Page 1

COMPLAINT
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
SAN JUAN
Hon. ngel Martnez Santiago
Hon. Migdalia Padilla Alvelo
Hon. Itzamar Pea Ramrez
Hon. Jos O. Prez Rosa
Hon. Antonio L. Soto Torres
Hon. Jos E. Melndez Ortiz
Hon. Mara M. Charbonier Laureano
Hon. Carlos Johnny Mndez Nuez

CIVIL NUM.

PLAINTIFFS
vs.
Hon. Alejandro Gaca Padilla
Governor of Puerto Rico
Hon. Csar A. Miranda Rodrguez
Secretary of Justice
DEFENDANTS

ABOUT:
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER; PRELIMINARY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION;
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
MANDAMUS AND
PROVISIONAL REMEDY UNDER
RULE 56

Youngston Sheet v. Sawyer 343 US

579, 634-638 (1952), comments:
i.

ii.

iii.

when the president acts

pursuant to express or
i m p l i e d authorization o f
Congress, in which case his
authority is at its minimum
where the president acts in
the absence of either a
congressional g r a n t o r
denial of authority, in which
case there is a zone of
twilight in which he and
Congress may have
concurrent authority, or in
which its distribution is
uncertain: and
where the president acts in
contradiction to the express
or implied will of Congress;
in this case, his power is at
its lowest ebb Jackson felt
that the steel seizure fell into
this third category, and that it
could therefore not be
constitutionally justified.

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 2

COMPLAINT
COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Comes now the plaintiffs mentioned in the epigraph and represented by the subscribing
counsel and respectfully expose, allege, and request:

PLAINTIFFS

The plaintiffs are officials properly elected as legislators for the 2012-2016 term.
The names, addresses, and position they occupy, and other pertinent information related
as each one is as follows:
1. Hon. ngel Martnez Santiago, Senator, Senado-El Capitolio, P.O. Box 9023431 San
Juan, PR 00902-3431 Telephone 787.724.2030; 1.800.981.2036.
2. Migdalia Padilla Alvelo Senator, Senado-El Capitolio, P.O. Box 9023431 San Juan,
PR 00902-3431 Telephone 787.724.2030; 1.800.981.2036.
3. Itzamar Pea Ramrez Senator, Senado-El Capitolio, P.O. Box 9023431 San Juan, PR
00902-3431 Telephone 787.724.2030; 1.800.981.2036.
4. Jos O Prez Rosa Senator- Senado-El Capitolio, P.O. Box 9023431 San Juan, PR
00902-3431 Telephone 787.724.2030; 1.800.981.2036.
5. Antonio L. Soto Torres, Representative, PO Box 9022228 San Juan, Puerto Rico;
00902-2228 Telephone 787.721.6040/787.721.6030.
6. Jos E. Melndez Ortiz Representative, PO Box 9022228 San Juan, Puerto Rico;
00902-2228 Telephone 787.721.6040/787.721.6030.
7. Mara M. Charbonier Laureano Representative PO Box 9022228 San Juan, Puerto
Rico; 00902-2228 Telephone 787.721.6040/787.721.6030.
8. Carlos Johnny Mndez Nuez Representative PO Box 9022228 San Juan, Puerto
Rico; 00902-2228 Telephone 787.721.6040/787.721.6030.
DEFENDANTS
1. Mr. Alejandro Garca Padilla is the governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
He is in charge of respecting and upholding the Constitution of the Commonwealth of

