of politics from within! Why? Simple, because It took them a long time for them to make "simple decisions." The seat has been filled so now move on to more pertinent tasks at hand such how to create “economic cash flow engines” to equip our palauan citizens so that our palau won’t go bankrupt in the near future!

Why our leaders argue about 1 empty seat and whether laws where broken or not is totally ridiculous! The seat has been “filled” so then move on as leaders and as a working group to create “solutions” for our palau instead of always bickering on “problems” within the 4 walls of the senate. Look at the “big picture” and move on!

Sorry my brothas and sistas, sometimes I just want to “unleash and breath out.”

My brotha,

It is those little things that add up, and in time become big things that have significant effect on all of us. Besides, we live in a small place so we have to be cautious of these little things.

We also have laws governing ways to resolve matters of this sort, and so it is better to follow our own laws.

Kabom Soro e Emmaudiyong..A cholchelubel a mochu medidai mem bem chau tiang e dechadeduch..Kedi Emoukudiyiong kung meng dikeiam rengesid..:)

A uchei eng soak chom luut el mo ungil chuiuii sel klil chesii chemai mempedak el kmo ngerker ra chelsel ak dilii or e ak lilchesii el kmo ak support ra Diaz, or any other senator. Adang.

Kemo ungil menguiue..

You said a high school student can understand what you said...well maybe because you write like a high school student..:) Joking..me lak msal dimo emmaudyiong...:)

I think we all understood what it is you said...and if you read a bit better then a high school student you would have COMPREHENDED
what I was saying..

I agreed with what you were saying..and went further to show you where they..those that supported the idea of selecting a Senate President..could argue their case.

Nowhere did I say I favored either side of the arguement.

I even went so far to say that if they selected a presiding officer with only 4 votes they are in violation of the constitution. I even explained to you why I thought so...

You read the constitution and imparted what you read to us with such gusto. We did the same..
though we read what you said carefully..

So read carefully before you come in here crowding the space with your baseless areguments..It shows your ignorance...Glaringly.


Hi Uchelmelis

The senate, as you know, has its own set of rules and procedures..and they may have addressed this situation too for all we know..but either way, rule or no they still are bound to follow the constituion.

Their definition of a "majority" still must..I think..follow what it says
in the constitution. And I really dont think there is another definition of a majority they know that we dont..:)

How they do the electing?..Dont really know..I would think a simple vote of the members would suffice..

and here maybe is a better question ..The Article, Article 9 Section 13 we have cited here doesn't address to me as some here have so loudly opined...that they need a full memebership in office to select officers. I would think they would only need
..a simple majority of the members..Don't you think?

I say that because in Article 9 sections 12
it states that a majority of the members constitutes a quorum to do business.

If you thought about it. It makes sense. The business of the country has to be done even if some members are not present and from that we can infer I think..further to say even if a seat is vacant.

So if a simple majority of the members constitutes a quorum able to do business.
I would think they can select an officer with said majority of the members forming a quorum.....Vacant seat or not.

I would think that they followed the constitution and did select JK with at least 5 of the 8 senators..if not..We'll see them in court..:)



Someone raised this question earlier, "Is the senate precluded by the constitution from reorganizing between the time a seat is declared vacant and the election and installation of a successor?"

Seems the constitution is silent on this, as Naiiro has pointed out. The membership of the senate now stands at 8, not 9, until such time a replacement of the late Senator Reklai is installed.

The constitution grants the senate the power to promulgate its rules of procedures for the administration and operation of its affairs, including selection of officers.

If the senate had a quorum to conduct business, to hold session during which Senator Koshiba was elected, then the process looks legit.

Just my views.

Hi Melke...


It does look legit..They seem to have meet most of the constitutional requirements
in selecting the presidnig officer of the Senate.
The one remaining question then would be. Did that quorum they form satisfy the "majority" requirement mentioned in Article 9 Sections 12 and 13?

That is...Did a majority of the 8 current members which is 5 of them compose said quorum?

