Cruz's Claims about Influencing Sex Bill "Outlandish"
By Shawn Raymundo
The Catholic Church Friday challenged Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz’s claims that Archbishop Anthony Apuron instructed senators to tank a previous measure meant to support sexual abuse victims. Cruz, D-Piti, made the statements Wednesday during a radio interview on K57. The bill to which Cruz was referencing came out of the 31st Guam Legislature in 2011. Cruz introduced the “window” measure, wherein victims of childhood sexual abuse who were then adults could have a two-year period to file civil actions against the individual that preyed upon them, thereby suspending any statute of limitations. At the time, Cruz noted, several state legislatures were passing similar bills. Such measures were meant to help victims who had remained silent for several years for fear of retribution and in part because of the trauma they endured. In 2012, The New York Times reported that throughout the nation, the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t only battling sexual abuse cases in the courtroom, but had been lobbying against legislation that would loosen statute of limitations. That battle became localized after Cruz introduced his measure, he said. “The biggest lobby was the church,” he recalled. “I became a pariah in the community,” Cruz added. “It was thought that I was specifically targeting the church.” During an interview with local radio station K57 on Wednesday morning, the vice speaker was asked about his measure. He blatantly called out Archbishop Apuron, saying Apuron instructed senators to not only gut the measure, which was eventually enacted as Public Law 31-7, but attach “poison pill” amendments to it. Cruz wouldn’t disclose which senators had made the amendments on behalf of the archbishop. According to a press release the Archdiocese of Agana issued Friday, Cruz’s accusations are “outlandish.” “(Cruz) approved those amendments for which he now blames the archbishop,” the archdiocese wrote. The release also called Cruz’s bill “discriminatory because it specifically targeted only the Catholic Church and not all religious or educational institutions.” The original draft of the bill, which was only two pages long, included language that allowed sexual abuse victims to bring a civil suit against the person that abused them and seek damages from an “institution, agency, firm business, corporation, or other public and private legal entity that owned a duty of care to the victim.” However, the damages provision, or “deep pockets” language, as Cruz referred to it, was removed during the Legislature’s session debate of the bill, meaning an institution or entity wouldn’t be held responsible for the accused actions if found guilty. According to the legislative records on the bill, Sen. Anthony Ada, R-Sinajana, proposed the amendment to remove the “deep pockets” provision. Ada was also one of the six senators to vote against the measure. As of press time, Ada couldn’t be reached for comment. In a 9-6 vote, Sens. Tony Ada, Frank Blas Jr., Chris Duenas, Judith Guthertz, Rory Respicio and Dennis Rodriguez Jr. opposed the bill. Although Gov. Eddie Calvo agreed with the intention of the bill allowing “sexual abuse survivors to seek justice from the individual abuser,” he wouldn’t have signed it into law had the “deep pockets” provision remained in there. “I am enacting this law solely and exclusively given, and subject to, the interpretation that institutions, agencies, firms, businesses, corporations, or other private or public entities may not be named as parties in any way in civil actions, which otherwise could not be filed if not for this legislation,” Calvo wrote in attachment to his enactment. Other amendments were proposed by Sens. Blas, Rodriguez and Respicio. Both Blas, R-Barrigada, and Rodriguez, D-Dededo, refute Cruz’s claims, stating that at no time had they discussed the bill with Apuron. Respicio, D-Agana Heights, couldn’t be reached as of press time. “Of course not,” Rodriguez said when asked if the archbishop instructed him to amend the bill. “But I think it’s laughable that the vice speaker said that.” Another provision in the bill already allowed for a person who was accused of sexual abuse to recover attorney’s fees if the court found the accusations against that person were false. Rodriguez’s one amendment allowed such a person falsely accused to also collect damages. “I think it’s just right … that you’re able to recover with attorney fees and damages,” he said. “It’s very damaging when someone falsely accuses you of something you didn’t commit.” Vice Speaker Cruz had also introduced an amendment – the “certificate of merit” provision – that required an attorney to ensure the case had merit after consulting with at least one mental health practitioner who was knowledgeable of the relevant facts. Based on the initial language of the provision, an attorney could be liable for “unprofessional conduct” and “discipline” if part of the rules were followed or violated. Sen. Blas amended the language so any violation automatically means an attorney would be disciplined. Cruz said the amendments made it difficult for attorneys to want to take on such cases, knowing that their clients could end up losing a lot of money and they themselves could face ethical charges. “No attorney was going to bring action 'cause no one person had the money to pay,” Cruz said. Respicio’s amendment, the only proposal that failed to pass and make it on to the finalized statute, would have removed certain language from the “certificate of merit” provision. A sentence in the provision states: “if the corroborative fact is evidenced by the statement of a witness or the contents of a document, the certificate shall declare that the attorney has personal knowledge of the statement of the witness or of the document.” Respicio’s amendment proposed to remove “the statement of a witness” from the bill. The vice speaker’s original language for that section prevailed. Cruz said he doesn’t plan to reintroduce another “window” measure on this issue because of constitutionality. Because they lifted the statute of limitations once before, he’s not sure they’ll be able to convince the courts that it’s necessary to do it again, considering no one came forward last time. “I don’t want to be embarrassed that it’s going to be challenged constitutionally,” Cruz said. “I can’t keep opening and closing and opening again the statute. We had two years where no one came forward.” Contact: sraymundo@guampdn.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.