Opinion ID: 2257543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Request

Text: While article 10, section 3, of the Rhode Island Constitution generally requires this Court to issue advisory opinions upon any question of law whenever requested by the governor or by either house of the general assembly, this duty is contingent upon certain threshold, jurisdictional requirements. See In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives (Casino II), 885 A.2d 698, 701 (R.I.2005) (hereinafter Casino II ). With respect to requests from the Governor, we only advise the chief executive in those instances in which the questions propounded have a bearing upon a present constitutional duty awaiting performance by the Governor. In re Advisory Opinion (Chief Justice), 507 A.2d 1316, 1319 (R.I.1986) (emphasis added); see also In re Request For Advisory Opinion Regarding House Bill 83-H-5640, 472 A.2d 301, 302 (R.I.1984). Critically, if our opinion is not constitutionally mandated, we will avoid offering an advisory opinion. In re Advisory Opinion (Chief Justice), 507 A.2d at 1319. In this situation, Your Excellency is not called upon to perform a present constitutional duty. It is notable that the process of amending the constitution of this state, as set forth in article 14, section 1, of the Rhode Island Constitution, imposes no duty upon the office of Governor; this duty, instead, is shared by the General Assembly and people of the State of Rhode Island. Your Excellency's constitutional duty to implement the provisions of said amendment will not accrue unless and until the proposed amendment is approved by a majority of the electors voting at the next general election. R.I. Const. art. 14, sec. 1. Therefore, neither the executive nor judicial branches of the government may interfere with the process of proposing a constitutional amendment. It should also be noted that the context of your request differs significantly from the context of our recent advisory opinions in In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor (Casino), 856 A.2d 320 (R.I.2004) (hereinafter Casino I ), and Casino II. First, the request that prompted Casino II came from the House of Representatives, and as such we were obligated to issue an opinion because the request concerned pending legislation. Casino II, 885 A.2d at 701 (`We are constitutionally obligated to give advisory opinions to either House of the General Assembly only when the questions propounded concern the constitutionality of pending legislation.') (quoting Casino I, 856 A.2d at 324). Likewise, we see a significant difference between the request made of us in Casino I and the questions presented to us at this time. Unlike the advisory opinion in Casino I, which concerned a statutory enactment, the present request concerns a constitutional amendment that must be voted upon by the people. A constitutional provision differs from a statute in that it is part of an organic document and it cannot be altered lightly. Casino II, 885 A.2d at 712 n. 15. It is precisely the crucial role of the General Assembly and the people of Rhode Island with respect to a proposed amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution that requires this Court to treat differently, on the one hand, a request for an advisory opinion from the Governor concerning existing legislation ( Casino I ), and, on the other hand, a request for an advisory opinion related to a proposed constitutional amendment where presently there is no constitutional duty to be performed by Your Excellency. R.I. Const. art. 14, sec. 1.