{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;}{\f169\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}
{\f170\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f172\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f173\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f174\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}
{\f175\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f176\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f177\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid11499797 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid11499797 footer;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'01);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'02);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'03);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4
\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'04);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'03(\'05);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'06);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'07);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname AutoList1;}\listid1}}
{\*\listoverridetable}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid2771543\rsid4472904\rsid6181267\rsid9508377\rsid10514220\rsid11152384\rsid11499797}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}
{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr14\min19}{\version6}{\edmins2}{\nofpages9}{\nofwords3530}{\nofchars20123}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws23606}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb810 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6181267 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6181267 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6181267 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6181267 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6181267 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery810\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid6181267\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 
People v. Guerrero}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid6181267 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2771543 9}}}{\fs20\insrsid6181267  of 14}{\insrsid6181267 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2771543 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1450\shptop1980\shpright10810\shpbottom1999\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypage\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn posrelv}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypage\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1450\dpy1980\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{
\insrsid6181267 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6181267 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 PEOPLE OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Plaintiff-Appellant
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 vs.}{\b\insrsid6181267 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904\charrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 BENNY TOVES GUERRERO}{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Defendant-Appellee}{\b\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904\charrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 OPINION}{\b\insrsid6181267 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904\charrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Filed: September 8, 2000
\par Cite as: 2000 Guam 26}{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Supreme Court Case No. CRA99-025
\par Superior Court Case No.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 CF0001-91}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on March 8, 2000
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid4472904 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }{\ul\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellee}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 :
\par Angela Borzachillo
\par Assistant Attorney General
\par Gerad Egan}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (on the briefs)
\par Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General
\par Prosecution Division
\par Suite 300 Guam Judicial Ctr.
\par 120 W. O}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Brien Drive
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Appearing for the Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 :
\par D. Paul Vernier, Jr., Esq.
\par McKeown Vernier Price Maher
\par A Joint Venture of McKeown Price, LLP, and
\par }{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Vernier & Maher, LLP
\par Suite 808, GCIC Bldg.
\par 414 W. Soledad Avenue
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid4472904 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 BEFORE: BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Chief Justice, PETER C. SIGUENZA, Associate Justice, and SEATON M. WOODLEY, III, Justice }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 .}{\b\insrsid4472904 

\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 SIGUENZA, J.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 :
\par }{\b\insrsid4472904 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [1]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab This is an appeal of the Superior Court}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s dismissal of an indictmen
t upon motion of the Defendant, Benny Toves Guerrero.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 We find that the criminal statute at issue in this case, as applied to this Defendant, substantially infringes upon the Defendant}{
\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s right to the free exercise of his religion as protected by the United States Constitution and the Organic Act of Guam.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
We conclude that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may be applicable to Guam.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
Moreover, we hold that, even if it were not, in circumstances where a fundamental right is substantially infringed, the go
vernment must demonstrate both that the infringement is justified by a compelling interest and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving that objective.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Therefore, we affirm the trial court}{
\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s dismissal of the instant action.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 BACKGROUND}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [2]\tab }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The facts of this case are relatively uncomplicated.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
On or about January 2, 1991, the Defendant, Benny Toves Guerrero (hereinafter }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Guerrero}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 ), was returning to Guam from Los Angeles, California via Honolulu, Hawaii.}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 At the Guam International Airport, Guam Customs officers approached Guerrero and asked him if he was carrying any drugs.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
He replied that he was not in possession of any drugs; however, a search of his backpack resulted in the discovery of marijuana contained therein.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
Guerrero was placed under arrest and charged with the importation of an illegal substance.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 He was subsequently indicted on January 11, 1991, and charged with the Importation of a Controlled Su
bstance (as a First Degree Felony), a violation of sections 67.23(d)(10), 67.89(a), and 80.33.7 of Title 9 of the Guam Code Annotated.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [3]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Guerrero filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment on the basis that the statute under which he was be
ing prosecuted violates his right to freely exercise his religion as guaranteed by the Organic Act of Guam and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The trial court found that, for purposes of the matter before it, Guerrero was a legitimate member of the Rastafarian religion and had established that the use of marijuana is a necessary sacrament in the practice of the religion.}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The court then ruled that 9 GCA }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.89 was inorganic as applied to t
his case, violating both the Organic Act of Guam and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
RFRA}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 ).}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [4]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab The court held that the RFRA, although declared unconst