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 3

COMPLAINT

Puerto Rico and the current laws as part as his functions. His address is La Fortaleza
PO Box 9020082, San Juan, PR 00902-0082, Telephone 787-721-7000,
mensajes@fortaleza.pr.gov
2. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through its Secretary of Justice, Honorable Csar
Miranda, His address is P.O. Box 9092192, San Juan, P.R. 00902-0192, as one of his
functions he is the attorney of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and has the
responsibility of respecting and upholding the laws and Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Supreme Court of the United States established in Youngstown Sheet v.
Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952) that when the executive acts against the express or
implicit will of the legislative branch it is found at it lowest ebb making the
executives action unconstitutional for infringing the separation of powers of the
Constitution. This case presents a situation without precedents by which the
defendants, in an arbitrary manner and without the participation or intervention of
other branches of government, attributed to itself the constitutional faculty of
interpreting the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Constitution) and
determining that Article 68 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, is unconstitutional. This
action violates the separation of powers between the three branches of government
established in the Constitution.
2. Mrs. Ada M. Conde Vidal and other same sex couples, who contracted marriage in
other jurisdictions presented a complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico
Civil No. 14-1253 (PG). In summary they allege that Article 68 of the Civil Code of
Puerto Rico is unconstitutional. They sued Governor Alejandro Garca Padilla and
other government officials in their official capacity.
3. After the corresponding process and after the Government of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico presented a Motion to Dismiss on August 27, 2014, the Federal District
Court for Puerto Rico issued an Opinion and Order on October 21, 2014, in which it
dismissed the allegations made by the plaintiffs, holding Art. 68 constitutional.

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 4

COMPLAINT

4. In said process the Government of Puerto Rico fulfilled its constitutional duty of
defending the laws and Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
5. The plaintiffs presented a corresponding appeal. However, contrary to the
Constitution and in violation of the prerogatives of the other branches of government,
the Government stopped defending the constitutionality of Article 68. On March 20,
2015 they presented their brief. The action of the executive is the lowest level of
violation of the balance of powers that should exist between the branches of
government and it is the duty of the Court to vindicate the rights and prerogatives of
the plaintiff legislators. (Annex 1)
6. The action of the executive forces us to develop the legal scope of how the other
branches of the government of Puerto Rico, in specific the legislature has dealt with
the topic of sexual orientation in Puerto Rico. Both the legislature and the Supreme
Court have expressed themselves. Both branches of government concurred that it is
the job of the Legislative Assembly to deal with this issue.
7. When the executive branch understands that a law is unconstitutional, it is its
responsibility to lead efforts to amend or repeal said law in the legislative forum. The
executive branch can not stop defending it during a judicial process, arguing that the
law it was called to defend is unconstitutional, so that the relief is granted to the
plaintiffs in their claim. This action is a collusion between the parties and leaves
the Commonwealth without a defense in the judicial forum, favoring the
interests of the plaintiffs and not of the State. In this way the Court is not
allowed to execute its constitutional prerogative of solving the controversy
brought to its attention. AAR ex Parte CC 2008-1010, USA v. Windsor. No 12-307,
26 June 2013.
8. In AAR ex parte, after the State had defended the constitutionality of Article 138 of
the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, and others and having prevailed, it presented Motion
titled Informative Motion in Response to the Motion of Reconsideration and Request
of Authorization and term for presenting the position of the State in relation to the
Motion of Reconsideration by the Solicitor General of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. Through this Motion the State pretended to change its position, advocating and
siding with the interpretation of the plaintiffs that the articles of the Civil Code in

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 5

COMPLAINT

controversy were constitutional. This motion was not granted for having been
presented outside of the jurisdictional term. However Justice Martnez Torres made
the following statement, in which Justice Feliberti Cintrn joined:
Justice Martnez Torres agrees with the decision of the Court and notes that the
State has changed its mind but the law has not. Instead of wasting ink an time in
trying to convince us that the Constitution says what it does not, it would be
prudent for the State to direct its efforts to amending the law. (Annexes 2 and 3)
II. JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction to review this request of declaratory judgment, mandamus,
and preliminary and permanent injunction in conformity with Articles 675 to 678 of the
Code of Civil Prosecution of Puerto Rico, 32 P.R. Laws Ann. 3521-3527, and Rules 57
and 59 of Civil Procedure of Puerto Rico.
III. STANDING
1. The legislators in their capacity as members of the Legislative Assembly have standing to
vindicate their prerogatives and constitutional functions of legislating. They have a
legitimate interest in participating in the exercise of their constitutional functions,
protecting the effectiveness of their vote, of their legislative function, and deciding over
matters which are under their constitutional framework, Miguel A. Hernndez Agosto v.
Carlos Romero Barcelo, 112 DPR 407; David Noriega v. Rafael Hernndez Coln 135
DPR 406, United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co. 551 F.2d 384, 391 (1976);
Mitchell v. Laird 438 F.2d 611 (1973); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co, Sawyer 343 US
579 (1952).
2. It has been accepted by our highest court that a legislator has standing to vindicate a
personal interest in the exercise of his legislative functions affected by the acts or
omissions of the executive power, Miguel Hernndez Agosto v. Carlos Romero Barcel,
112 DPR 407; David Noriega v. Rafael Hernndez Coln 135 DPR 406:
In the same manner, a legislator has traditionally been recognized standing, as an
officially authorized representative of that body, to challenge an illegal act of the
executive. In this context, we have also recognized that a legislator has standing
to vindicate a personal interest in the exercise of his legislative functions affected
by the acts or omissions of the executive. David Noriega v. Rafael Hernndez
Coln supra p.9 lexisnexis.
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT
1. The legislators who appear here have a legitimate interest in exercising their
corresponding constitutional function. As part of their legislative responsibility there is

