(d) All Judges sitting on the effective date of this Chapter shall continue to sit for the remainder of their respective terms without need for reappointment, reconfirmation or additional declarations required by this § 4101. (e) Enactment of Rules on Case Management and Disposition. The Supreme Court shall enact rules governing the efficient dispatch of the Superior Court’s business, including the following: (1) time frames and deadlines for matters taken under submission to provide speedy and efficient disposition of cases; (2) compilation of data and statistics regarding the court and each judge’s performance and publication of the same on the Supreme Court website. Said compilation shall include, but not be limited to, the number of motions filed in cases pending before each judge, the number of motions and trials to the court which each judge has had under submission more than sixty (60) days, and the number of motions and trials to the court each judge has had under submission more than one hundred twenty (120) days prompt and equitable assignment and distribution of cases and workload and time off among the judges; (3) assignment, management, distribution, processing, scheduling and disposition of cases in the Superior Court; (4) whether a referee or hearing officer may hear a case; and (5) any other matters which affect the prompt, fair and just disposition of cases in the Superior Court. SOURCE: Added by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993). Amended (as CCP § 81) by P.L. 22-075:2 (Mar. 3, 1994). Subsections (b), (c) repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-139:30-32 (Feb. 7, 1998). Subsections (b), (c) amended by P.L. 27-031:11 (Oct. 31, 2003). Subsection (e) added by P.L. 27-031:12 (Oct. 31, 2003), and repealed and reenacted by P.L. 28-137:1 (July 11, 2006). COURT DECISIONS: Pangelinan v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam 11 ¶ 8 (“We find that Bill 495 [designated as P.L. 24- 139] was pocket vetoed and that the Legislature’s subsequent actions did not serve to ratify Bill 495.”), aff’d by Gutierrez v. Pangelinan, 276 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. den. 537 U.S. 825 (Oct. 7, 2002). 1985 SOURCE: New section, but compare CCP § 81 in part.
COL 2025-08-27
1985 COMMENT: The confusion arising over the appointment of Judge Diaz (August 1980) and the appointment of Attorney Crain (who was not confirmed by the Legislature) (December 1982) has shown that there is no clear means by which a new judicial position is created. Judge Diaz was appointed and confirmed as judge before any new position was funded. However, the funding was authorized by the Legislature before the new judge was sworn in and took office. To remedy this situation P.L. 15-140:2, in amending § 81 of the CCP, stated that there are “a presiding judge and 5 additional judges”. However, with the resignation of Judge Benson, there was no hurry in filling that vacancy because all concerned believed that the business of the court did not require an additional judge. Therefore, this Section takes care of not only increased judicial business, but also decreased judicial business. This Section will also take care of the problem occurring in 1982 when the Bar Association still believed that no new judge was required, but the Governor disagreed.