itutional in state and local jurisdictions, was still applicable to Guam because Guam is considered an instrumentality of the federal government.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The court reasoned that because Congress continues to exercise plenary power over the territories and that the federal government possesses full and complete legislative authority over Guam; the island is a federal instrumentality.}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The court then applied the compelling interest standard that the RFRA advocates and found that the government had not demonstrated a compelling state interest to warrant the infringement of Guerrero}{
\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s right to the free exercise of his religion by using marijuana as a sacrament.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The government filed a timely appeal.}{\insrsid4472904 

\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 ANALYSIS}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [5]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Jurisdiction of this court is found pursuant to Title 8 GCA }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  130.20(a)(5) and 130.60 (1993).}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The parties agree that the standard of review in this case is }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 de novo}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 .}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The issue of the constitutionality of a statute are reviewed }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 de novo}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 .}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 People v. Perez}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, 1999 Guam 2, }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  6.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
Similarly, the issue of the interpretation of a statute is also reviewed }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 de novo}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 .}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 People v. Palomo}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 1998 Guam 12, }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  4.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The Organic Act of Guam provides that:}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
No law shall be enacted in Guam respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people p
eaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of their grievances.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 48 U.S.C.A. }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  1421b(a) (1950).}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The provision is similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which also states that }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 U.S. C}{\scaps\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 ONST}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 . amend. I.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [6]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab The offense for which Guerrero was indicted, Importation of a Controlled Substance, is found in Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.89 (1996) which provides:}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Except for a person registered pursuant to }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.95 of the Code or exempted pursuant to }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.93 or 67.94 of the Code, it shall be unlawful and punishable as a felony of the first degree to import i
nto Guam any controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II as per }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.22 through 67.25 of this Code or any narcotic drug listed in Schedules III, IV or V as per }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.26 through 67.31 of this Code, except that: . . . .}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 9 GCA }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.89(a).}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I Controlled substance.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 See Title 9 GCA }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.23 (1996).}{\cs15\super\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6181267 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid6181267 The statute provides:
\par (a) The controlled substances listed in this Section are included in Schedule I . . . .
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6181267 (d) Any material, compound or preparation which contain
s any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, their salts, isomers and salts of isomers, unless specifically excepted, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation: .
 . .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6181267 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6181267 (10) Marihuana . . .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6181267 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6181267 9 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid6181267 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6181267  67.23(a) and (d)(10) (1996).}}}{
\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Guerrero contends that this statute violates his constitutional and Organic Act right to the free exercise of his religion, Rastafarianism.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [7]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab We begin by observing that the United States Supreme Court has held that:}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, [and that] government may neither co
mpel affirmation of a repugnant belief nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views.}{
\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Sherbert v. Verner}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 374 U.S. 398, 402-403, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1793 (1963) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 But the Court has }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles for }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 even when the action is in accord with one}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions.}{
\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 403, 83 S.Ct. at 1793 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [8]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab In }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Sherbert}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, the Supreme Court held that the disqualification of a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church for unemployment benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act, because of her refusal to work o
n Saturday, imposed a burden on the free exercise of her religion.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The Court arrived at its conclusion by considering whether there was some compelling state interest in the statute which justified the substantial infringement of the appellant}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s First Amendment right and found no such interest.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 406-407, 83 S.Ct. at 1795.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [9]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab In the case of }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Wisconsin v. Yoder}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (1972), the court reversed the conviction of an Amish farmer who had been convicted of violating Wisconsin}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s compulsory school attendance law.}{
\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The Court found that the state had an interest regarding basic education, but held that the state interest is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, suc
h as those protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 214, 92 S.Ct. at 1532 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The Court examined the Amish}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s interest in maintaining its community structure and the state}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s interest in preparing citizens for effective and intelligent participation in the political system and in preparing self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society.}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The Court then concluded that the state interests would not be sufficiently advanced by requiring the Amish school ch
ildren, who were enrolled until the completion of a basic education, to attend school for an additional two years.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 222, 92 S.Ct. at 1536.}{\insrsid4472904 

\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [10]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Thus, the Supreme Court had articulated a test that had been followed for almost thirty years which prescribed how Free Exercise challenges to a law were to be analyzed.}{
