Underwood v Guam Election Commission [2006] GUSC 21; 2006 Guam 19 (29 December 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD and FRANK B. AGUON, JR.,
Petitioners,

vs.

THE GUAM ELECTION COMMISSION,
Respondent,

FELIX P. CAMACHO and MICHAEL CRUZ,
Real Parties in Interest.

Supreme Court Case No.: WRM06-003

OPINION

Filed: December 29, 2006

Cite as: 2006 Guam 19

Argued and submitted November 17, 2006
Hagåtña, Guam

For Petitioners: Michael F. Phillips, Esq. Phillips & Bordallo, P.C. 410 W. O’Brien Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910	For Respondent: Rawlen M.T. Mantanona, Esq. Cabot Mantanona LLP BankPacific Bldg., Second Flr. 825 S Marin Corps Dr. Tamuning, GU 96913
	For Real Parties in Interest: David Mair, Esq. Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson, P.C. 238 A.F.C. Flores St. Ste. 801 Pacific News Bldg. Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore; J. BRADLEY KLEMM, Justice Pro Tempore.

CARBULLIDO, C.J.:

[1] Petitioners Robert A. Underwood and Frank B. Aguon, Jr. ("Underwood/Aguon") filed a Verified Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, requesting that this court invoke its original jurisdiction to hear this case. They additionally seek expedited treatment of their petition. Real Parties in Interest Felix P. Camacho and Michael Cruz ("Camacho/Cruz") sought dismissal of the petition and opposed expediting the proceeding.

[2] We do not, in this Opinion, address the underlying merits of the petition; more specifically, we do not decide today whether the issuance of the writ of mandate, an extraordinary remedy, will be appropriate under the facts and the law as presented by the parties to this proceeding. Rather, we first address whether this court has the authority and discretion to assume original jurisdiction to consider the petition for writ of mandate filed by Underwood/Aguon. Second, assuming that we do in fact have such authority and that we will exercise our discretion to consider this matter, we next address whether the disposition of the matters raised by petition should be expedited.1

[3] We hold that the issues involved in this matter are of great public importance, and therefore, it is appropriate, not only to exercise our discretion and assume original jurisdiction in this matter, but also to expedite the briefing schedule and oral argument.2