{\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};}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f179\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 \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\ls1\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Level 1;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0
\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel
\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3
\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname AutoList22;}\listid1}{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0
\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers
\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0
\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0
\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel
\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname AutoList17;}\listid2}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1\listoverridecount8{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat
\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0
\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0
\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}
{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat
{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0
\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0
{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1145541\rsid7687990\rsid9508377\rsid12850102\rsid12976170}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min5}
{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr9\min54}{\version4}{\edmins6}{\nofpages15}{\nofwords6809}{\nofchars38816}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws45534}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 
\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\rsidroot7687990 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7687990 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7687990 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7687990 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7687990 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid7687990\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \fi-7920\li7920\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin7920\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\i\fs20\insrsid7687990 Pangelinan v. Gutierrez, }{\fs20\insrsid7687990 Amended Opinion\tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid7687990 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid12976170 15}}}{
\fs20\insrsid7687990  of 25
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7687990 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid12976170 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2050{\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 fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid7687990 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-22\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7687990 
\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\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 VICENTE C. PANGELINAN and
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 JOSEPH C. WESLEY}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ,}{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 vs.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ, Governor, JOHN F. TARANTINO, 
\par Attorney General, JAMES H. UNDERWOOD, Director of the 
\par Department of Public Works; EDWARD G. UNTALAN, 
\par Administrator of the Guam Economic Development Authority; 
\par CARL J.C. AGUON, Director of the Department of Land 
\par Management; Y}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
ASELA A. PEREIRA, Treasurer of Guam; 
\par GOVERNMENT OF GUAM,}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Defendants-Appellees,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 and
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 GUAM RESOURCE RECOVERY PARTNERS,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par Intervening Defendant-Appellee.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Supreme Court Case No. CVA02-003
\par Superior Court Case No. SP0212-00}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 AMENDED OPINION}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Filed: September 9, 2004}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Cite as: 2004 Guam 16}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Petition for Rehearing filed on July 11, 2003
\par Argued and submitted on February 24, 2004
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-4320\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appearing for the Plaintiffs-Appellants}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 :\tab }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appearing for the Defendants-Appellees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 :
\par Michael F. Phillips, Esq.\tab \tab \tab Joseph Guthrie, Esq.
\par Phillips & Bordallo, P.C.\tab \tab \tab Office of the Attorney General
\par }\pard \ql \fi-3600\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 410 W. O}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Brien Dr., Ste. 102\tab \tab Ste. 2-200 E, Judicial Ctr. Bldg.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 96910\tab \tab \tab 120 W . O}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Brien Dr.
\par }\pard \ql \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appearing for Intervening Defendant-Appellee}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 :
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Arthur B. Clark, Esq.
\par Calvo & Clark, LLP
\par 655 S. Marine Dr., Ste. 202
\par Tamuning, Guam 96911
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 BEFORE:}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Chief Justice (Acting)}{
\cs15\super\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid7687990 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7687990 
  The Chief Justice recused himself from this case and as the only full-time justice on the panel, Justice Tydingco-Gatewood was appointed Acting Chief Justice.
\par }}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ; JOHN A. MANGLONA and PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Justices }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 .}{\insrsid12850102 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [1]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab This amended opinion is issued in response to Intervening Defendant-Appellee Guam Resource Recovery Partners}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Petition for Rehearing of this court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s opinion found at 2003 Guam 13, wherein we held that the 1996 contractual agreement (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 1996 Agreement}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ) between Defendant-Appellee Government of Guam (}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 the Government}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ) and Guam Resource Recovery Partners (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 GRRP}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ) (collectively referred to as }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellees}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ) is null and void because its terms violate section 1423j of the Organic Act of Guam and section 22401 of Title 5 of the Guam Code Annotated.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In its petition, GRRP argues that:}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 (1)
 the court improperly considered issues not directly related to issues argued by the parties thereby denying GRRP of its procedural due process rights afforded it under the United States Constitution; and (2) section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 2
2
401 of Title 5 GCA do not require a contract violative of those provisions to be declared null and void, and further, this court should honor the severability clause provided for in the agreement, sever the offending provision and enforce the remaining pr
ovisions of the agreement.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
We affirm our previous holding in 2003 Guam 13 that section 4.04 of the 1996 Agreement results in a violation of section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 22401 of Title 5 GCA.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
We hold that we properly considered whether the 1996 Agreement was in violation of section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 22401 of Title 5 GCA and therefore, GRRP was not denied procedural due process.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 However, with respect to the issue of severability, we vacate our holding in 2003 Guam 13 that 
the 1996 Agreement is null and void in its entirety, and we remand the matter to the trial court for further findings and proceedings consistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [2]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Furthermore, because we vacate our finding that the 1996 Agreement is n
ull and void, we address the remaining issues raised on appeal by Plaintiffs-Appellants Vicente C. Pangelinan and Joseph C. Wesley (collectively referred to as }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
), but not previously addressed by this court in 2003 Guam 13.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Specifically, Appellants appeal from the trial court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s final judgment in favor of Appellees, arguing that the 1996 agreement violates several Guam statutes, including Guam}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s procurement law. Appellants argue that the 1996 Agreement violates:}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