\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 First, it must be determined whether the free exercise of a person}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s religion is substantially burdened by the governmental regulation or law.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 If it is, then the government must demonstrate
 that some compelling state interest justifies the infringement and that the least restrictive means are used to accomplish that objective.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [11]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab In 1990, however, the Supreme Court decided the case of }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Employment Division v. Smith}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (1990), which held that the Constitution}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law pro
scribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 879, 110 S.Ct. at 1600 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 In other words, neutral, generally applicable laws, may be applied to religious 
practices even when not supported by a compelling governmental interest.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 884-885, 110 S.Ct. at 1603.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [12]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab In }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Smith}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, the claimants sought review of a determination that their religious use of peyote, which had resulted in their dismissal from employment, was misconduct that properly disqualified them from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.}{\insrsid4472904 
 }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Justice Scalia, writing the opinion of the Court, concluded after a survey of its decisions that }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [w]e have never held that an individual}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 878-879, 110 S.Ct. at 1600.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The Court found that the only instances where the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction wit
h other constitutional protections, such as the free of speech and of the press.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 881-882, 110 S.Ct. at 1601-1602 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Finally, the Court declined to apply the }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Sherbert}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  test to the statute at issue.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
It reasoned that the test was developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 at 884, 110 S.Ct. at 1603.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 But that has no relevance to }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 It acknowledges that the Court has sometimes used the }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Sherbert}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 test to analyze free exercise challenges to such laws, but that it has never applied the test to invalidate one.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 at 884-885, 110 S.Ct. at 1603 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Thus, the Court held that the claimant}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s ingestion of peyote was prohibited under sta
te law, and because that prohibition was constitutional, the state may, consistent with the Free Exercise Clause, deny the claimants unemployment compensation when their dismissal result from the use of the drug.}{\insrsid4472904  }{
\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 890, 110 S.Ct. at 1606. }{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [13]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Justice O}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Connor, with whom three other Justices joined, wrote a concurrence to the opinion.}{
\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 In Justice O}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Connor}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s view, the ultimate reversal of the lower court}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s ruling was proper;}{\cs15\super\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6181267 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid6181267 Though the three joining Justices agreed with O}{\fs20\insrsid10514220 '}{
\fs20\insrsid6181267 Connor on Parts I and II of the Opinion, they did not concur in the judgment.}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  however, she criticized the Court}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s reading of the
 First Amendment and the disregard of its own consistent application of the free exercise doctrine to cases involving generally applicable regulations that burden religious conduct.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
She obtained the same result utilizing and respecting precedent.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 O}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Conno
r observes that the First Amendment does not distinguish between laws that are generally applicable and laws that target particular religious practices.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 at 894, 110 S.Ct. at 1608 (O}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Connor, J., concurring in part).}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Further, to say that a person}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s right to free exercise has been burdened does not mean that he has an absolute right to engage in the conduct.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
Under the jurisprudence of the First Amendment, the Court had recognized that the freedom to act, unlike the freedom to believe, cannot be absolute.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The compelling interest test effectuates the First Amendment}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s command that religious liberty is an independent liberty, that it occupies a preferred position, and that the Court will not permit encroachments upon this lib
erty, whether direct or indirect, unless required by clear and compelling governmental interests of the highest order.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 at 895, 110 S.Ct. at 1609 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [14]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab In response to the Court}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s rejection of the compelling governmental interest tes
t in Smith, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) reestablishing the compelling interest test of }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Sherbert}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  and }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Yoder}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , as the analytical framework governing all cases where the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 See United States v. Meyers,}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  95 F.3d 1475, 1481-1482 (10}{\super\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 th}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  Cir. 1996);}{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  see also United States v. Treiber, Bauer et al.}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 84 F.3d 1549, 1557-1559 (9}{\super\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 th}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  Cir. 1995).}{\insrsid4472904  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [15]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab The RFRA is found in 42 U.S.C.A. }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  2000bb }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 et seq}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 . (1999).}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
Of relevance to the issues in this case are the following provisions of the RFRA:}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (a) Findings}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The Congress finds that}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  }{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; }{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (2) laws }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 neutral}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (4) in Employment Divisio
n v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and }{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal co
urt rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interest.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (b) Purposes}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The purpose of this chapter are}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  }{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (1) to restore
 the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 42 U.S.C.A. }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  2000bb (1993)(quotations in original).}{\insrsid4472904 

