Page 9 - Suffolk University Law Review
P. 9
SUFFOLKUNIVERSITY LA WREVIEW [Vol. L:587
successfully argued that the United States Constitution's Double Jeopardy
Clause protected him from Puerto Rico' s criminal charges. 35 The government
appealed to the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's
decision.36 The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals relied on Pueblo v. Castro
Garcia,37 an opinion issued by Puerto Rico's Supreme Court (P.R. Supreme
Court).38 In Castro García, the P.R. Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico was
considered a sovereign entity with respect to the Double Jeopardy Clause.39
The P.R. Supreme Court reversed the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals by
overturning Castro García, and held that Puerto Rico is a nonsovereign
territory of the United States." Chief Justice Liana Fiol Matta and Associate
Justice Oronoz Rodríguez sharply disagreed with the reasoning, but concurred
with the disposition of the majority, arguing that Puerto Rico's constitution
prohibits double jeopardy, thereby making the dual sovereignty analysis
unnecessary.41 Justice Rodríguez further argued that Puerto Rico is sovereign
35. See Pueblo v. Sanchez Valle, No. K.LCE20121032, 2012 WL 7059782, at *3 (P.R. Cir. Dec. 19, 2012)
(recounting arguments at trial court).
36. See id. at *16 (denying double jeopardy protections because Puerto Rico's Jaw emanates from
nonfederal course).
37. 120 P.R. Dec. 740 (J 988).
38. See Sanchez Valle, 2012 WL 7059782, at * 16 (discussing double jeopardy protections under Pueblo v.
Castro García).
39. See Castro García, 120 P.R. Dec. at 754-55 (equating Puerto Rico to state for purposes of double
jeopardy).
40. See Pueblo v. Sanchez Valle, 192 P.R. Dec. 594, 645 (2015) (concluding Puerto Rico more akin to
territory than sovereign entity).
41. See íd. at 648-49 (Fiol Matta, C.J., concurring). In her concurring opinion, Chief Justice Fiol Matta,
joined by Associate Justice Oronoz Rodríguez, argued that the majority misinterpreted both Puerto Rico's
constitutional history and the double jeopardy doctrine. Id. Specifically, she stated that for purposes of the
dual sovereignty doctrine, Puerto Rico is sovereign because the ultimate source of power for the
Commonwealth is the people, not Congress, as the majority posited. See id. at 650. ln addition. Chief Justice
Fiol Marta concluded that the same result would be reached through the double jcopardy protection contained
in Puerto Rico's constitution. See id. at 650-51. As part ofher analysis of Puerto Rico's constitutional history,
Chief Justice Fiol Matta argued that the majority opinion misinterpreted staternents made by members of
Congress in the debate surrounding the approval of Law 600, which was not rneant to incorporare Puerto Rico
as a state. See id. at 686. The concurring opinion points out that after the comrnonwealth arrangement went
into effect, federal courts bave never found Puerto Rico to remain under the plenary powers of Congress. See
id. at 687. To the contrary, in the period between 1952 and 1970, the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico recognized eleven times that the arrangement represented a new relationsbip berween
Puerto Rico and the United States. See id. at 690. lndeed, the First Circuit recognized before 1960 that Puerto
Rico attained a new status, and that it was no longer under the plenary powers of Congress, See id. Despite
arguing that Puerto Rico maintained the requisite sovereignty to qualify for the exception to the double
jeopardy protection under the U.S. Constitution, the concurring opinión agreed with the majority in revoking
Pueblo v. Castro García, albeit on different grounds. See íd. According to the concurring opinion, the Puerto
Rico constitution provides double jeopardy protection on grounds of protecting the dignity of human beings
even if similar protection is unavailable under the United States Constitution. See id. ar 648. lt is noteworthy
that wheo Sanchez Valle reached the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her concurring opinion,
objected to the double jeopardy exception on grounds similar to tbose put forth by Justices Fiol Matta and
Oronoz Rodríguez. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1877 (2016) (Ginsberg, J., concurring)
(condemning "separate sovereigns" doctrine). According to many legal scholars, Justice Ginsburg's line of
reasoning, which would revoke the double jeopardy exception, is gaining ground. See Bartkus v. Ulinois, 359
successfully argued that the United States Constitution's Double Jeopardy
Clause protected him from Puerto Rico' s criminal charges. 35 The government
appealed to the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's
decision.36 The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals relied on Pueblo v. Castro
Garcia,37 an opinion issued by Puerto Rico's Supreme Court (P.R. Supreme
Court).38 In Castro García, the P.R. Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico was
considered a sovereign entity with respect to the Double Jeopardy Clause.39
The P.R. Supreme Court reversed the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals by
overturning Castro García, and held that Puerto Rico is a nonsovereign
territory of the United States." Chief Justice Liana Fiol Matta and Associate
Justice Oronoz Rodríguez sharply disagreed with the reasoning, but concurred
with the disposition of the majority, arguing that Puerto Rico's constitution
prohibits double jeopardy, thereby making the dual sovereignty analysis
unnecessary.41 Justice Rodríguez further argued that Puerto Rico is sovereign
35. See Pueblo v. Sanchez Valle, No. K.LCE20121032, 2012 WL 7059782, at *3 (P.R. Cir. Dec. 19, 2012)
(recounting arguments at trial court).