(1) Guam procurement laws, as found in Chapter 5 of Title 5 of the Guam Code Annotated, by authorizing the expenditure of public funds without following the procurement process; (2)}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
section 50103(f) of Title 12 of the Guam Code Annotated, Public Law 24-139, and Public Law 24-272, by authorizing the Guam Economic Development Authority to issue bonds without first ob
taining legislative approval; and (3) section 1800 of Title 1 of the Guam Code Annotated by contracting for the transfer of land without first obtaining legislative approval.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
They also argue that the trial court erred in holding that Public Law 24-57 and Public Law 24-272 were violations of the Contracts Clause of the Organic Act and accordingly, inorganic and unconstitutional.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We hold, with respect to the alleged violation of the procurement law, that the parties should be afforded the opportunity to add
ress the issue of novation raised by this court for the first time on appeal and thus, we remand this matter to the trial court for further findings and proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also find that Appellees have not attempted to issue any 
bonds or transfer any land without the approval of the Legislature and therefore, the trial court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s findings in this regard are affirmed.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We find section 6 of Public Law 24-57 to be invalid as it unconstitutionally impairs the Government}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s obligations under the 1996 agreement, and therefore violates the Contracts Clause of the Organic Act.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Further, we find Public Law 24-272, in its entirety, to be invalid and void as a result of the invalidation of Public Law 23-139.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Thus, we affirm the trial court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s findings with respect to each of these public laws.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 I.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [3]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The procedural and factual background of this case was fully discus
sed at 2003 Guam 13 and need not be recited here.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See Pangelinan v. Gutierrez}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 2003 Guam 13, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  2-10.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 II.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [4]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab This court has jurisdiction over final judgments of the Superior Court of the Guam.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12850102  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Title 7 GCA }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  3107 and 3108 }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 (1994), }{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 as amended by}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Guam Public Law 27-31 (Oct. 31, 2003).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [5]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab A trial court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s decision to grant or deny summary judgment is reviewed }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 de novo}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 .}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int}{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 l (Guam), Inc.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 1997 Guam 10, }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  7.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Summary judgment is proper }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c).}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 III}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 .}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 A.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx720\faauto\ls1\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 GRRP}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s Petition for Rehearing}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid12850102 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 1.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab 
Issues Raised by the Court }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Sua Sponte}{\i\insrsid7687990 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [6]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The first issue raised by GRRP in its petition for rehearing is whether this cour
t improperly considered issues not directly related to the issues argued by the parties, thereby denying GRRP procedural due process.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Specifically, GRRP argues that the 1996 Agreement is voluminous and complex and thus, this court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s application of}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 22401 of Title 5 GCA to the terms of 1996 Agreement presented an entirely new issue, never before raised on appeal.
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [7]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The United States Supreme Court has held that }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [a]n elementary and fundamental {\*\bkmkstart SearchTerm}{\*\bkmkend SearchTerm}requirement{\*\bkmkstart SR_1110}{\*\bkmkend SR_1110} of due process{\*\bkmkstart SR_1113}{\*\bkmkend SR_1113} in any 
{\*\bkmkstart citeas__Cite_as__456_U_S__444___444___10}{\*\bkmkstart SDU_10}{\*\bkmkend citeas__Cite_as__456_U_S__444___444___10}{\*\bkmkend SDU_10}proceeding{\*\bkmkstart SR_1116}{\*\bkmkend SR_1116}
 which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S. Ct. 652, 657 (1950). Therefore, the question before us is whether, under all the circumstances, GRRP was apprised of the pendency of this action and afforded an opportunity to object.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We hold that GRRP was both apprised of the pendency of this action and afforded an opportunity to object.}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [8]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab We disagree with GRRP}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s premise that the issue of legislative approval of the spending of government funds was never before raised by the parties.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The issue framed by Appellants with respect to the expenditure of public funds is:}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Did the trial court err in finding that the Government does possess the authority to incur public debt without legislative approval?}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Brief, p. 1.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 It is important to note, however, that the issue as framed misstates the decision of the trial court, from which this appeal arises.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In particular, the trial court held that there was }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
nothing in the agreement resulting in an appropriation of government funds without Legislative approval.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The Court [sic] is devoid of any term in the agreement which could even allow for an appropriation without Legislative approval.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Appellant}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s Excerpts of Record, Tab 22, page 7 (Decision and Order).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In their brief, Appellants clarify the substance of their appeal of the trial court}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s decision:}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The tria
l court recognized that if expenditures are actually made without legislative approval, such action would likely give rise to a cause of action for a violation of }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  1423j of the Organic Act.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The trial court erre
d in failing to find that the contracting for such expenditures and not the spending constitutes the actual public debt.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Brief, p. 9.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In addition, during the February 6, 2003 oral argument, counsel for Appellants directed the court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s attention to section 4.04 of the 1996 Agreement, and argued that such section resulted in the expenditure of government funds, notwithstanding any action or inaction by the Legislature.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Under these circumstances, in light of the language found in section 4.04 of the 1996 Agreement, and pursuant to section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 22401 of Title 5 GCA, we held that the tri
al court erred in holding that nothing in the agreement resulted in an appropriation of government funds without legislative approval.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Because we find that this court did not raise any issues not already raised at the trial court level, we hold that GRRP was given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and thus was not denied procedural due process.