\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [16]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab In addition, the Act provides:}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Government may substantially burden a person}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s exercise
 of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  }{\insrsid4472904 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri2160\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin2160\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri2160\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin2160\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest . . . .}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 42 U.S.C.A. }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  2000bb-1(b) (1993).}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [17]}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab The RFRA also provides a section for a definition of certain terms as they are used in the Act and it provides, in pertinent part:}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (1) the term }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 government}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and office (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State;}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (2) the term }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 State}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States;}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 (3) the term }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 demonstrates}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 . . .}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 42 U.S.C.A. }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  2000bb-2 (1993) (quotations in original).}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [18]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 City of Boerne v. Flores}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, 521 U.S. 507, 512, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 2160 (1997), was confronted with the issue of the RFRA}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s applicabili
ty upon the decision by local authorities to deny a church a building permit. The Court held that the RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the states under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and reversed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding to
 the contrary. The Court concluded that the RFRA represented }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
considerable congressional intrusion into the States}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  traditional prerogatives and general authority to regulate for the health and welfare of their citizens.}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Id.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  at 534, 117 S.Ct. at 2171.}{
\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [19]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Turning to the RFRA}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s applicability to Guam, it has been held that since Guam is an unincorporated territory enjoying only such powers as may be delegated to it by the
 Congress in the Organic Act, the Government of Guam is in essence an instrumentality of the federal government. }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Sakamoto v. Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 764 F. 2d 1285, 1286 (9}{
\super\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 th}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  Cir. 1985) (holding that the negative implications of the commerce clause do no
t apply). However, the issue becomes muddled when one considers that Guam, being a territory, is specifically designated in the RFRA as a }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 State}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  for purposes of the Act. }{
\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 See}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  42 U.S.C.A. }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  2000bb-2(2).}{
\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [20]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Moreover, significant questions remain as to the constitutionality of the RFRA even to the federal government. It has been criticized as violating 
the doctrine of separation of powers, circumventing the arduous amendment process as contained in Article V of the United States Constitution, and even running afoul of}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment itself.}{\cs15\super\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6181267 \chftn }{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 See generally}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 , }{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 United States v. Sandia}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 , 6 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (D. New Mexico 1997) (holding that the Supreme Court in }{
\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 City of Boerne}{\fs20\insrsid6181267  struck down RFRA regardless of whether Congress enacted it pursuant to Article I or the Fourteenth Amendment); }{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 In re Tessier}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 
, 190 B.R. 396 (Bkrtcy. D. Montana 1995) (agreeing with }{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 Smith}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 
 that the compelling interest test is judicially unmanageable and that only the legislature possesses the institutional structures sufficient to properly weigh the competing interests of sectarian worshipers and the secular so
vereign); Edward J.W. Blatnik, }{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 No RFAF Allowed: The Status of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act}{\i\fs20\insrsid10514220 '}{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 s Federal Application in the Wake of City of Boerne v. Flores}{
\fs20\insrsid6181267 , 98 Colum. L. Rev. 1410 (1998).}}}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [21]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab However, we are of the opinion that disposition of this 
case does not necessarily entail an arduous exercise of statutory interpretation or the assessment of the merits of the arguments, pro and con, of the continued constitutionality of the RFRA.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The rule which we announce today devolves from the recognition that this court sits as the highest tribunal in this jurisdiction and that Congress intends to allow Guam to develop its own institutions. }{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [22]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab As earlier indicated, section 1421b(a) of the Organic Act parallels the First Amendment to the
 Constitution of the United States. Despite the similarity of the two provisions, this court can reach its own conclusions on the scope of the protections of section 1421b(a) and may provide broader rights than those which have been interpreted by federal
 courts under the United States Constitution.}{\cs15\super\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6181267 \chftn }{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin}{\i\fs20\insrsid10514220 '}{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 s Castle, Inc.,}{\fs20\insrsid6181267  455 U.S. 283, 293, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 1077 (1982) (holding that }{
\fs20\insrsid6181267 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 a state court is entirely free to read its own State}{\fs20\insrsid10514220 '}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 s c
onstitution more broadly than this Court reads the Federal Constitution, or to reject the mode of analysis used by this Court in favor of a different analysis of its corresponding constitutional guarantee.}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 ); }{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 see also, State v. Hawaii}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 , 520 P.2d 51 (1974) (noting that }{\fs20\insrsid6181267 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 [w]}{\f37\fs20\insrsid6181267 e have not hesitated in the past to extend the protections of the Hawaii Bill of Rights beyond those of textually parallel provisions in the Federal 
Bill of Rights when logic and a sound regard for the purposes of those protections have so warranted.}{\f37\fs20\insrsid6181267 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f37\fs20\insrsid6181267 )}{
\fs20\insrsid6181267 ; }{\i\fs20\insrsid6181267 and generally}{\fs20\insrsid6181267 , Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L. Re. 489 (1977). }}}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 We note that}{