If the answer is yes then I can't see where they are in violation of any laws.

If the answer is no,,meaning they formed a quorum with less then 5 members I do hope they have good lawyers...;)


Alii, Emelk

Soory for my poor writing and I will try better ones from now on.

Yes, your writing is very clear and I agree with you.

Allow me to try again, First, Article IX Sec. 12. " majority can conduct business and majority of 3votes can pass any bills or resolutions.

Secondly, Article IX. Sec. 13. Strictly applying for electing presiding officer of each house of OEK. "to elect presiding officer by majority members of that house." How many members HOD 16 members and Senate 9 members so, 5 is majority members. It does not mention any vacant seat to reduce from 9 members to 8 nor 7 nor 6. This section was made to prevent senate to change presiding officer at anytime with majority of quorum 5 which is 3 members votes mentioned in Section 12.

FYI, Laws, regulations, executive orders, rules of procedures, directives nor state constitutions/laws are all made in compatible with our constitiution.

All of the above mention are working/applying under the constitution. Senators are above the law nor constitution. They all taken an OATH and swear to uphold and to protect our constitution, all laws of the land.

Dean is an exception from all the senators. He is well known for not signing the constitution but he claimed that there are many laws in the Palau National Code that he did not proposed nor voted to approve. But he honored and follows as abidng citizen. I believed him 100% in the past 36 years he represented us in the Congress.

Thank you very much EMELK and I love your writings.

Alii e Emmaudiyong..

Ng dirrek el souak el kmu
komeng era tekingek el kora
mlo telkib el oberaod e leko bedul kau...Mousubes adang.

Now then...I think I can see where we may have crossed...I have been basing all my
arguements on an old copy of the constitution of ROP..
Dated April 2, 1979...

Here is what my copy says in
Article IX Section 12 and 13

The following are the 2 sections exactly word for word from my copy.

Article IX

Section 12: Each house of the Olbiil Era Kelulau shall
promulgate its own rules and procedures not inconsitent with this Constitution and the laws of Palau, and may compel the attendance of absent members. A majority of the of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business. Each house, with the approval of a majority of its members, may compel the attendance and testimony
of witnesses and the production of books and papers before that house or its committees.

Section 13: Each house of the Olbiil Era Kelulau shall elect a presiding officer by a majority of the members of that house.
Each house shall elect such other officers and employ such staff as it deems necessary and appropriate.

If your copy of the constitution is newer then mine and there have been changes made to Article IX
That could be the reason why we don't seem to see it the same way.

Do tell me how old or newer your copy of the Constitution is and check if
there have been changes made to Article IX Sections 12 and 13.

Let me know please...Yes I have to get me a new one..:)


There is no change to the subject provision in either version. Your 1979 copy conveys identical language.

If the senate rules of procedure allows replacement of a departed presiding officer before next general election,then it looks ok.

The senate needs majority vote for selection of its president, in this case, it needs majority of 8.
Remember, one seat is vacant due to death, not an absence. So the membership of the senate at this poinnt is 8, of which majority is 5.

The constitution does not require the senate to wait for results of ensuing special election for the declaration and installation of a winning candidate. Doing so may inadvertently create leadership vacuum that can very well lead to a constitutional crisis. Instead, it allows the senate to proceed with its business, including reorganization, so it can fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

Remember, the President of the Senate can be changed anytime there is enough votes to call for change.

I don't think it is the intent of our framers of the constitution to hold the senate leadership in suspense pending result of a special election.

Hypothetically, what if the President, Vice President, President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates all perished at the same time, who then would be the next in line for president? In the interest of exigency, how is he going to be selected if more 180 days remain in their terms of office.

Check Article 8, Section 11.

Just a mental exercise for guidance.

ngdiak a raincheck er tiang?


Sorry for not answering your questions in a timely manner. I have to use library computers on a one-hour limit due to many library computer customers. I am not allowed to use my work computer for any personal reasons. So thanks for your patience and understanding. I hope you will accept my apology.

Please permit me to start.

