CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION
Cite as Siis Mun. Election Comm'n v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 17 FSM Intrm. 146 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2010)
SIIS MUNICIPAL ELECTION COMMISSION
and LORENZO MARIANO, in his capacity as Siis
Municipal Election Commissioner,
Appellants,
vs.
CHUUK STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
Appellee,
and
KICHY KANEMOTO,
Real Party in Interest.
APPEAL CASE NO. 01-2010
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Hearing: June 9, 2010
Decided: June 9, 2010
BEFORE:
Hon. Keske S. Marar, Associate Justice, Presiding
Hon. Bethwell O'Sonis, Temporary Justice*
Hon. George Z. Isom, Temporary Justice**
*Attorney at Law, Micronesian Legal Services Corporation, Weno, Chuuk
**Attorney at Law, FSM Public Defender's Office, Weno, Chuuk
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioners:
Fredrick A. Hartmann
P.O. Box 882
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Respondent:
Jayson Robert
Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Real Party in Interest:
Kind Kanto
Kind Kanto
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
* * * *
The Chuuk State Supreme Court appellate division does not have jurisdiction over a challenge to a municipal election commission's order for a revote because it is not an election contest since the appellant does not contest an election's result or a candidate's qualifications and since it is not an appeal from a municipal court decision or otherwise an appeal from a trial court decision. Siis Mun. Election Comm'n v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 17 FSM Intrm. 146, 147 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 2010).
* * * *
PER CURIAM:
On June 7, 2010, the appellant filed a verified complaint and motion for temporary restraining order in the appellate division requesting an order to prevent a revote in Siis municipality of its mayoral election that was ordered by the State Election Commission for June 8, 2010. On June 9, 2010, the appellate panel convened and held a hearing with counsel present for each party.
Upon reviewing the papers filed and the representations of counsel, the court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction over this matter as an election contest filed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chk. S.L. No. 3-95-26, § 123 et seq. since the appellant does not contest the result of an election or the qualifications of a candidate. Chk. S.L. No. 3-95-26, § 123. Nor is it an appeal from a municipal court decision in accordance with Section 35 of Judiciary Act, or otherwise an appeal from a trial court decision, inferior state court, or municipal court. Chk. Const. art. VII, § 4. No basis for the appellate court's jurisdiction is otherwise apparent.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
* * * *