Judgment Reviews Law at Micronesia
In the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the legal system, ensuring that laws, government actions, and decisions comply with the Constitution and national laws.
⚖️ Judicial Review in the FSM
The FSM Supreme Court, established under Article XI of the Constitution, holds the authority to interpret the Constitution and review the constitutionality of laws and government actions. This power is inherent in the judicial branch's responsibility to uphold the Constitution and ensure that all laws and actions align with it.
In the landmark case Suldan v. FSM (II), the court affirmed that the Constitution unmistakably places upon the judicial branch the ultimate responsibility for interpretation of the Constitution, thereby establishing the principle of judicial review in the FSM
🏛️ Structure of the FSM Supreme Court
The FSM Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and up to five Associate Justices Justices serve during good behavior and are appointed by the President with the approval of two-thirds of the Congress The Court has both a Trial Division and an Appellate Division The Appellate Division reviews cases from the Trial Division and may also hear cases from state or local courts if they involve substantial questions requiring interpretation of the Constitution, national law, or treaties
📜 Jurisdiction and Authority
The FSM Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving disputes between states, foreign officials, admiralty or maritime cases, and cases in which the national government is a party, except where an interest in land is at issue The Court also has concurrent jurisdiction with state courts in cases arising under the Constitution, national law, or treaties, and in disputes between a state and a citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, and between a state or a citizen thereof, and a foreign state, citizen, or subject
📝 Judicial Review Mechanism
The primary mechanism for judicial review in the FSM is the amparo process, a constitutional remedy that allows individuals to challenge laws or government actions that violate their constitutional righs This process ensures that the judiciary can intervene when legislative or executive actions are inconsistent with the Constitutin.
Additionally, the FSM Supreme Court has the authority to issue declaratory judgments, providing clarity on the interpretation of laws and the Constitution
⚠️ Limitations and Consideration
While the FSM Supreme Court holds significant authority in judicial review, there are limitatios:
*State Sovereignty: State courts have jurisdiction over matters not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national cours.
*Procedural Constraints: The Court may not intervene in cases unless there is a "case or controversy" as required by Article XI, Section 6(b) of the Constitutin.
*Political Sensitivity: Decisions involving political questions or matters of state policy may be beyond the Court's purviw.
✅ Summary
*Judicial Review Authority: Exercised by the FSM Supreme Court through the amparo process and declaratory judgmens.
*Constitutional Foundation: Inherent in the judicial branch's responsibility to interpret the Constitutin.
*Jurisdiction: Exclusive in certain matters; concurrent with state courts in othes.
*Limitations: Bound by constitutional requirements and considerations of state sovereigny.
In conclusion, judicial review in the FSM serves as a crucial mechanism for upholding the Constitution and ensuring that all laws and government actions are consistent with t The FSM Supreme Court plays a vital role in maintaining the rule of law and protecting individual rights within the federatin.
RELATED Blog
0 comments