As to your question of whether vice presidential and presidential candidates running on the same ticket, does a vote cast count separately or jointly! Article 8, Section 4, states in part that “the president and vice president shall be chosen jointly by the casting by each voter of a single vote applicable to both offices.” As you know, Article VIII, Section, 4, is self-explanatory and unambiguous.

The next question is: Is there any law in place for the regular general election in 2008? I do not know. But Article 9, Section 4 (a) of the Constitution states in part that the
“reapportionment commission shall be constituted every eight (8) years”, and within 180 days before the regular general election, it has to “publish a reapportionment or redistricting plan for the senate based on population, which shall become law upon application.”

You may read the rest of Article 9, Section 4, for more information.

The OEK, however, has to enact an enabling legislation “designating the duties and the rules governing the composition of the reapportionment commission.” Also, all presidential election rules will be incorporated into the general election law.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Now let me deal with this question: Is there anything in the Constitution that precludes the OEK Senate from organizing itself?

Incontrovertibly Palau’s Constitution Article 9, Section 13 answers the aforesaid question and it states: “Each house of the Olbiil Era Kelulau shall elect a presiding officer by a majority vote of that house.”

Clearly a majority number is five (5). So a constructionist interpretation is that a majority number is absolutely required to elect a senate president. That is the only way as expressed in the constitution. Therefore the senate must wait for the vacant seat to be filled before proceeding with any reorganization plan. So the senate must remain as they are: four (4) members of the majority and four (4) members of the minority. If one senator becomes disloyal and parts from his original group, it will not abate the existing confusion and chaos: such a move will only engender more confusion, chaos, perplexity, complication, frustration, etc. It is my conjecture therefore that the way in which the senate operates, it does not matter who moves where in that august hall; the senators just have to wait patiently for the May 9 senate special election result.

But for the sake of argument, let me accept the argument that a majority of the current senate is five (5) to conduct its business. Let us all concur that five senators could reorganize the senate. Now the big question is: Were there five senate members physically present at the time of the senate election?

The answer is simple, “no.” According to Pacific Magazine’s staff writer Dave Miho’s article, titled, “ Palau’s Senate in Turmoil,” “ Senators Santy Asanuma, Yukiwo Dengokl and Surangel Whipps chose not to attend while their fourth member [ of the minority block ] Senator Caleb Otto was out of town on official business”, contrary to the previous report that the first three senators walked out. (Did the majority block send Senator Otto out on “official business” so that it would have a quorum without him to conduct its business, particularly the senate president election of J Koshiba or he [Senator Otto] did want to show his disloyalty to the minority block by voting for J Koshiba[So he went out of town]? Did the three senators who chose not to attend the session know that the senate was to elect a senate president? I surmise that there was a covert, furtive plan to manipulate the election of the senate president in addition to the majority’s stipulative definition of the word, “ majority”, in Article 9, Section 13.)

So was there a quorum for the senate to conduct its business, and thereby its senate president election?

Again the answer is no, unless the senate’s clerk took the roll call to make sure there was a quorum before the three senators walked out. I was totally flabbergasted of the way the senate elected its president!

Therefore, one could infer from the above reasoning that the senate president election did not follow the election procedures properly, and thus the result must be declared “null and void” by Palau’s Court. The score stands at 2—O in favor of the minority block. One more inning left in this shortened three inning-baseball game. The referee will be Palau’s Court, not avid baseball fans. Everyone can watch and talk and let our court render its decision. Can the majority score three runs in the bottom of the third inning to overcome a seemingly insurmountable deficit? I do not know. I do not even pretend to know.

I am not a legal savant or scholar. I should leave this issue to an attorney for a well-qualified interpretation and then, leave it to the court to decide on this sui-generis, landmark case and its merits.

Then there are those who subscribe to a loose interpretation (liberal) of the Constitution’s Article 9, Section 13. They would argue that a majority is still five (5) at the present time and that they would also argue that this section is silent on other aspects of the word, “majority.” Additionally they would concede that a majority is the physical presence of any five senators. Their arguments could go on and on claiming that they are right in their interpretation of the Constitution.