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 6

COMPLAINT

approving and repealing laws. Also, it is important to remember that the Legislative
Assembly is the entity that formulates by constitutional decree the public policy of
Puerto Rico. [AAR EX PARTE 2013 TSPR 016].
2. On the other hand, when the Executive does not defend in a judicial forum the
constitutionality of a law that has been question and that law is declared unconstitutional,
the legislators suffer a real harm in their ministerial prerogatives, because no one
defended a law that is always presumed constitutional. Cf: Carmen-Vivas v. Secretario de
Salud, 99 D.P.R. 45 (1970); Esso Standar Oil v. A.P.P.R., 95 D.P.R. 772 (1968); Pueblo
v. Prez Mndez, 83 D.P.R. 539 (1961).
3. Our legal approach is that the Executive cannot stop defending the constitutionality of a
law, alleging its own interpretations, because that infringes the functions specifically
assigned by the constitution to the other branches of government. The discretion of the
Executive in the exercise of its government function cannot be invoked when said
discretion surpasses its scope of constitutional action, infringing the functions specifically
assigned to other branches of government. Above all, when the other branches of
government have expressed that this is a matter to be dealt by the Legislative Assembly.
4. In this case, the Executive, in detriment of the constitutional prerogatives of the
legislative assembly, interpreted that Article 68 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code is
unconstitutional and that as such it decided to act unilaterally in the case of Ada Conde et
Alia v. Dra. Ana Rius et Alia, informing the First Circuit Court of Appeals that we have
decided to cease defending its constitutionality based on an independent assessment
about its validity under the current state law.1 By ceasing to defend in the federal
system, in collusion with the party questioning the constitutionality of said statute, they
deprive the legislator of the power of exercising its constitutional function. (In other
words, the act by the executive is equivalent to repealing a law without it passing
through the legislative process) In other words, the actions of the executive were
repealing a law without passing through the Legislative Assembly. We are not even
before the figure of a tactical repeal of a law as explained by the highest court in Rafael
Hernndez Coln v. Polica de Puerto Rico 2009 TSPR 154 and its progeny.
Additionally, the Executive, by interpreting said law as unconstitutional, without judicial
1 Ada Conde et Alia v. Dra. Ana Rius et Alia, Brief for Defendants Appellees, p. 39

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 7

COMPLAINT

interpretation, has adopted a function corresponding to the judicial branch, above all
when there was already a judicial determination (which the plaintiff appeals), declaring
Article 68 constitutional. Furthermore, we want to inform this Honorable Court, that the
Plaintiffs had broadly defended the constitutionality of the statute in District Court.
5. We can affirm in this case, the judicial road followed by the Governor to subvert the
constitutional order makes the integrity of the political process would be at risk,
because it is the obligation of the Executive, when it considers a law unconstitutional, to
present its case to [the] Congress for their amendment or repeal as is affirmed in USA
v. Windso, id. If it were not the constitutional function of the Legislative Branch is to
legislate and of the Supreme Court of interpreting in last instance the validity of a legal
statute, they would be compromised, because the executive, in collusion with a party that
questions the constitutionality of a law, have cease to defend a statute in an state and
federal intermediate judicial phase, prevents the Legislature or the Supreme Court of
Puerto Rico from exercising their ministerial responsibilities.
6. The denial by the Governor of defending article 68 violates Section 4 of Article 4 of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, that imposes on the governor the duty
of complying and enforcing the laws, reason for which he has no capacity to declare a
law unconstitutional and to cease defending it in relevant forums.
Article 4 Of the Executive Power:

Section 4. Power and duties of the Governor.