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [9]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab We further disagree with GRRP}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s related argument that this court may not }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 sua sponte}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  raise and address the illegality of the 1996 Agreement.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Even assuming }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 arguendo}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  that this court raised a new issue on appeal, other courts have held that the illegality of a contract may be raised }{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 sua sponte}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  by an appellate court.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Thus, while we recognize 
the general rule that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be addressed, such rule has its exceptions.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Dumiliang v. Silan}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 2001 Guam 24, }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  12.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In particular, }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
the question of illegality of the contract sued on may be raised at any time, when the fact of its illegality has been made to appear.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Maynard Inv. Co. v. McCann}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 465 P.2d 657, 666 (Wash. 1970).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 This is because }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
[c]ourts should not be confined by the issues framed or theories advanced by the parties if the parties ignore the mandate of a statute or an established precedent.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 A case brought before this court sh
ould be governed by the applicable law even though the attorneys representing the parties are unable or unwilling to argue it.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Id.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  at 661.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 For this reason, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [q]uesti
ons necessarily involved in issues raised and litigated in the trial court are open for consideration on appeal or review, even though they were not specifically raised below.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Id. }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 (quoting 5 }{\scaps\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Am.Jur.2d}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appeal and Error}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  548-49 (1962)).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 This is especially the case }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 where the matter in question affects the public interest.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Id.}{\i\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [10]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab 
While the parties did not specifically cite to section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 22401 of Title 5 GCA in direct relation to section 4.04 of the 1996 Agreement, we need not be restricted by the issues
 or theories advanced where the statutory mandates are clear.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Indeed, even if the issue of the illegality of the 1996 Agreement had not been advanced by the parties, the court has a duty to raise such an issue }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 sua sponte}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 .}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See Cal. Pac. Bank v. Small Bus. Ass}{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 n}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 557 F.2d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1977) (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The court has a duty sua sponte to raise the {\*\bkmkstart Document0zzSDUNumber20}{\*\bkmkend Document0zzSDUNumber20}issue [of illegality of a contract] in the interest of the administration of justice.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ); }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Trees v. Kersey}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 56 P.3d 765, 768 (Idaho 2002) (stating that a }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [c]ourt has the duty to raise the issue of illegal
ity [of a contract] }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 sua sponte.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ).
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [11]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Accordingly, we hold that this court properly considered whether the 1996 Agreement was in violation of section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 22401 of Title 5 GCA.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The issue of whether the 1996 Agreement expended public funds prior to legislative approval was raised by the parties and addressed by the court at the trial level.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Moreover, the court complied with its duty to }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 sua sponte}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  raise the issue of the illegality of 1996 Agreement.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 For the above reasons, we hold that GRRP had notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and an opportunity to object to the issues addressed by this court, and thus, GRRP was
 not denied procedural due process.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Accordingly, we affirm our holding in 2003 Guam 13 on this issue.}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 2. \tab Severability 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [12]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab In 2003 Guam 13, this court found that the 1996 Agreement was null and void in its entirety.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
In its petition, GRRP argues that th
e 1996 Agreement is valid because neither section 1423j of the Organic Act nor section 22401 of Title 5 GCA require that a contract entered in violation of the respective provisions be rendered null and void in its entirety.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 GRRP argues that the court should instead sever the remaining, valid provisions of the 1996 Agreement, or remand the issue to the trial court to conduct a severability analysis in the first instance.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [13]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The 
{\*\bkmkstart SDU_41}{\*\bkmkend SDU_41}rule is settled that partially illegal contracts may be upheld if the illegal portion is severable from the part which is legal.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Mailand v. Burckle}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 572 P.2d 1142, 1152 (Cal. 1978).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
This concept is codified at section 85404 of Title 18 GCA, which states:}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Where a contract has several distinct objects, of which one at least is lawful, and one at least is unlawful, in whole or in part, the contract is void as to the latter and valid as to the rest.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Title 18 GCA }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  85404 (1994).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The term }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 object}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  is also defined by local statute, to mean }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 the thing which is agreed, on the part of the party receiving the consideration, to do or not to do.}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Title 18 GCA }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  85401 (1994).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Section 85404 is identical to section 1599 of the California Civil Code and therefore, California case law is persuasive.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See Fajardo v. Liberty House}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 2000 Guam 4, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  17.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The rule of severability was summarized by the California Supreme Court as follows:}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Courts are to look to the various purposes of the contract. If the central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality, then the contract as a
 whole cannot be enforced. If the illegality is collateral to the main purpose of the contract, and the illegal provision can be extirpated from the contract by means of severance or restriction, then such severance and restriction are appropriate.}{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 6 P.3d 669, 696 (Cal. 2000).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
This rule recognizes that one purpose of severance is to{\*\bkmkstart citeas__Cite_as__24_Cal_4th_83___124___6} }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 attempt to {\*\bkmkend citeas__Cite_as__24_Cal_4th_83___124___6}conserve a contractual relationship if to do so would not be condoning an illegal scheme.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Id.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [14]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Under the above case law, it must be determined whether section 4.04 of the 1996 Agreement is the 
central purpose of the contract, and if so, then the contract is unenforceable in its entirety.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 On the other hand, if section 4.04 is collateral to the main purpose of the contract, }{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 and if it can be severed or restricted}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , then such severance or restriction will apply to save the remaining, valid portions of the contract.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [15]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The issue of }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
whether a contract is entire or whether its various stipulations are to be regarded as severable is a question of construction.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Sterling v. Gregory}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 85 P. 305, 306 (Cal.1906).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Thus, a court must examine }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 the language and subject-matter of the contract . . . according to the intention of the parties.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Pac. Wharf & Storage Co. v. Standard Am. Dredging Co.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 192 P. 847, 849 (Cal. 1920).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In determining the parties}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  intent, the court must consider }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
all the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Sterling}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 85 P. at 306.