Furthermore there are those who choose to interpret the above-mentioned section the way it would fit their preference, perception and political leanings, etc. Then there are
some who distrust or abhor the majority block and trust or respect the minority and vice versa. But with all due respect to all who disagree with me, I would like to point out that the issue at hand is this: Was the senate president election procedures followed by the majority block proper and legal? No.

The court will have its hands full. It has to delve into and peruse through all germane constitutional transcripts dealing with Palau’s Constitution Article 9, Section 13. It would very interesting to see how the court would arrive at its decision. Of course, it has to read all legal briefs with all legal precedence (citations) from both majority’s and minority’s legal counsels.

(Personally I have to admit that interpreting law is tricky, arduous and risky. You probably know more about law than I do. I only would like to share my opinions with you and others in this blog. I really believe sometimes that people who ask intelligent questions know the answers already. Anyway I do learn a lot from you and our colleagues in this blog. Learning never ends during one’s life time! )

I have tried my utmost to see if there were any US Constitutional cases with citations, notes, footnotes, or legal articles or essays, law (school) reviews, or anything useful on this subject matter, so I could cross reference. I did not find any relevant ones. I may be wrong. So as you already know, Palau’s First Constitutional Convention’s transcripts will be so vital to all parties involved in this case, and of course, it would be interesting to find out how Article 9, Section 13, was incorporated into our constitution based on political discussions during the convention. I did not have any First Con Con’s transcripts to review. I could not find the copy in question anywhere. I still would like to read a copy of the transcripts for more information to substantiate my arguments. Can you or anyone help me?

The senate majority through its legal counsel might have something hidden under its sleeves, and that was the reason that the group adamantly and obstinately went ahead and elected J Koshiba as the new senate president. They know that our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; it supersedes any other laws in the republic. That was the reason why I did some research to see what does the group know about Article 9, Section 13 that I do not know. That is why the issue of the constitutionality of the senate president election result surface.

As you already know, the Remengesau Administration’s legal advisor has advised the president that “the senate election result may [italics mine] have been improperly conducted.” So we have two different counsels with two contradictory opinions.

The senate majority has “probably” blatantly, fragrantly and outright violated Article 9, Section 13. I have cautiously employed the word, “probably “because the case is pending in court. (Sorry if I did not answer all your questions satisfactorily, at least, I did try. Plus I may have provided you all inadequate answers. I still makes mistakes here and everywhere.)

Bye the way, I live thousands miles away from Palau. I rely heavily on this blog, Olekoi Palau, Tia Belau (occasionally) etc. But I personally prefer this blog for information. The media back in Palau sometimes does not cover stories satisfactorily. I hope this case in question will be an exception. But let us continue to share information!


I agree with you and I think I tried to say the same thing, just not as
succintly as you did..:)

The only question remaining
in my mind would be how many of the senators were present to form a majority quorum and voted for J.K.?

Nairo you make some very valid points but I have to disagree with you that the Senate needs all 9 senators
or all seats occuppied to
get a majority or to choose
a presiding officers..and
I'd have to cite Melke's
rather concise explanation
to refute that part of your analgy.

There is also nothing in the Constitution and specifically Article 9 Sec.13 that I can see that would support your stance that the senate needs all seats filled to choose an officer...as i see it that is..but as you said..We'll have to leave it to the lawyers and or legal scholars to answer.

Halle e di ku kutebebii tial tara ngara uldasue:

Alsekum eng mlar ngii a QUOROM ra le borngii ondibel meng mlo sebechel morngii a session, ea majority diak el sebechel melutk (DECIDE) ra mo president lokiu a majority ra rechad el tir a mlera ondibel? Le sekum eng sebechel mlorngii a session lultuir ra tewid (7) el senators ea ARGUMENT a uasei mlarngii a majority el mililt ra mo ra tial deruchall.

