Limtiaco v. Camacho

In the case of Limtiaco v. Camacho, the Governor of Guam, Camacho, filed a request for a Declaratory Judgment in the Supreme Court of Guam requesting an interpretation of the phrase "aggregate tax valuation of the property of Guam." He also wanted to be shown how the government should assert the "aggregate tax valuation," when it is determined that the limitation of debt has been passed. In terms of the law, Section 11 of the Organic Act of Guam places limit on public debt at 10% of the collective property on Guam, which bases this total on Section 11. The Attorney General of Guam had refused the authorization of $394 million in bonds that Governor Camacho wished to issue. Governor Camacho argued that the phrase "aggregate tax valuation" meant the appraised value differed from total value of the property in Guam. The Attorney General argued that the term in Section 11 "valuation" is similar to the term "value" in local statutes that govern Guam's property taxes, having the defined appraised value of 35%.

The Supreme Court took the side of Governor Camacho as they found that the public debt that was allowed under Section 11 should be defined using the appraised value of Guam's property, which is shown on the certified tax roll that was in place when the debt is incurred. The Supreme Court also concluded that bonds being issued would not be in violation of the clause of debt-limitation that was in Section 11 of the Organic Act.

There was an appeal petition to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made by the Attorney General. During the time when the petition was pending, Congress changed the jurisdiction of appeals from the Guam Supreme Court from the 9th Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States. Overall, the petitioning time limit is within the period of 90 days of the judgment from the lower court. Before finally dismissing the statutory change, the case pended for almost two years. As a result, the Supreme Court asked the parties involved to brief the inquiry if the 90 day statute of limitations was tolled at the time the case in the 9th Circuit was still pending.

Click here to learn more about Kevin P. Simmons of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg