Opinion ID: 2381416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appropriateness of Request

Text: Article X, section 3, of the Rhode Island Constitution provides that [t]he judges of the supreme court shall give their written opinion upon any question of law whenever requested by the governor or by either house of the general assembly. This Court has concluded previously that the provision is mandatory in respect to inquiries that fall within the purview of this constitutional provision. In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 483 A.2d 1078, 1079 (R.I. 1984). Nevertheless, this Court will generally refrain from advising the Governor on issues that do not have a bearing upon a present constitutional duty presently awaiting performance by the Governor. Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 110 R.I. 1, 5, 289 A.2d 430, 433 (1972). As a threshold matter, we address whether the question of law propounded by you presents to us an appropriate subject for an advisory opinion. Your Excellency avers that your obligation to prepare and present a budget to the General Assembly, pursuant to article IX, section 15, of the Rhode Island Constitution, represents a constitutional duty awaiting your performance and argues that, therefore, your request is an appropriate one. We are of the opinion that Your Excellency has presented legitimate concerns that impede your ability to prepare a budget absent clarification of the requirements imposed by article I, section 10. We note on a related matter that on June 27, 1994, the Chief Justice of this Supreme Court entered an executive order prohibiting appointment of counsel to assist indigent litigants save where constitutionally required. The order was entered in an effort to control expenditures for appointed counsel, which outlay had exceeded appropriations by more than $300,-000 in each of the prior two fiscal years. Although we are responding to your request for advice in this instance, we would not consider that every issue affecting the state budgetary duties of the Governor or of the General Assembly would be a proper subject for such an opinion. See, e.g., In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 483 A.2d at 1079. [1] Rather, we have concluded that the question before us clearly affects an issue of constitutional proportions in respect to the rights of defendants charged with criminal offenses.