A melekoi el uaisei leng sebechel mokedong a session el morngii ea rebebil ra senators a merael tuobed endi mlarngii a rubdois el senators el mlei er tial session meng sebechel a senate el melemolem a ureor.

Nairo a dilu tekoi el kmo okmo a CLERK RA SENATE MENG MECHUIUE (READ) A ROLL CALL.

Obichang ma Rebluud diak motobed a roll call!!!

Ya hello,

There were 7 members (senators) present at the time to vote Dean Koshiba to be new senate president. DJK got 4 votes out of 7 but is not majority members of the house. If, DJK got 5 votes then there will be no kayos/chaos/problem. In a way there is no need to be 9 members seating as long 5 votes majority to DJK.

It is very sad thing to learn that this could another Sen. Alan "bedikl" to DJK who is also potential candidate for ROP president in 2008. He did the same thing to Sen. Surangel Whipps. Sen. Diaz who once said, that DJK got rock island degree at UOG and now he believe DJK as framer of our constitution, senior member of Senate, OEK. Diaz said that he step-out school but he has good English both reading and writing.

Sorry for all of us..


Thanks! I do respect your interpretation of Palau’s Constitution, Article 9, Section 13, and you have good points. As you know, the Constitution, Article 9, Section 13, is subject to a broad interpretation. I chose a constructionist interpretation, and you, a liberal one. Furthermore I also respectfully submitted arguments on your side to show that I have anticipated any forthcoming liberal arguments. I hope I did not sound authoritative in my attempt to response to Belias’ questions (That is not my style.), and if I did, I am sorry.

We have intellectually and sincerely discussed this subject matter based on different interpretations. I am glad you have disagreed with me on some points. I have no problem with that. Anyway I do expect more people to disagree with me. But you have indeed expressed your points eloquently.

I really want to read a copy of the First Con Con transcripts to see what was said during the convention regarding Article 9, Section 13. I am almost positive that the First Con Con was inundated with lawyers and there were political discussions among members before voting to accept Article 9, Section 13 into our Constitution. I need more information.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments.


Sorry I have made some punctuation errors, word omissions, etc. in my attempt to answer some of your questions: one punctuation error, one possible grammatical error, and three word omissions. But there is one word that really needs to be changed. That is, in lieu of the word, “stipulative [stipulatory]” in paragraph 12, line 12, it should read, “speculative.” So in paragraph 12, lines 12 and 13, it should read: “I surmise that there was a covert, furtive plan to manipulate the election of the senate president in addition to the majority’s speculative definition of the word, “majority” in Article 9, Section 13.



Sorry I have made some punctuation errors, word omissions, etc. in my attempt to answer some of your questions: one punctuation error, one possible grammatical error, and three word omissions. But there is one word that really needs to be changed. That is, in lieu of the word, “stipulative [stipulatory]” in paragraph 12, line 12, it should read, “speculative.” So in paragraph 12, lines 12 and 13, it should read: “I surmise that there was a covert, furtive plan to manipulate the election of the senate president in addition to the majority’s speculative definition of the word, “majority” in Article 9, Section 13.



My bradda...No need for an apology. Authoritative? Nah. You stated your case and points quite eloquently too..more so then I, but thanks for the compliment.

I had to disagree with your "constructionist interpretation" because in my view along with Melkes common sense view points
Article 9 Sec. 13 cannot be interpreted in that way. The "constuctionist" interpretation as you called it.

I would go further to say that the framers and or the
1st Con Con members who debated this Article would
most likely, have come
up with the same points that
Melke has made in here.

Melke's points regarding the succession to the presidency
and the possibility of a constitutional crisis if there exist a leadership vacuum are very plausible explainations as to why this Article and Sec.was written as it was.
Bold?..I know but if you really thought about it..Melke's points are just the kind that lawyerly scholars would have come up with. Makes absolute sense and sufficient to explain away all questions posed.

Lets break it down and see
if we can come up with a better interp.

