By Erin Thompson
Pacific Daily News
February 25, 2011
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20110225/NEWS01/102250304
 |
| Opposition: Jonathan Diaz, right, pauses in his seat after speaking up against the church while Deacon Jeff Barcinas continues lay out the the Archdiocese of Agana's opposition to Bill 34 at a public hearing at the Guam Legislature on Feb. 7. The bill passed in session yesterday. (Pacific Daily News files) |
Two bills aimed at holding perpetrators of sexual abuse accountable passed in the 31st Guam Legislature yesterday, after three days of occasionally contentious discussion among senators on the issue.
Passed unanimously with 15 votes, Bill 33, introduced by Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz, will eliminate the statute of limitations on sex crimes committed against those under the age of majority, if signed into law. Under Guam law the age of majority is 18. The window for prosecuting cases of sexual abuse is three years after the age of majority, or 21.
A second, more controversial bill allowing for civil claims for past sex abuse passed with only nine votes -- even after an all-day floor debate and the addition of several amendments to the bill earlier in the week.
Also introduced by Cruz, Bill 34 will allow for a two-year window for past victims of childhood sexual abuse to file civil claims in the Superior Court of Guam, if signed into law.
Cruz said he is hopeful former victims of sex abuse will take advantage of the law.
"I'm providing this opportunity for them to be able to use this. I just want to be able to assist them in pointing out who these perpetrators are," said Cruz.
Amendments
While Cruz thanked his colleagues for "voting their conscience" in passing the two bills, he said he was surprised that Bill 34 passed with six senators dissenting, even after several amendments were added to the bill to address concerns brought up during the floor discussion.
Over concerns of false claims, the bill was amended to require that plaintiffs file a "certificate of merit," which would include a review of the merits of the claim by a licensed mental health practitioner and an attorney. Another amendment also removed language in the bill that would have allowed for suit against not just the perpetrators of sexual abuse but institutions found to be grossly negligent in taking care of a child who was abused.
The inclusion of institutional responsibility was an issue brought up by representatives of the Catholic Church, which has spoken against the bill.
During a Feb. 7 public hearing, the bill received criticism from the Archdiocese of Agana.
In written testimony submitted to the Committee on Public Safety, Law Enforcement and the Judiciary, Deacon Jeff Barcinas, spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Agana, said that the legislation would target the Catholic Church. Instead of protecting children, Barcinas said the legislation was about "retroactively reviving time-barred claims and providing monetary damages for individuals who are well into middle age and beyond."
Barcinas called upon abused individuals to report their abuse to the proper authorities first, and then to report the abuse to the diocese. He also laid out a five-point criteria to define "fair laws" -- and said that "fair laws are not retroactive" and "do not create new victims."
Barcinas said that the law would affect the ability of the church to continue doing its charity work.
During discussions, Sen. Tom Ada pointed to the testimony as a turning point in his own support for the bill. He said the "defensive" position of the church helped cement his support for the bill, as well as amendments that heightened the proof requirement before claims could be filed.
The morning before senators passed the bill, several senators also reported that they received phone calls from Archbishop Anthony Apuron.
Sen. Tina Muna Barnes said Apuron called yesterday morning before the vote to say he understood the bill would be on the voting agenda for the day. Barnes said she didn't feel like he "pressed" her on the issue, but she said Apuron expressed a couple of concerns about the bill.
Sen. Adolpho Palacios also confirmed that he'd spoken with the archbishop, who he said expressed "serious reservations" about the bill.
Ada said his office had received a message from the archbishop, but he was in a meeting and didn't have a chance to take the call.
Several senators who voted against the bill said that they were concerned about the precedent the bill would set.
"The focus of the Bill 34 should have been on the victims, however, this bill is fraught with unintended consequences creating an opportunity for lawyers and ambulance chasers," said Sen. Rory Respicio. "The most prudent means for protecting our children from sexual predators is Bill 33, which was passed unanimously."
Respicio said he didn't have a conversations with the archbishop.
Sen. Chris Duenas, who voted to bring the bill out of committee, said part of his opposition came from uncertainty about language in the law allowing individuals to file suit. Duenas said he was unsure if the amended language would truly shield institutions from claims.
Duenas wouldn't comment on whether he discussed the bill with Apuron.
"I make my decisions based on how I believe how the legislation is going to better the community," said Duenas.
Attempts to reach the Archdiocese of Agana were unsuccessful.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.