Source: https://johnmuddlaw.com/tag/puertorico/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:48:04+00:00

Document:
On October 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari review of a case from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico called Puerto Rico v. Sánchez. This case was decided on March 20, 2015 and issue is the very technical doctrine of Double Jeopardy. In synthesis, this doctrine states that you cannot be punished for the same facts more than once. The usual exception, however, is when a state and the Federal Government prosecute you for the same facts. The theory is that since they are different sovereigns, their power to accuse comes from different sources; see U.S. v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978). At the time of the cert petition, there was a conflict between the 1st and 11th Circuits on this issue and the PR Supreme Court decision.
In Puerto Rico v. Sánchez, the local Supreme Court faces several persons that plead guilty of certain crimes in Federal Court and are indicted in the Commonwealth Courts for other crimes. Upon reviewing the cases, the PR Supreme Court finds that one of the federal crimes has the same elements of the crimes they are accused of in Commonwealth Courts. The Court of First instance found that the power to prosecute of the Commonwealth comes from Congress and dismissed that indictment; the Appellate Court reversed based on U.S. v. López Andino, 831 F.2d 1164 (1st Cir. 1987) and the PR Supreme Court case of Puerto Rico v. Castro García, 120 D.P.R. 749 (1988) which state that after the 1952 Constitution, the sovereignty of the People of PR gave sovereign powers to the Commonwealth to accuse and hence no double jeopardy ensued.
Judge Martínez Torres in Puerto Rico v. Sánchez makes a rigorous and extensive analysis of the double jeopardy case law of the US Supreme Court from its origins to the present. His analysis makes it clear that 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 López Andino on.
Interestingly, in the case of Franklin California v. Puerto Rico at page 47 , the Recovery Act controversy, 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.
Judge Martínez Torres of the PR Supreme Court spends 36 pages in a historical/judicial study of the legal situation of PR. when he says that “[c]ontrary to Native-American tribes or to the states of the Union, Puerto Rico has never exercised an original or primary sovereignty” (opinion at 35) He takes us through the Foraker Act, the Jones Act, the testimony of Governor Muñoz Marín and Manuel Fernós Isern, Resident Commissioner before Congress where they repeatedly state that Law 600 and the Constitution did not change the power of Congress over Puerto Rico. See also, The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal by Juan R. Torruella 1985.
In synthesis, PR is subject to the political will and authority of Congress, opinion at 61. Judge Martínez Torres further concludes that the approval of the the PR Constitution did not change its relations with the United States and that is a territory subject to the territorial clause of the Federal Constitution.
This case is of great importance for the correct understanding of the Commonwealth’s present status. The Supreme Court may hold that PR is a special case, neither state nor territory, but that would mean rewriting the Constitution, something the conservative side will not allow and since this is a case of an accused rights, you may have a curious mixture of conservative and liberal votes against this position. On the other hand, the Supreme Court could say that PR for the narrow purposes of double jeopardy is to be considered a state, thus adopting without much discussion the First Circuit’s position but that would leave multiple questions as to the elaborate opinions of the PR Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, to say nothing of Harris v. Rosario, where it said in 1980 that PR was a non-incorporated territory of the United States. Finally, the Supreme Court will determine that PR has no sovereign powers separate from those delegated by Congress and that it remains a territory subject to its powers. This is in my opinion, the more likely scenario and the decision has to come down before June 30th 2016.
In conclusion, this decision could have a direct impact on a Congressional mandated Financial Control Board, which is the reason why the PR Government moved so swiftly to file this certiorari. If PR is nothing more than a territory, then Congress has the power to mandate the Board. If PR is something else, that power could be curtailed. But as I have said before, I cannot see the US Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution when it clearly gives Congress control over the territories.
Ayer el Gobernador indicó en su mensaje que iba a negociar con los bonistas para una moratoria a la deuda. Era de amplio conocimiento, sin embargo, que ya lo estaba haciendo. Se supo además, que el Departamento de Justicia estaba preparándose para una lluvia de demandas. Parece que el Gobernador está preparado ya para el impago, a pesar de que se pagaron los GO’s y PREPA parece que pagará sus $410 millones mañana.
De ser así, el Gobernador tendrá un tiempo para negociar, pero ya OppenheimerFunds indicó que no va a aceptar recorte a sus bonos. No sabemos si los otros bonistas estarán interesados en sentarse con el Gobernador. Si asumimos que algunos bonistas lo harán y hasta aceptarán la reestructuración. Los que no demandarán, ¿pero donde?
Puerto Rico no es una nación independiente ni es un estado de la Unión. Es un territorio no incorporado con gobierno propio, ver, Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980). Pero para propósitos de la 11ava Enmienda a la Constitución Federal es un estado, ver Fresenius Medical Care Cardiovascular Resources, Inc v. Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Cardiovascular Center Corp., 322 F.3d 56, 61 (1st Cir. 2003). Esta Enmienda fue incorporada a raíz de la decisión de Chisom v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), la cual determinó que se podía demandar a un estado de la Unión en la Corte Federal aún si no se podía hacer en sus cortes. Poco después, la 11ava Enmienda fue aprobada. Por lo tanto, Puerto Rico no puede ser demandada en Corte Federal sin su consentimiento. Puerto Rico ha dado su consentimiento a ser demandado en sus cortes en cobro de dinero, Ver, Hato Rey Stationery, Inc., v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 119 D.P.R. 129 (1987) y Montalvo & Comas Electric Corp. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 107 D.P.R. 558 (1978), o sea el Tribunal de Primera Instancia. Bonos como los obligaciones generales (GO), que son respaldados por el crédito del ELA y constitucionalmente requeridos a ser pagadas antes que cualquier otra cosa, ver, Artículo VI, secciones 2 and 8 de la Constitución, solo se podrían cobrar en el Tribunal de Primera Instancia. Excepto al última emisión de marzo de 2014 donde PR renunció a su inmunidad soberana.
Además, corporaciones públicas como la Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica que generan sus propios fondos, son susceptibles a demandas en la Corte Federal por diversidad de ciudadanía, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332. Pero esos serían los bonistas de fuera de PR. Los bonistas que viven en PR tendrían que recurrir al Tribunal de Primera Instancia para poder cobrar sus acreencias.
Contrario a lo que algunos analistas han dicho, no hay manera de que estos casos estatales vayan a un Multidistrict Federal. La legislación del Multidistrict no contempla el remover casos que estén en el Tribunal Estatal, por ende, todo caso en la Corte Estatal que no hay sido removido no va a ir a Multidistrict.
Este es un breve resumen de lo que puede pasar en las demandas por incumplimiento contra el ELA. Pero aún en las reclamaciones sobre GO’s podrían acabar en corte federal si algunas de mis ideas funcionan. Veremos que ocurre.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.