Article 9 Section 13 says:

Each house of the Olbiil Era Kelulau shall elect a presiding officer by a majority of the members of that house. Each house shall elect such other officers and employ such staff as it deems necessary and appropriate

Now the first sentence is what concerns us so lets
concentrate on that one. Specifically the part where it says "shall elect a presiding officer by a majority of that house."

breaking it down further..

"a majority of that house."

What it doesnt say..

A majority of that house does not say, mean or infer
that all memebers be present, that all 9 or 16 or 100 senators be in office, alive, or in country.
A majority of that house
does not say, mean or infer that a vacant seat be filled before the senate can begin their work or elect officers etc.

It does say however, in my view unequivocally...that a majority be an amount or number of members that would constitute a majority of the EXISTING members whatever that number of existing senators or delegates is...be it ,6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 32, 100 etc. It has to be at the very least 51% of said members in office..at that time.

There is in my view no other way to read this Article and Section...Any other interpretation or definition of it can only be an exercise in futility.

Now that we've dissected this Article to the bone..
There is still that question posed earlier...

How many senators formed a quorum and how many of them voted for JK?

The answer to that would be greatly appreciated..I read so many versions I don't know which one is true.

btw thanks for letting rant on so long...:)


Emelk & Naiiro,

According to Badrulchau's posting, there were 7 sentators present during session in which Sen Koshiba was elected President.

That means there was a quorum. Out of that number (7), 4 voted for Senator Koshiba and 3 voted against. If indeed 7 senators did attend the session, as Badrul points out, then the result is legit.

I think the missing operative word is 'vote'.

The language does not require the Senate to select its president by a majority 'vote', but it compels the presence of the majority of senators to undertake this particular order of business.

Unlike bills or resolutions where only majority of the members present is required to enact. In which case, once the majority/quorum is attained and a session is called, a senator can ask to be excused (for the rest of the day) leaving less than majority in session and yet his absence and lack of voting will not impact rest of the proceedings.

Whereas, at least majority of senators shall attend session to cast a vote when the election of senate president takes place. And the votes were 4 YES & 3 NOS

Melke OK,

Self explanatory and does not require more interpretation.

Article IX, Sec. 12. "quorum" of 9 members is 5 members and 5 votes.
5 members can hold and continue in session. 2 members can leave the session while 3 members continue to do business with 3 members voting and passing bills or resolutions.

Article IX. Sec. 13.

"majority members of that house". It is very clear that HOD had 16 members and majority members are 9 & 9votes. The HOD minority members had been trying to re-organize but they have not attain 9members votes. Let us hope that the President Tommy will move Del. Be;;s and Noah Idechong to join the minorit of 7members this coming Tuesday, April 10th, 2007.

In the senate members are 9 and majority members are 5 members & 5votes. Dean had a long experiences in senate for the past 7 OEK and he should not make this mistake as Orak Isims James wrote to news paper.

The other 3 members like (kobesos fish) that their heads facing down and could not see up. The 3members are no longer taking time to research/re-read constitution seeking the truth. They are using radio to broadcast their grievances after clerk declared that no quorum. Or blame game: blaming the other 4members not showing-up nor cooperating with Dean & floorleadel. It seem that they forgot to up-hold and protect our constitution. Looks like senate will be wondering thru wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights until new elected one comes on.

Seid is a Jew and he will re-write history at this time of Easter. Hosana Hosana

Thank you and good night.

Hey all..

You know we are slowly getting to the heart of this dillema..I am also learning so much about these 2 Articles and Sections in our constitution everytime I read what you all write.
I thank you all for the eductation.

Melke..I still trust in your arguments about the senates constitutional right to do its business ie: elect a presiding officer even when there's a vacant seat..I believe it does follow the law and its intent.

However I will have to disagree that
they could do so with Article 9 Sec. 12 as the
the basis of they're actions.

I have to disagree that a quorum of less then the majority of the memebers of either house can elect a presiding officer..I do so because of the existence of Article 9 Section 13.

Article 9 Sections 13 nullifies if you may, what
a quorum of members is able to do when it comes to the election of a presiding officer and all other businesses covered by it.

