Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico v. Estado Libre Asociado
181 P.R. 135
| Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | 2011Background
- The Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico challenged Laws 121 and 135 (2009) changing mandatory to voluntary bar membership and related governance provisions.
- The Puerto Rico Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether these laws violated constitutional rights, separation of powers, and drafting requirements.
- The lower court (Tribunal de Primera Instancia) denied certain motions and the petition, leading to appellate review of the legality and constitutionality of the laws.
- The Court examined whether the laws usurp the judiciary’s power to regulate the legal profession, alter the Colegio’s structure, or infringe freedom of expression/association.
- The Court also evaluated statutory title adequacy, germane scope of amendments, and potential punitive effects (bills of attainder) on the Colegio and its members.
- The majority revoked the lower court’s ruling, sustaining the laws as valid, while a dissenter urged full review of separation-of-powers and fundamental rights concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Laws 121 and 135 violate the Bill of Attainder clause? | Colegio argues laws punish the Colegio without trial. | Legislation redesigns structure, not punitive punishment; not a Bill of Attainder. | No; laws are not Bills of Attainder. |
| Do the laws violate separation of powers by usurping judicial authority? | Laws undermine the Supreme Court’s regulation of the bar. | Legislation regulates organizational structure, not judicial authority; no usurpation. | No; statutes regulate a quasi-public entity and maintain judicial primacy over regulating the profession. |
| Do the laws infringe First Amendment rights (express./association) of the Colegio or its members? | Laws restrict freedom of expression/association by controlling dues, voting, and governance. | The Colegio remains a public-law creature; laws reasonably regulate its operation without suppressing rights. | No; rights are consistent with the regulatory framework and public interests. |
| Are the drafting and procedural requirements of Law 135 satisfied (title, germane provisions)? | Title and amendments improperly group multiple subjects and alter original purpose. | Title adequately reflects the enacted amendments; provisions are germane to reorganizing the Colegio. | Yes; Law 135 complies with title, germane requirements, and proper amendment process. |
| Does the legislation violate equal protection or alter contractual relations between the Colegio and members? | Classification of the Colegio and its members is arbitrary and harms contractual expectations. | Classification serves a legitimate public interest; the Colegio is a statutory creature, not a private contract. | No; rational basis and legitimate state objectives support the laws. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colegio de Abogados de P.R. v. Schneider [I], 112 D.P.R. 540 (1982) (recognizes judicial primacy over the bar but permits legislative regulation of structure)
- Colegio de Abogados de PR v. Schneider [II], 117 D.P.R. 504 (1982) (upholds separation-of-powers framework and regulate-for-public interest)
- Pueblo v. Figueroa Pérez, 96 D.P.R. 6 (1968) (one-issue review of statutes; discusses bill of attainder concepts in Puerto Rico context)
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) (Bill of Attainder principles; limits on legislative punishment without trial)
- United States v. Lovett, 326 U.S. 231 (1946) ( Bill of Attainder background and constitutional prohibition)
- Cervecería Corona, Inc. v. J.S.M., 98 D.P.R. 801 (1970) (Title/subject-law alignment in amending statutes; standards for admissible amendments)