The duties, functions, and attributions of the Governor would be:
To comply and enforce laws.
7. We repeat, the action of the Executive through the Governor and the Secretary of Justice
subvert the constitutional rule of law that states that it is the legislature who establishes
public policy, although it is true that the constitutional interpretation is not exclusive
function of the judicial branch. The political branches, usually implicitly, perform this
function more frequently than the judicial branch. The officials of the political branches,
like judges, have sworn loyalty to the Constitution AAR, p. 39. But it is the Judicial
Branch that has the last word regarding the constitutional interpretation. This way it is the
legislators through their functions to whom establishing public policy corresponds:

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 8

COMPLAINT

Today we are consistent with our past expressions regarding that it corresponds
to the Legislative Assembly and the elected legislators who serve to determine
what the public policy in our laws should be. The laws are at the end a reflect
of the will of our people expressed democratically through the elected legislators
and they gather that which the people are willing to accept at a given moment.
AAR p. 61 (our underlining).
8. Without doubt, it is important to let know, that throughout the last years it has been part
of the public policy the discussion about the social and judicial scope that should be
given to the sexual orientation of individuals. Diverse visions and passionate polemics
have distinguished the public debate. The Executive, from the beginning of its
governmental function, has pretended to reinterpret all social institutions to give cause,
without equilibrium or reasonable accommodation, to the sexual orientation of people of
homosexual tendency. The unrestrictive pretentions of the Executive in matters of sexual
orientation have been frustrated by the constitutional counterweight that has exercised
the Legislative Assembly as well as Courts. With this unconstitutional action questioned
by us before this Honorable Court, the Executive pretends to balance only the interests of
those involved in these matters, without allowing the other constitutional branches to
intervene, because it results difficult to dominate them politically. It is important to
remember that when balancing the interest involved in these matters it has been settled by
our highest court that it is the function of the Legislative Assembly to deal with them,
because it is the duty of the Legislative Assembly to balance the interests of those
involved in the controversy regarding homosexuality Delgado, Ex parte 165 D.P.R. 170,
193; and the aforementioned was ratified in AAR, p. 60.
9. On the other hand it is the public policy of the Commonwealth to reserve marriage only
to heterosexual couples. Said policy is recognized statutorily in Article 68 of the Civil
Code of Puerto Rico. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has repeatedly expressed this.
Tin AAR ex parte it was affirmed: The reality is that even if we accept the existence of
other forms of family organization, this does not mean the Legislative Assembly, the
body called by constitutional decree the public policy of Puerto Rico, cannot prefer the
model of traditional family over other models. This judgment is eminently legislative and
it is not our duty as jurists to approve or disapprove of the different types of family
models that are developing in society. The legal recognition of these family models
cannot be achieved in the hallways of the Supreme Court, but in the floor of the
Legislative Bodies; and in Ariel Prez v. Procuradora, 148 DPR 201 (1999) they said:
NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 9