Sections 13 speaks to that one part of each house's procedure ..The election of a Presiding officer. That I believe is why it was added to the constitution.

It was added so that only a majority of the members elect a presiding officere..not a majority of a quorum...but a majority of the whole of the members of either house.

If as you said 4 members of the quorum voted for JK they are in violation of the very Article that gives them the right to elect a presiding officer when one seat is still vacant...

They voilated it because a majority of Five (5) of the existing members, which is Eight (8),
that is explicitly asked for in Article 9 Section 13
was not done.

In light of the all this I would say that President TR may have been right and the election of Senator JK as the President of the Senate
is unconstitutional and should be nullified.



Good morning and I agreed with you.

Ongetiu (IX) BLIONGEL ra Teruich el kekerel (13) Bades. A derta era ikal blai era Olbiil Era Kelulau a mo ngiltii mengeteklel urrel lokiu a kengei er a klou er a tedobech er a ildisir a rechedal.

Malewasei, ea teim (5) a klou er a tedobech er a ildisir er a tetiu (9)rechedal a senate. A tara tekoi adile blel teim (5) eng quorum meng sebechir lou session el meruul a ureor e dirrek el sebechir melilt (vote)er a mo mengeteklel el teim (5) lobdois el kongei (votes) teim (5).

Makum dasu, eng mlamo bleketakl.


Alii Rokiu el chad,

Tia kid a baitara tekoi el kumdasu eng sebechel mo deubech er a senate ruriuel er a momengilt el chad el mong. Al sekum meng diak el bolo benterir arua Dean Joshua. Omom dasu eng VP Mlib amo nguu a kingelel a senate president. Eng mo sebechir tirkel bitang elua Sen. Surangel elmo ra session. Kadedul kmo temong, Ma VP Mlib amo mengetakl er a session emo melutk er a mo edal a Credential Committee el ngara group ertir. Omom dasu Dean JK amo rulii uldasu el kmo. Ngikal mlengilt a diak el sebechel mo edal a senate leng ngarngii a telemelel?
Meng diak sebechel mo edal a senate.

Mata er a ker? Ngikal mlengilt eng sebechel sengkyo (vote)? Elwa tirkal ngarngii el ditir el mle sengkyo (vote) era CC report el kir el mlo edal senate 7th OEK. A tara tekoi ngikal mlengilt a mo emo ngiltii a group er a Sen. Surangel. Engkuk obult a majority ma klisiich elmora bitang elmo diak el Dean JK group.

Kakumo tobed abebir er a (SCENARIO) teletael el sebechel mo deubech a mengilt a edal a senate.

Thank you.

Okay...Meng mla mo bleketakel el kmo a JK a
dimlak el mengilt (voted) el mo President era Senate loiak a llach.
Ngdiak el sebechel el di teuang (4) el senators el ngiltii.
A uchul meng ngarngii a Article 9 Section 13 era Constitution er kid a mo tomer malechub eng mengkar a uaikal blekeradel el mla duubech eldi teual chad a melilit ra mo Menguteling
(President)era Senate. El ngesonges (less then) e ra
majority e rar members era senate.

Melke..You make a strong case for the election of JK
but I think if you really
thought about it you'd find that the law as it is written is very clear and the reasoning behind its inclusion in the constitution was for this exact issue we are debating.

Articles 9 Section 13 I trust was written to compel
both houses to make sure that their presiding officer
was elected by a majority (51%) of their members. That is it.

If you reason that the election of JK was legit it would make the existence of Article 9 Section 13 unnecessary and good only for the sake of a vacant presiding officer seat or office.

I would think it was added
as a protection so that no less then the majority of each house elect
a presiding officer.

That makes more sense to me then to have it in the constitution only as a procedural note to both houses.

The election of a presiding officer in either house is an important matter.
The presiding officer in the senate is 3rd in line to the presidency. I would think that his selection has to be from a majority of his colleagues who represent a lot more people then the mere majority of a quorum.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    October 2009

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30 31