\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Smith}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  had substantially altered the U.S. Supreme Court}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s standard for determining whether conduct was protected under the free exercise clause and that it is a much criticized opinion that had weakened First Amendment protections for religious conduct. }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
See Attorney General v. Desilets}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 636 N.E.2d 233, 235-236 (Mass. 1994). The approach we take is to construe Guam}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s Constitution, the Or
ganic Act, and its concomitant protection of the Free Exercise of Religion, more broadly than the U.S. Supreme Court would the federal counterpart. }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 City of Mesquite}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, 455 U.S. at 293, 102 S.Ct. at 1077; }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Oregon v. Hass}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 420 U.S. 714, 719, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 1219 n. 4 (1975); }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Cooper v. State of California}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 386 U.S. 58, 62, 87 S.Ct. 788, 791 (1967). We have consistently demonstrated our willingness to apply our own interpretation of Guam}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s laws.}{
\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  See Sumitomo v. Zhong Ye, Inc.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 1997 Guam 8; }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Fajardo v. Liberty House}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 2000 Guam 4; }{
\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Custodio v. Boonprakong}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 1999 Guam 5;}{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  Borja v. Bitanga}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 1998 Guam 29;}{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 and Holmes v. Territorial Land Use Comm}{\i\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 n.}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, 1998 Guam 8. And we perceive no impediment to the adoption of the standards of the earlier First Amendment jurisprudence prior to }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Smith}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
 as the bar that must be cleared for purposes of Guam}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s constitution, the Organic Act. }{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [23]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Therefore, even if the RFRA were not applicable to Guam, we would still hold that because the infringement of a fundamenta
l right is involved, the government must prove that the infringement is justified by a compelling governmental interest and that the statute is the least restrictive means of achieving that objective. }{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [24]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Turning to the instant case, the government conce
ded in the proceedings below both the fact of the legitimacy of the Rastafarian religion and of the substantial infringement upon the Appellee}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s right to freely exercise his religion.}{
\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 The issue then is whether some compelling government interest exists and whether the least restrictive means of obtaining that objective are used.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
No evidence on this score was presented; rather, the government chose to rely upon its response to the motion.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 However, it did not designate that}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
response as part of the record on appeal so this court is unable to make the evaluation of whether a compelling state interest is embodied in the instant statute or whether that interest is achieved by the least restrictive means.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [25]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Additionally, the government}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s proposition that a c
riminal statute is a demonstration of a compelling interest, }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 per se}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , with no less restrictive means of furtherance proves too much.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
Ostensibly, the government relies upon }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Smith}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  as authority for the proposition.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 However, Smith}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s holding was that the compelling interest test was not to be used in analyzing a challenge of a neutral, generally applicable criminal statute.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Smith}{
\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 , 494 U.S. at 885, 110 S.Ct. At 1603.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 As we read }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Smith}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
, nowhere was it stated, as the government here argues, that a criminal statute is a }{\i\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 per se}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  demonstration of a compelling interest with no less restrictive means of furtherance.}{
\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 Instead, what is asked is whether the challenged statute is a neutral, generally applicable law; and,}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
if it is, then the exacting demands of the compelling interest test should not be utilized.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [26]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab We are also critical of the government}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s disingenuous argument that the law was unsettled and that by making a record of the compelling governmental interest it would essentially render, as moot, its position that the RFRA was inapplicable.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
An appellate court can only decide the merits of any given case by the record that is preserved and presented to it on appeal.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
But neglecting to protect the record on the chance that this court eventually would side with a particular party is a questionable tactic.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 We disagree with the government}{
\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 s argument that remand is the appropriate disposition of the appeal because the test which we have ultimately decided as appropriate to assess the Free Exercise cla
ims was not what the government chose to pursue below.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
The government had before it the competing tests upon which an evaluation of the Free Exercise challenge would be analyzed and it should have protected the record with some evidentiary basis upon whic
h this reviewing court could assess the merits and, ultimately, render an appropriate disposition of the instant case.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 CONCLUSION}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [27]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Thus, we find that 9 GCA }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  67.89(a), as applied to Guerrero, substantially i
nfringed upon his right to the free exercise of his religion as protected by the United States Constitution and the Organic Act of Guam.}{\insrsid4472904  }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
Although we conclude that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may be applicable to Guam; we would hold that, even if
 it were not, in circumstances where a fundamental right is substantially infringed, the government must demonstrate that the infringement is justified by a compelling interest and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving that objective.}{
\insrsid4472904 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 [28]}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab Therefore, we }{\b\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 AFFIRM}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904  the trial court}{\insrsid10514220\charrsid4472904 '}{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
s dismissal of the instant action.}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 PETER C. SIGUENZA\tab \tab \tab \tab  SEATON M. WOODLEY
\par Associate Justice\tab \tab }{\insrsid4472904 \tab }{\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 \tab \tab Justice Pro Tempore}{\insrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4472904 {\insrsid6181267\charrsid4472904 BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ
\par Chief Justice
\par }}