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [16]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The rules of law announced in the above California cases are consi
stent with basic principles of severability which have emerged in other jurisdictions, that is, although contracts containing provisions which violate a statute are illegal and void, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 if the illegal provision in a contract is severable, the courts will enforce the remainder of the contract after excising the illegal portion.}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 17A }{\scaps\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Am. Jur. 2d}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Contracts}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  247 (2003); }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 see Panasonic Co. v. Zinn}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 903 F.2d 1039, 1041 (5th Cir. 1990) (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Where the subject matter of the contract is legal, but the contract contains an illegal provision that is not an essential feature of the agreement, the illeg
al provision may be severed and the valid portion of the contract enforced.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
In determining whether a particular provision is severable, the issue is whether the parties would have entered into the agreement absent the illegal parts.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ) (citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted);}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Plumbers & Steamfitters Union, Local No. 598 v. Dillion}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 255 F.2d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 1958) (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
[A]n illegal clause which is severable from the remainder of the contract is no bar to enforcement of the other contractual provisions.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 );}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Alston Studios, Inc. v. Lloyd V. Gress & Assocs.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 492 F.2d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 1974) (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
When a contract covers several subjects, some of whose provisions are valid and some void, those [provisions] which are valid will be upheld if they are not so interwoven with those illegal as to make divisibility impossible}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ).
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [17]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Moreover, while the concept of severability applies especially where the contract contains a clause which }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 expressly contemplates and provides for the severance of an illegal provision,}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Avenell}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 66 F.3d 715, 722 (5th Cir. 1995), }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 when the severed portion is integral to the entire contract, a severability clause, standing alone, cannot save the contract.}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 John R. Ray & Sons, Inc. v. Stroman}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 923 S.W.2d 80, 87 (Tex. App. 1996).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Rather, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
[t]he contractual provisions themselves, as well as the underlying circumstances and intent of the parties, must nonetheless be examined.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Budge v. Post}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 544 F.Supp. 370, 382 (N.D. Tex. 1982).}{\insrsid12850102 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [18]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Thus, we find that the trial court provides a more appropriate forum to address the issue of severability}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
in the first instance.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We therefore vacate our holding in 2003 Guam 13 that the 1996 Agreement is null and void, and remand to the trial court.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
On remand, upon examination of all the circumstances, the trial court must determine whether section 4.04 of the 1996 Agreement is the central purpose of the contract.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
If section 4.04 is the central purpose, then the trial court must find that the contract is unenforceable in its entirety.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
On the other hand, should the trial court determine that section 4.04 is collateral to the main purpose of the contract, it must then assess whether section 4.04 is severable.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
This severability analysis requires the trial court to examine the language and subject-matter of the contract, and the intention of the parties, to determine whether section 4.04 is integral to the contract.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Pac. Wharf}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 192 P. at 849.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Should the court find that section 4.04 is an integral part of the contract, and therefor
e the illegal provision cannot be severed, the trial court must find that the contract in its entirety is invalid.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Conversely, should the court find that section 4.04 is not integral to the contract, and thus the illegal provision may be severed from the contract, the trial court must then find that the contract is valid. 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 B. \tab Other Issues Raised on Appeal
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [19]\tab }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In 2003 Guam 13, we declared the 1996 Agreement null and void, thus precluding our need to address the other issues brought before us on appeal.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 GRRP}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s petition for a rehearing of this case, and our concurrence 
with GRRP that the issue of severability shall be remanded to the trial court for its initial determination, necessitates examining the other issues raised on appeal.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12850102\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 1.\tab Procurement Law
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [20]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab We first consider whether the 1996 Agreement is subject to the provisions of the procurement law, contained in Chapter 5 of Title 5 GCA.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 These provisions apply only to contracts solicited or entered into after the date the chapter was enacted, that is, October 1, 1983.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Title 5 GCA }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  5004(a) (1996); }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 see also}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  5009 (1996).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The trial court found that because the 1996 Agreement was based on a license issued in 1982, before the effective date of the procurement provisions, then the 1996 Agreement fell outside of the procurement law.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [21]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding that the 1996 Agreement was not subject to procurement provisions.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 They rely first on section 5004(b) of Title 5 GCA, which states that }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 every}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  expenditure of public funds requires compliance with the procurement law.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  5004(b) (1996).}{\insrsid12850102  
}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants contend that while it appears section 5004(a) of Title 5 GCA places 
the agreement outside of the procurement process, section 5004(b) of Title 5 GCA acts to bring the agreement back within the procurement provisions.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We disagree.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 A statutory provision should be interpreted consistently and so as not to render another statutory provision, particularly one concerning the same subject, null and void.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See Morton v. Mancari}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 417 U.S. 535, 551, 94 S. Ct. 2474, 2483 (1974) (stating that }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 when two statutes are capable of co\_existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ); }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 see also Bank of Guam v. Reidy}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 2001 Guam 14, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  21 (recognizing that }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [c]ourts are reluctant to declare a statute void because of conflicting provisions.}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 );}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 486 U.S. 825, 837, 108 S. Ct. 2182, 2189 (1988) (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [W]e are hesitant to adopt an interpretation of a congressional enactment which renders superfluous another portion of that same law.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 To read section 5004(b) as Appellants suggest would render section 5004(a) a nullity.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Thus, we find that section 5004(b) of Title 5 GCA refers only to those expenditures of public funds made pursuant to contracts solicited or entered into that occur }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 after }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 the effective date of the procurement law. 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [22]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 second contention, presented during oral argument on February 6, 2003, is that the terms of the 1996 Agreement we
