Section 1. This Constitution is the supreme law of the State of Chuuk. An act of government in conflict with this Constitution is invalid to the extent of conflict.
Case annotations: Interpretation
When a constitutional provision is ambiguous and no constitutional convention journal was ever compiled then the constitutional convention reports may be consulted to discern the framers' intent. Nimeisa v. Department of Public Works, 6 FSM Intrm. 205, 209 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1993).
Statutes and case law inherited from the Trust Territory are invalid to the extent that they are inconsistent with the state constitution which is the supreme law of Chuuk. Nimeisa v. Department of Public Works, 6 FSM Intrm. 205, 210 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1993).
In deciding whether the new rule should be applied retroactively from the date of the court's judgment, or prospectively when rendering judgments on new constitutional rules, courts are to be guided by the following three factors: 1) the purpose to be served by the particular new rule; 2) the extent of reliance which had been placed upon the old rule; and 3) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new rule. Nimeisa v. Department of Public Works, 6 FSM Intrm. 205, 210-11 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1993).
Where there has been good-faith reliance on an old rule, and retroactive application of the new rule would defeat such reliance, and where retroactive application would only unjustifiedly burden the administration of justice with merit less claims doubting the good faith reliance on the old rule, the new constitutional rule will apply to the parties of the case and be given prospective effect. Nimeisa v. Department of Public Works, 6 FSM Intrm. 205, 211-12 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1993).
Where constitutional language is borrowed from another constitution the borrowed language will be interpreted in the light of the interpretation of the original language, but insertion of new or different language must be interpreted to intend that some sort of new or different meaning be given to that altered portion of the constitutional text. Robert v. Chuuk State House of Representatives, 6 FSM Intrm. 260, 265 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1993).
A court begins its analysis with the presumption that all legislative enactments are constitutional. The burden is on the plaintiff to clearly demonstrate to the court that the ordinance is unconstitutional. Wainit v. Weno,
7 FSM Intrm. 121, 122 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1995).