36. See id. at *16 (denying double jeopardy protections because Puerto Rico's Jaw emanates from
nonfederal course).
37. 120 P.R. Dec. 740 (J 988).
38. See Sanchez Valle, 2012 WL 7059782, at * 16 (discussing double jeopardy protections under Pueblo v.
Castro García).
39. See Castro García, 120 P.R. Dec. at 754-55 (equating Puerto Rico to state for purposes of double
jeopardy).
40. See Pueblo v. Sanchez Valle, 192 P.R. Dec. 594, 645 (2015) (concluding Puerto Rico more akin to
territory than sovereign entity).
41. See íd. at 648-49 (Fiol Matta, C.J., concurring). In her concurring opinion, Chief Justice Fiol Matta,
joined by Associate Justice Oronoz Rodríguez, argued that the majority misinterpreted both Puerto Rico's
constitutional history and the double jeopardy doctrine. Id. Specifically, she stated that for purposes of the
dual sovereignty doctrine, Puerto Rico is sovereign because the ultimate source of power for the
Commonwealth is the people, not Congress, as the majority posited. See id. at 650. ln addition. Chief Justice
Fiol Marta concluded that the same result would be reached through the double jcopardy protection contained
in Puerto Rico's constitution. See id. at 650-51. As part ofher analysis of Puerto Rico's constitutional history,
Chief Justice Fiol Matta argued that the majority opinion misinterpreted staternents made by members of
Congress in the debate surrounding the approval of Law 600, which was not rneant to incorporare Puerto Rico
as a state. See id. at 686. The concurring opinion points out that after the comrnonwealth arrangement went
into effect, federal courts bave never found Puerto Rico to remain under the plenary powers of Congress. See
id. at 687. To the contrary, in the period between 1952 and 1970, the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico recognized eleven times that the arrangement represented a new relationsbip berween
Puerto Rico and the United States. See id. at 690. lndeed, the First Circuit recognized before 1960 that Puerto
Rico attained a new status, and that it was no longer under the plenary powers of Congress, See id. Despite
arguing that Puerto Rico maintained the requisite sovereignty to qualify for the exception to the double
jeopardy protection under the U.S. Constitution, the concurring opinión agreed with the majority in revoking
Pueblo v. Castro García, albeit on different grounds. See íd. According to the concurring opinion, the Puerto
Rico constitution provides double jeopardy protection on grounds of protecting the dignity of human beings
even if similar protection is unavailable under the United States Constitution. See id. ar 648. lt is noteworthy
that wheo Sanchez Valle reached the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her concurring opinion,
objected to the double jeopardy exception on grounds similar to tbose put forth by Justices Fiol Matta and
Oronoz Rodríguez. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1877 (2016) (Ginsberg, J., concurring)
(condemning "separate sovereigns" doctrine). According to many legal scholars, Justice Ginsburg's line of
reasoning, which would revoke the double jeopardy exception, is gaining ground. See Bartkus v. Ulinois, 359
