Case Title: St. John Medical Plans, Inc. v. Gutman

Citation: 721 So. 2d 717

Docket Number: 91230

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1998-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
721 So. 2d 717 (1998)
ST. JOHN MEDICAL PLANS, INC., Petitioner,
v.
Alberto GUTMAN, Respondent.
No. 91230.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 19, 1998.
*718 Karen Gievers, Miami, and James V. Johnstone, Miami, for Petitioners.
Dyanne E. Feinberg of Gilbride, Heller & Brown, P.A., Miami, for Respondent.
HARDING, Chief Justice.
We have for review a decision which certified the following question to be of great public importance:
St. John Medical Plans, Inc. v. Gutman, 696 So. 2d 1294, 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. For the reasons expressed below, we answer the certified question in the negative.
The facts as stated by the Third District Court of Appeal are as follows:
Id. at 1294-95 (footnote omitted).
The issue before this Court is whether article II, section 8(c) of the Florida Constitution is self-executing and, if so, whether this provision affords individual citizens a private right of action. Article II, section 8, entitled "Ethics in government," provides in relevant part:
In holding that article II, section 8(c) was not self-executing, the Third District reasoned:
Id. at 1295 (citations omitted) (footnote omitted). We agree with this analysis. In Gray v. Bryant, 125 So. 2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960), this Court enunciated the test for determining whether a constitutional provision is self-executing:
(Citations omitted.) In Williams v. Smith, 360 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1978), this Court was asked to determine whether article II, section 8(d) of the Florida Constitution[1] was self-executing. The Court applied the Bryant test and determined that it was not. The Williams court concluded:
360 So. 2d  at 420-21 (some footnotes omitted). Applying the Bryant test to article II, section 8(c), we reach the same conclusion as the Williams court. The need for implementing legislation is apparent based on the plain language of the provision, which states, "The manner of recovery and additional damages may be provided by law." Further, the section *720 fails to provide necessary definitions nor does it set out any procedural guidelines.
Finally, we agree with the district court below that the language of article II, section 8(c) provides that liability is to the state. Therefore, only the state has standing under article II, section 8(c), not individual citizens.
For all of these reasons, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
[1]  Article II, section 8(d) states: "Any public officer or employee who is convicted of a felony involving a breach of public trust shall be subject to forfeiture of rights and privileges under a public retirement system or pension plan in such manner as may be provided by law."