re sufficiently different from the 1982 License so as to render the 1996 Agreement a wholly new agreement, thereby bringing the 1996 Agreement within the provisions of the procurement law.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Appellants assert that while the 1996 Agreement may arguably have 
been derived from the 1990 Amended License, its evolution from the 1982 License, and the substantial development of contractual terms since that time, precludes it from being viewed as a product of the 1982 License.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [23]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Appellees disagree, arguing that the same basic obligations have been carried over from the 1982 License to the 1996 Agreement, specifically:}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 the construction of a waste-to-energy facility, the supply of a minimum amount of solid waste, and the sale of electricity.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In other words, despi
te the substantial modifications to the 1982 License, the 1996 Agreement substantively remains the same, and therefore can be properly characterized as an amendment to or mere continuation of the 1982 License.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Thus, Appellees assert that no new contract was entered into after the effective date of the procurement law.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [24]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The issue in dispute between the parties is whether the 1996 Agreement simply modified or completely replaced the original 1982 License.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Although the precise legal term }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 novation}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  was not used by the parties, such legal concept is arguably operative in this case.}{\insrsid12850102 
 }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 A novation }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 is the substitu
tion of a new obligation for an existing one.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Title 18 GCA }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  82501 (1994).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Novation of a contract generally occurs in one of two ways.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The first is by }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 replacement of an unexpired contract by another contract reached through renegotiation . . . .}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Williams Petroleum Co. v. Midland Coops.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 679 F.2d 815, 819 (10th Cir. 1982); }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 see also}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 Title 18 GCA }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  82502 (1994) (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Novation is made . . . [b]y the substitution of a new obligation between the same parties, with intent to extinguish the old obligation}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
This is the interpretation of novation raised by Appellants, who contend that the 1982 License has been renegotiated and replaced by the parties}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  subsequent agreements.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 However, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [r]egardless of the extent to which a contract is modified, a novation cannot be found unless it be shown that the parties intended and agreed to extinguish the original contract.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Howard v. Amador}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 269 Cal. Rptr. 807, 817 (Ct. App. 1990).}{\insrsid12850102  }
{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants in this instance have offered only the substantial change in the contract}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s terms as proof that the parties entered into a new contract.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
There is no showing that the parties intended the subsequent modifications to extinguish and replace the already existing contract instead of merely supplementing and modifying it.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
In fact, as pointed out by Appellees, the language of the 1982 License contemplated the execution of later, more detailed documents.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Thus, we cannot find that the 1996 Agreement or even the 1990 Amended License constituted a novation of the 1982 License.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 A change in contractual terms alone, no matt
er how substantial, is not sufficient to support a finding of novation. 
\par }{\b\insrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [25]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Our inquiry into the novation issue, however, must include analyzing the second method of novation, which occurs where there is }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 the substitution of a new party concurrent with the release of an original party from liability.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Williams}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 679 F.2d at 819; }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 see also }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 18 GCA }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  82502 (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Novation is made . . . [b]y the substitution of a new debtor in place of the old one, with intent to release the latter}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 or }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [b]y the substitution of a new creditor in place of the old one, with intent to transfer the rights of the latter to the former.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Despite the parties}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  failure to directly address this aspect of novation, we find it within our discretion to now raise the matter.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [T]he construction of a written instrument, due to its status as a question of law, may be construed and its legal effect d
etermined by the appellate court.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
W-V Enters., Inc. v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 6}{\insrsid12976170 73 P.2d 1112, 1119 (Kan. 1983).}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12976170\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [26]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The issue of whether a newly enacted law applies to an assigned contract is inextricably tied to the issue of whether a novation}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 was effected by that assignment.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 San Souci v. Division of Florida Land Sales & Condos.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 448 So. 2d 1116, 1119-1120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 This is because }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [a] statute in effect at the time of a novation will determine the rights and obligations of the parties to the novation even if the statute was not in effect at the inception of the original contract.}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Jakobi v. Kings Creek Village Townhouse Ass}{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 n}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 665 So. 2d 325, 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Moreover, we find the interest of justice so compelling in this instance that it justifies raising the novation question even at this late point in the litigation.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The contract in question is a public contract to which the government is a party.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The Legislature determined in enacting extensive procurement regulations that the public had a vested interest in imposing strict bidding procedures on public contracts.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
In light of the above considerations, we raise the question of whether, in substituting of one party for another, specifically GRRP for IEEI, the parties intended to subsequently release IEEI of its obligatio
ns under the contract, thereby effecting a novation and bringing the 1996 Agreement within the provisions of the procurement law.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par [27]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The execution of the 1996 Agreement confirms that the 1982 License was assigned by GEDA to GPI.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 However, an assign
ment of a contract is not synonymous with a novation.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
