By Kassi Berg
Only days after being sworn into the Senate to serve his second term, the Palau Court of Appeals heard an argument on whether Senator Raynold Oilouch violated the Constitution and Code of Ethics.
Under the last administration, the Republic of Palau filed a suit against Senator Oilouch for providing legal services to the Koror State Public Land Authority in a civil case. The original ruling by the Chief Justice was in favor of Senator Oilouch holding that the Senator’s legal services to the state public land authority was not “employment” in the sense of a “master-servant” relationship and thus, did not violate the Palau Constitution.
During the oral argument on Monday January 21, 2013, the Palau Court of Appeals took an uncommon route by granting litigants a chance to argue their case before the Appellate panel. The appeal was heard by a lively panel of three women judges who questioned both sides during their presentations.
The case questions whether Senator Oilouch, who is also a lawyer, impermissibly accepted public employment while a Palau Senator. The Palau Constitution, Article 9, Section 10, prohibits a member of the Palau legislature from any “public employment” while serving as a member of Congress.
The Republic argued to the Appeals bench that the Chief Justice used the wrong definition of employment and should have applied a broader definition. The Republic urged the Appellate Court to adopt a definition of employment that would cover all “services for compensation.” The Republic contends that the Senator should not have provided legal services, for money compensation, to a public entity and in so doing, violated the intent behind the Constitutional provision.
Former Palau Senator and attorney Yukiwo Dengokl argued the case on behalf of Senator Oilouch. Dengokl argued that the Constitution only meant to avoid having a Senator serve “two masters.” In other words, the Constitution permits a legislator from accepting compensation as an independent contractor. Denokgl explained to the Appellate panel that the Court should make a determination on a case-by-case basis as to whether a legislator violates the Constitution and should not establish a bright line rule, as urged by the Republic, that any work for compensation is impermissible.
The Republic contends that the Appellate Court would not be establishing a bright line rule, but instead would be respecting the one that is already written in Palau’s Constitution. The Republic pointed out that the Constitutional prohibition was not written for those who are honorable enough to avoid impropriety, such as Senator Oilouch, but was intended to eliminate the possibility or appearance of impropriety.
The Republic asked the Court to reverse the Chief Justice’s ruling and find that the Constitution requires that if you are elected as a legislator, you may not accept money for services rendered to any public entity. The Republic concluded that such is a “small price to pay” for the honor of being elected to serve in Congress.
The Appellate Court took the matter under submission and will issue its decision within 90 days.