BishopAccountability.org
 
 

Bill 326-33 Raises Concerns

By Zoltan Szekely
Pacific Daily News
August 13, 2016

http://www.guampdn.com/story/opinion/2016/08/13/opinion-bill-326-33-raises-concerns/88656896/

I would like to acknowledge the alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse and their families who came forward with complaints in the last few months. Their testimonies detailing events that happened over 40 years ago must be heard with attention and sincerity. The proposed bill tries to make justice for the alleged victims. However, some of the circumstances of this piece of legislation raise concerns.

Parts of the bill remain unclear and unexplained. It applies to alleged victims whose claimed abuse occurred a long time ago and the statute of limitation prevented them in the past and still prevents them now from filing a lawsuit. The Guam Legislature had already chosen a solution in 2011. The statute of limitation was lifted for two years, but nobody came forward with a sexual abuse complaint.

Simply overriding an existing law without substantial and compelling reason raises serious doubts. Bill Pesch writes in the PDN on June 26: “Although appellate courts may allow a legislature to alter the civil statute of limitations for pursuing cases of child sexual abuse once, there is serious doubt that they will allow it twice. This may well be considered an 'expo facto' law,” a law enacted backward in time.

It was said that the “intent is to remove the current section requiring 'certificates of merit,' as such information would have a chilling effect on those sexual abuse survivors who choose to seek justice against their victimizers.” Well, was it not the Guam Legislature that created the Certificates of Merit section in the current law at the first place? We need at least some explanation here.

Bill 326-33, as listed at the Guam Legislature’s website, is not the current version of the proposal! At a public hearing on Aug. 1, I was handed out a different version of it. Let me quote: “An action for child sexual abuse may be commenced against abusers, their enablers, their aiders or abettors, those acting in concert with them and their institutions or corporations sole at any time.”

Who are exactly these people? This language mimics that of lobbyists. Gerard Taitano says, “We must hold child sex abusers and their enablers accountable for their actions.”

The substitute bill gives child sex abuse survivors a chance not only to seek justice for the acts that have scarred them, but also allows them to file claims against institutions and organizations and other individuals who have engaged in a conspiracy to cover up those acts, said David Sablan, the president of the Concerned Catholics of Guam (CCoG).

How would the bill define, identify and address enablers, aiders, abettor, etc. of sexual abuse? What would exactly constitute “an engagement in a conspiracy to cover up” these acts?

In the extreme, the Guam Legislature may become culpable for having enacted the certificates of merits section in 2011. Was the Guam Legislature acting “in concert” with child abusers when it enacted this section into law? Is it not the role of senators to guarantee that a high quality of law making and the outcome is constitutional?

The timeline of the Vatican may differ from the timeline of the advocacy groups. But should this be a reason to rush to ill-fed conclusions by the advocates of the bill?

I am concerned by the attempts of misusing law in order to make politically charged accusations. I am concerned that this bill might be intended to become a stepping stone toward claiming untrue implications to vilify a certain faith group inside the Catholic church. As a citizen, I would like to be able to continue exercising my constitutional right and obtain protection of practicing my religion. A dehumanizing language prevalent among some radical advocates of this bill is revealing an agenda that cannot be supported by any legislature with stature and integrity.

 

 

 

 

 




.

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.