An assignment differs from a novation in two ways: (1) an assignment creates no contract between lessor and assignee, and (2) an assignment does not discharge the assignor}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s original obligation to the lessor.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings I, Inc.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 646 F. Supp. 946, 949-50 (W.D. Wash. 1986); }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 see also Wells Fargo}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 525.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12976170\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [28]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Here, a contract between GEDA and GRRP did result from the assignment of the 1982 License, as embodied by the 1996 Agreement.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Nonetheless, the question that remains is whether, in the process of assigning the rights in the 1982 License, IEEI was also released from its obligations to GEDA.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The contractual language contained in sections 14 and 15 of the 1990 Amended License indicate that a release of GEDA was intended.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 These provisions state:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 14.\tab }{\ul\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Release of IEEI}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 : . . . Up
on the receipt of the sum of $255,000 from GPI, GEDA shall execute such full and complete releases of IEEI as GPI shall request, provided that IEEI releases GEDA from any and all claims and liability arising in any way from or related to the original Lice
nse Agreement.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 15.\tab }{\ul\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Condition of this Agreement}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
: This Amendment is expressly made conditional upon the full and complete assignment of the 1982 license from IEEI to GPI, such that IEEI will have no interest in the License, either as originally drafted or as amended.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellant}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s Excerpts of Record, tab 12 (Amended License Agreement, p. 5-6).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 From this language, the court must determine whether it }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 clearly appears}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 that the parties intended to extinguish and replace the 1982 License with the 1990 Amended License and 1996 Agreement.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Howard}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 269 Cal. Rptr. at 817.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Unfortunately, because this second method of novation was not presented to the trial court by the parties, the record before us is incomplete.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
While the contract requires GEDA to execute releases of IEEI, we have no record of whether releases were in fact executed by GEDA on IEEI}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s behalf.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We could infer that IEEI was indeed relieved of its obligations under the 1982 License from the parties}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  subsequent conduct, particularly the termination of court proceedings between GEDA 
and IEEI, and the entering of the 1996 Agreement between only GEDA and GRRP.}{\i\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See Swift v. Allan}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 128 A.2d 260, 263 (Md. 1957) (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [A]n intention to substitute a new obligation for an existing one may be gathered f
rom the statements and conduct of the parties under all the circumstances of a particular case . . . .}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 However, we decline to make such an inference in this instance.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Instead, in order to avoid prejudicing t
he parties, we opt to allow them the opportunity to pass on the points of this issue.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See Office of Employee Relations v. Communications Workers of Am.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 711 A.2d 300, 305 (N.J. 1998) (}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Sometimes . . . courts int
roduce new issues when the interest of justice require, if the introduction will not prejudice the parties.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
If a court introduces a new issue, the better practice is to permit the parties to address it.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12976170\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [29]\tab }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Thus, we remand to the trial court the issue of whether the introduction of GRRP as a new party to the contract and the assignment to GRRP of the 1982 License brought the 1996 Agreement within the provisions of the procurement law.}{
\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 2.\tab Bond Issuance
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [30]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The next issue raised by Appellants is whether section 6.04(b) of the 1996 Agreement violates section 50103(f) of Title 12 GCA, and section 6 of Public Law 24-57.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Section 6.04(b) of the 1996 Agreement states:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [T]he Gov
ernment agrees that it will cooperate with the Company to pursue the issuance by GEDA or another subdivision of the Government of Bonds in an amount sufficient to finance the maximum amount of the Facility Price . . . and the Financing Costs reasonably po
ssible.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 Excerpts of Record, tab 12 (Solid Waste Construction and Service Agreement, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  6.04(b)).}{
\b\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants allege that this provision calls for GEDA to unlawfully disburse revenue bonds without the prior consent of the Legislature in violation of section 50103(f) of Title 12 GCA, which}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 states that GEDA is }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
authorized to issue, sell, or dispose of revenue bonds and other obligations from time to time under such terms and conditions as the Guam Legislature, by appropriate legislation may prescribe.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 12 GCA }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  50103(f) (1998).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appe
llants also make the same argument with regard to section 6 of Public Law 24-57, which prohibits the disbursing of any funds by any government entity in furtherance of the 1996 Agreement. 
\par }{\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [31]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The trial court held that the 1996 Agreement did not require GEDA or the Government to unlawfully issue revenue bonds in violation of section 50103(f) of Title 12 GCA.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants argue that the trial court erred in its reading of section 6.04(b) of the 1996 Agreement, and assert that section 6.04(b) }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 requires }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 GEDA or another subdivision of the Government of Guam issue bonds sufficient to finance the facility.}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Brief, p. 5 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Because GEDA is not authorized to issue bonds to finance a waste-to-energy facility, Appellants contend that section 6.04 violates section 50103(f) of Title 12 GCA.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We disagree with Appellants}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  interpretation.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [32]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab First, Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 arguments regarding GEDA}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s limited authority to issue bonds pursuant to section 50103(f) of Title 12 GCA is irrelevant, since it is the Government and not GEDA that has undertaken contractual obligations pursuant to section 6.04(b) of the 1996 Agreement.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Second, the Government has not contracted to issue any bonds.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 It has merely agreed to }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 cooperate}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 or use its best efforts to pursue the issuance of bonds by a subdivision of the Government.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Finally, as noted by both the trial court and GRRP, section 4.03(g) of the 1996 Agreement expressly requires the Government to obtain legislative approval before GEDA or any other political subdivision issues bonds, which directly undermines Appellees}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  contention that the contract }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 requires}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 an issuance of bonds without legislative approval.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Therefore, it does not appear that section 6.04(b) of the 1996 Agreement violates section 50103(f) of Title 12 GCA.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 3.\tab Transfer of Land
