with the type of permanent union which each claim is best for our citizens. You must also consider the fact that there is a sizeable portion of independence followers who in the past have voted with the commonwealth administration as a coalition and to counterbalance the statehood movement. It is said that we cannot count those votes here today because we do not know how many there are. But they do exist, gentlemen. Therefore, in order to be able to truly canvas the aspirations of our citizens, you must seek out a formula which effectively inspires every single one of our electorate to be faithful to their true inclinations so that those who yearn for independence vote for independence, and likewise for those who favor statehood or commonwealth. The strongest approach which you could use, gentlemen, would be for you to make it perfectly clear that this is the time for us to choose. And that you will accept the democratic decision of a majority. You must also act swiftly and firmly in striking down any portions of the proposal that are not truly related to the status issue as well as those proposals that are unreasonable. This brings us to an issue we wish to address. That is the charges of political bias brought against our local Federal judiciary. I know that my time is up. We have made a presentation in writing. It is in the record. But it may be summed with two paragraphs if I may, Senator. Even though our membership is politically diverse, they do share the opinion that the presence of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on this island is indispensable. And that its judges have faithfully executed their oath of office in their duty to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America and the rights, privileges and immunities of its citizens in this jurisdiction. In short, the accusations leveled against this institution are uncalled for. We are concerned, seriously concerned, with proposals particularly contained in S. 712, Title IV, Subpart 15, which deal with the judiciary. In short, we strongly oppose the requests which, if approved, would make the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico different to any other United States District Court in the states. The reasons therefor are contained in our written presentation. And I would rather answer your questions than go on, Senator. [The prepared statement of Mr. del Toro follows:] Federal Bar Association RESPOND TO: PUERTO RICO CHAPTER Russell A. Del Toro, Esq. PRESENTATION TO THE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES I. Introduction: My name is Russell Del Toro and I am the president of the Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Prior to serving as president, I also had the privilege of serving as Treasurer, Secretary and Second and First Vice-President of this chapter. At the national level, I have served as National Vice-President for the First Circuit during the period of 1984 up to 1988 and as member of its National Council since 1984 to the present. The Puerto Rico Chapter's membership constitute the vast majority of those attorneys who practice before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and those Federal Agencies located within Puerto Rico. Its main purpose is to serve as the national representative of the federal legal profession, to promote the sound administration of justice, and to promote high standards of professional competence and ethical conduct in the federal legal profession. II. Scope of Federal Bar Association's Remarks: Even though our membership is politically diverse, they do share the opinion that the presence of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on this island is indispensable and that its judges have faithfully executed their oath of office and their duty to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America and the rights, privileges and immunities of its citizens in this jurisdiction. Serving the Federal Legal Profession Since 1920 Presentation to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee... June 15, 1989 However, the testimony and opinion expressed by us today should not be construed as an endorsement of any particular status formula or political action group. The consensus of our board of directors is that we should abstain from expressing an opinion regarding those proposals which are political in nature. On the other hand, our silence as to matters such as the applicability of federal laws in Puerto Rico, federal appointments and other similar issues should not be construed as if we agree with these proposals. Of our concern are those proposals which substantially affect, and which are directly related, to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. In short, we strongly and vehemently oppose all requests which, if approved, would make the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico different to any other United States District Court. The most notable of these proposals are contained in S.712 Title IV, Subpart 15 Judiciary which reads: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law: (1) The District Court shall not undertake to construe a theretofore unconstrued Puerto Rico statute or regulation or decide a theretofore undecided point of substantive Puerto Rico nonstatutory law without having given the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico the opportunity to construe such statute or regulation or to rule upon such point of Puerto Rico law. (2) The proceedings of the U. S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the Spanish language upon the request of any party to the proceedings. (3) Any issue of law arising under the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act in any action or controversy brought in federal court shall be certified to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. In addition, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, acting through its Secretary of Justice, may transfer any action brought against it, or any of its Presentation to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee... June 15, 1989 officers or employees acting in their official capacity, from the U. S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia." III. A. Opinion of the Federal Bar Association and reasons therefore: With regard to the proposal that the U. S. District Court for the 1. An adequate certification procedure exists and is routinely used under the appropriate circumstances. These rules were enacted by the Legislature of Puerto Rico and the P. R. Supreme Court and are embodied in Rule 53.4 of the P.R. Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 27 of the P.R. Supreme Court Regulations.' During the last two years alone, the U. S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has certified 14 cases to the P. R. Supreme Court. We must further note that, traditionally, it has been the P. R. Supreme Court who has limited the availability of this certification process and have demanded strict compliance with the requisites they have imposed, prior to them accepting a certification from a federal court, be it at the district or appellate level.' 2. Additionally, the doctrine of abstention is faithfully observed.' The clearest example is a recent case which involves dispute regarding the election of the mayor of San Juan, José Granados Navedo v. Héctor Luis Acevedo, Civil No. 88-2023 (JAF). In that case the District Court abstained in deference to the Superior Court of Puerto Rico. The resolution of that case is still pending before the P. R. Supreme Court. Presentation to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee... June 15, 1989 B. C. Use of the Spanish language in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico Certification of issues arising under the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and transfer of any action brought against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any of its officers or employees, from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 1. The FBA is against this proposal for the following reasons: a. We must be mindful that our U. S. District Court judges |