(a) The Director of Administration may direct that any monies belonging to, and under the control of, the government of Guam, in the hands of the Treasurer shall be deposited to the credit of the government in eligible banks. Any sum so deposited is deemed to be in the Treasury of Guam. (b) Policy. It is the policy of the government of Guam that government funds shall be deposited in eligible banks in proration as those eligible banks meet the long-term capital credit needs of the Territory. Capital credit is defined to include loans made for equity investments, purchase of real estate and other loans repayable in not less than five years. (c) Rules & Regulations. The Governor may make rules and regulations which shall be promulgated by Executive Order to implement the provisions of this Section. SOURCE: GC § 6310 repealed and added by P.L. 9-237 (Aug. 13, 1968). Subsection (b) repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-310:9 (Dec. 21, 1998). Subsection (b) as reenacted by P.L. 24-310:9 was removed and replaced with the original version added by P.L. 9-237 pursuant to Bank of Guam v. Reidy, 2001 Guam 14 ¶ 22. 2015 NOTE: In Bank of Guam v. Reidy, 2001 Guam 14 ¶ 22, the Supreme Court of Guam concluded that subsection (b) as reenacted by P.L. 24-310:9 was void, and that the provision originally added by P.L. 9-237 “remains in force.” The court held:
COL1242015
[22] Further, when faced with a statute that contains contradictory legislative directives, a court cannot simply elect to give effect to one directive over the other in an effort to save the statute. Such would be an exercise in judicial legislation, which is clearly not the prerogative of the courts. See Great Lakes Pipe Line Co., 396 P.2d at 300. Because the statute is void for ambiguity, there cannot be any duty in Reidy, or correlative right in BOG, flowing from the 1998 enactment. Further, because we hold that the 1998 enactment is void, the prior enactment and codification of subsection (b) remains in force. See State ex rel. Clover Valley Lumber Co. v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. in and for Pershing County, 83 P.2d 1031, 1034 (Nev. 1938) (declaring valid and effective a prior enactment where its later amended version was found to be invalid); Rosenfield v. Drake, 170 A. 414, (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934) (holding that a statute that is held to be invalid does not act to repeal its predecessor unless the statute employs language showing an intent to repeal the earlier statute even if later found invalid); see also Dewrell v. Kearly, 32 So.2d 812, 814 (Ala. 1947). A reading of the prior law, enacted in 1968 and later codified as 5 GCA § 21111(b) (1993), reveals that the statute does not suffer from the contradictory language which resulted in our invalidation of the 1998 enactment. We find this predecessor version to be valid.