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [33]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The next issue raised by Appellants is whether section 5.07(b) of the 1996 Agreement violates section 1800 of Title 1 GCA.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Section 5.07(b) of the 1996 Agreement reads:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The parties further acknowledge and agree that . . . the Government is to provide the Company with a mutually acceptable Facility Site, consistent with the understanding that the Company is the owner of the Facility for tax purposes.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Brief, p. 7.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants argue that this provision violates section 1800 of Title 1 GCA, which states: 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Any plan o
r action . . . to . . . transfer any real property of the Government of Guam shall be transmitted to the Legislature which, by statute, may amend, approve, or disapprove the plan or the action taken.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Any plan or taken action shall have no effect until legislative approval is obtained.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 1 GCA }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  1800 (2000).}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12976170\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [34]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The trial court held that the 1996 Agreement did not authorize the transfer of land without legislative approval, citing section 4.03(f) of the 1996 Agreement, which states:

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 As of the Financing Date the Government shall have arranged to provide the Company with a mutually acceptable Facility Site, }{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 in accordance with Section 6(b)}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 of the Amended License}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  . . . .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Supplemental Excerpts of Record, tab 1 (Solid Waste Construction and Service Agreement, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  4.03(f)) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Section 6(b) of the 1990 Amended License reads:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 On or before the execution of the MSW Agreement, GEDA and GRRP shall enter into an agreement 
to provide GRRP with a mutually acceptable site of sufficient size for the design, construction and operation of the Facility for a mutually acceptable period.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The parties understand that the Guam legislature may have to approve the use of any such site}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Excerpts of Record, tab 12 (Amended License Agreement, 
}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  6(b)) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Reading these two provisions together, the trial court concluded that GEDA and GRRP realized that the procurement of a facility site would be subject to legislative approval.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
While Appellants recognize that the parties contemplated the need for legislative approval prior to transferring any land, Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that contemplation was sufficient to satisfy section 1800 of Title 1 GCA.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Because the parties already contracted to provide land, Appellants argue that actual approval is required.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Appellants also point out that the agreement does not provide an alternative mode for procuring a facility site should the Leg}{\insrsid12976170 islature withhold its approval.}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12976170\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [35]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Section 1800}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 of Title 1 GCA requires that }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 any plan or action}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  to transfer real property be transmitted to the Legislature for its review and approval.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
In this instance, section 5.07(b) of the 1996 Agreement provides that the Government is to provide GRRP with a facility site.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 No site has
 been selected nor have the terms of the transfer been memorialized.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
As noted by GRRP, section 5.07(c) of the 1996 Agreement clearly indicates that further negotiations are to take place before a facility site is selected.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Given that the location of the 
facility and the terms governing GRRP}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s occupation of that location are still undetermined, it would be premature to require the Government to seek legislative approval.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Moreover, the trial court correctly concl
uded that section 4.03(f) of the 1996 Agreement and section 6(b) of the 1990 Amended License together express the parties}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  intent to obtain legislative approval before GRRP takes possession of any government land.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
While there is an expectation to transfer land, the Government has not contracted to transfer land and thus, we hold that the 1996 Agreement does not violate section 1800 of Title 1 GCA.}{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 4.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Contracts Clause
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [36]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab The final issue we address is whether the
 trial court erred in finding that section 6 of Public Law 24-57 and Public Law 24-272 violate the Contracts Clause of the Organic Act, which provides that }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [n]o . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Title 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 1421b(j) (West, WESTLAW, through July 22, 2004); }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 see}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  Guam Pub. L. 24-57:6 (June 30, 1997); Guam Pub. L. 24-272 (Oct. 2, 1998).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Both public laws in question were enacted after the execution of the 1996 Agreement.}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12976170\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Section 6 of Public Law 24-57 states:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The Governor of Guam and any line or autonomous agency of the government of Guam shall not, for the purposes of financing, funding, pay
ing for or disbursing money pursuant to the proposed contract called the }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Solid Waste Construction and Service Agreement}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  between the Government of Guam and Guam Resour
ce Recovery Partners dated July 23, 1996, or any projects described in said contract, commit any funds, resources, assets, debts, obligations or property of the Government of Guam by any means . . . .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 P.L. 24-57:6.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Public Law 24-272 repealed and reenacted portions of Public Law 24-139.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 P.L. 24-272.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The relevant effect of this re-enactment was twofold.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
First, it removed waste-to-energy facilities from the definition of Resource Recovery Facility, thereby precluding waste-to-energy facilities from being eligible for permits under Public Law 24-139.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Second, it removed GEDA}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s authorization to issue private activity bonds.}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12976170\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [37]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The trial court held that both laws substantially impaired the Government}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s ability to perform under the 1996 Agreement since section 6 of Public Law 24-57 precluded the Government from committing any assets or property toward the fulfillment of the contract and Public Law 24-272 prev
ented the GEDA administrator from issuing a permit for the operation of a waste-to-energy facility.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
The court further found no evidence that the two laws furthered any public interest, and thus held that the impairment on the Government}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s ability to perform was neither reasonable or necessary.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [38]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Appellants argue that neither public law can be found to violate the Contracts Clause because the state cannot unconstitutionally impair a contract that is illegal.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants also contend that there is no impairment of the 1996 Agreement because GRRP remains free to file suit against the Government for breach of contract and obtain damages.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Last, Appellants argue that there is no impairment of the contract because the Legislature is already empowered to withhold its approval of the 1996 Agreement, and the public laws are a legitimate exercise of that power.

\par }{\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [39]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Just this year, in }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Rui One Corp. v Berkeley}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 371 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) the Ninth Circuit
 reiterated the United States Supreme Court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
s three-step inquiry that governs challenges based on the Contracts Clause.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 In }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ., 459 U.S. 400, 103 S. Ct. 697 (1983), the Court determined }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
[t]he threshold inquiry is }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  (quoting }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 483 U.S. 234, 244, 98 S. Ct. 2716, 2722 (1978)).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Next, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [i]f the state regulation constitutes a substantial impairment, the State, in justification, must have a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation. . . .}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Energy Reserves}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 459 U.S. at 411-12, 103 S. Ct. at 704 (quoting }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 431 U.S. 1, 22, 97 S. Ct. 1505, 1517 (1977)).}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Finally, }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
[o]nce a legitimate public purpose has been identified, the next inquiry is whether the adjustment of }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties [is based] upon reasonable conditions and [is] of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying [the legislation}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s] adoption.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Energy Reserves}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
, 459 U.S. at 412, 103 S. Ct. at 705 (quoting }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 United States Trust Co}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ., 431 U.S. at 22, 97 S. Ct. at 1518).
\par }{\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [40]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab We first review section 6 of Public Law 25-57 under this framework.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
A law impairs a contractual obligation if it renders the obligation invalid, or releases or extinguishes it.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 See Home Bldg. & Loan Ass}{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 n v. Blaisdell}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 290 U.S. 398, 431, 54 S. Ct. 231, 237 (1934).}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Here, section 6 of Public Law 24-57 prohibits the Government from expending any funds or utilizing any property in furtherance of the 1996 Agreement.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Not only is this law specifically directed at this single contractual agreement, but if effectively freezes the Government}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s ability to perform under the agreement.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 The Government can no longer fulfill its duty to provide GRRP with a facility site, cooperate with GRR
P in seeking the issuance of revenue bonds, or even allow GPA to purchase the energy produced by the plant.
\par }{\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [41]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Upon determining there has been a substantial impairment, we look for the }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 significant and legitimate purpose}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 which }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
guarantees that the State is exercising its police power, rather than providing a benefit to special interests.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Energy Reserves}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 459 U.S. at 411-12, 103 S. Ct. at 704-05.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Appellants fail to articulate any such public purpose.}{
\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 No legislative history or arguments by Appellants reveal any public interest that is served by this legislation.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [42]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab Because we find that there is no }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 significant and legitimate public purpose}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 behind the enactment of section 6 of Public Law 24-57, it is not necessary to reach the third step.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Nevertheless, we note that because the Government is a party to the contract, we would not be required to }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 defer to legislative judgment as to the necessity and reasonableness}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 of the enactment.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 United States Trust Co}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 ., 431 U.S. at 22-23, 97 S. Ct. at 1518.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Thus, without even a minimal showing of a significant and public purpose, the impairment of the 1996 Agreement cannot be justified.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Thus, section 6 
of Public Law 24-57 is void as it violates the Contracts Clause of the Organic Act.
\par }{\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [43]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab We next review Public Law 24-272 under the three-step framework.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We agree with the trial court}{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s conclusion that the inval
idation of Public Law 23-139 would render the adverse effects of Public Law 24-272 moot.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Public Law 24-272 repealed and reenacted Public Law 23-139.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 However, Public Law 23-139 was subsequently invalidated by this court in }{\i\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Gutierrez v. Pangelinan}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 , 2000 Guam 11.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Therefore, we hold that Public Law 24-272 is without legal effect.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12976170 {\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 IV.}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12850102 {\b\insrsid12976170 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [44]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab 
We hold that this court properly considered whether the 1996 Agreement was in violation of section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 22401 of Title 5 GCA and therefore, GRRP was not denied procedural due process.}{\insrsid12850102  }{
\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Thus, we }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 AFFIRM}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  our holding in 2003 Gua
m 13 that the terms of the 1996 Agreement violate section 1423j of the Organic Act and section 22401 of Title 5 GCA.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
However, we hold that the parties should be afforded the opportunity to address the issue of severability, and therefore, we }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 VACATE}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  our ho
lding in 2003 Guam 13 declaring the 1996 Agreement null and void and further }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 VACATE}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  our reversal of the trial court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s summary judgment.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 We }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 REMAND}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 the matter to the trial court for further findings and proceedings consistent with this opinion on the issue of severability.}{\insrsid7687990 
\par }{\insrsid12976170\charrsid12850102 
\par }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 [45]}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 \tab 
Turning to the remaining issues raised on appeal, but not previously addressed by this court, we hold, with regard to the alleged violation of Title 5 GCA section 5004(a), that the parties
 should be afforded the opportunity to address the novation issue raised by this court for the first time on appeal and thus, we }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 REMAND}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
 such matter to the trial court for further findings and proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also find that Appe
llees have not attempted to issue any bonds or transfer any land without the approval of the Legislature and therefore, the trial court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s findings in this regard are }{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 .}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 With respect to section 6 of Public
 Law 24-57 and Public Law 24-272, we find both laws to be invalid.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Section 6 of Public Law 24-57 unconstitutionally impairs the Government}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s obligations under the 1996 Agreement, and therefore violates the Contracts Clause of the Organic Act.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 
Further, Public Law 24-272 is void as a result of the invalidation of Public Law 23-139.}{\insrsid12850102  }{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 Thus, the trial court}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 s findings with respect to each of these public laws are also}{\b\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102  AFFIRMED}{\insrsid7687990\charrsid12850102 .
\par }}