COMPLAINT

We still value matrimonial family. In our country there is a clear public policy of
protecting and strengthening family, and marriage is a step for its formation.
Precisely, the institutional character of marriage is the civil state that generates
obligations and guarantees that said engagement confers, offers certain security
and stability for the protection of minors it is a fundamental institution and axis
of our society that continues to be the base of family and social life.;
And lastly in Mercado v. UCPR 143 DPR 610 (1997) they repeated:
We value traditional family as the most desirable social regime. Furthermore, in
our country there is a clear public policy for the protection and strengthening of
family, and marriage is the initial step for its formation..
10. It is clear that matters related to the institution of marriage have a compelling state
interest. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has express [marriage is] a civil institution
that proceeds from a contract in virtue of which a man and a woman are mutually
obligated to become husband and wife, and to comply with each other the duties the law
imposes on them. Article 68 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. More so, we have expressed
that marriage is the basis of family and, therefore, constitutes the central axis of society.
We have recognized that in our society there exists a public interest in conserving
marriage. Pueblo v. Tribunal Superior, 99 D.P.R. 30 (1970). Therefore it should be clear
that the protection of me matrimonial union, in effect, constitutes a compelling state
interest. Yuserdy Salv Santiago v. Jason Torres Padr 2007 TSPR 101. (our
underlining). These matters of public policy require the intervention of the legislative
Assembly. Not allowing the legislative Assembly to execute its functions and
constitutional prerogatives is a constitutional violation.
11. There is no doubt that the legal matters related with the possibility of allowing same sex
marriages in Puerto Rico greatly affect the composition of marriage as has been legislated
in our country. No doubt the Executive Branch can have an interest in promoting changes
to the definition of marriage. But the constitutional path that should be followed for any
social change should be the going to the legislature and submit it to the legislative
process, and on last resort submitting it to the sovereign, the People of Puerto Rico. As
has been affirmed by the Supreme Court it is not in the hallways of the Courts were the
public policy of the country should be changed. Less when the access to the Courts is
made in collusion with a party with the purpose of undermining the democratic process of
our Puerto Rican society. The action by the plaintiffs does not allow the defendants to
exercise the constitutional prerogatives that emerge from the Constitution and for which
they were elected. The action by the defendants is unconstitutional, the way to respond to
NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 10

COMPLAINT

their position is not ceasing to defend what is claimed in the federal case, rather they
should defend said article as is demanded by the constitution and initiating processes in
the legislative assembly. The way in which the defendants have acted is an arbitrary use
of power.
Even the Supreme Court of the United States recognized this reality early in the
twentieth century by expressing that the Separation of Powers was adopted not to
promote efficiency, but to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power. Myers v.
United States 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926)
To said effects, the Constitution of the United States created a system of checks
an balances by which the three branches of government hold some level of shared
power that functions as a restraint so that none of them may assume too much
power as to dominate the others. That is to say, the scope of the Doctrine of
Separation of Powers as adopted in the Constitution of the United States of
American entails both an explicit and implicit separation between the branches.
As a result of this system, Madison was aware of the intrinsic nature of the
separation of powers system adopted in the United States Constitution causes that
the leaders of the branches will attempt to expand their power to dominate the
others. AAR pags. 14-15
12. If this Honorable Court does not intervene immediately for the here appearing it will
allow a mock of the dispositions in our Constitution and will deprive the plaintiffs from
exercising their constitutional prerogatives.
First cause of action: Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
1. The aforementioned paragraphs proceedings are incorporated into this cause of action, for
this writing and any other applicable for the other causes of action.
2. The available injunction under the Law or any available claim is not subject to the rules
of primary jurisdiction nor exhaustion of remedies by the administrative way.
3. The injunction is designed for a quick vindication of fundamental rights and is a
privileged remedy as efficient as the claimed remedy. This will be conceded when the
petitioners have right to the claimed remedy and it is consistent with avoiding the
commission or the continuation of the denounced act, either for a limited time or
permanently. Article 167 of the Code of Civil Prosecution P.R. Laws Ann. sec. 3523.
4. The remedy is characterized by its peremptoriness, for its action directed at avoiding an
imminent harm or reestablishing the legal regime violated by oppressive, illegal or
violent conduct of the aggressor of the legal order. Plaza Las Amricas v. N&H, 166
D.P.R. 631 (2005). Thats why the resource provides a remedy whose purpose is
vindicating the legal regime before the circumstances make said compliance a very costly
or impossible task Plaza Las Amricas v. N&H (supra)
NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 11

COMPLAINT

5. Rule 57 of Civil Procedure of Puerto Rico establishes the necessary requirements to issue
a provisional injunction that have been collected by jurisprudence:
The normative case related to the issuance of a preliminary injunction is P.R.
Telephone Co. v. Tribunal Superior, 103 D.P.R. 200, 202 (1975). From then we
have reaffirmed the application of the criteria there elaborated when considering
requests for preliminary injunctions. Municipio de Ponce v. Gobernador 136
D.P.R. ___ (1994), 94 JTS 112, p. 71; Garca v. World Wide Entmr. Co. Op. of
December 24 1992, 132 D.P.R. ___ (1992), 92 JTS 177, p. 10266-1026; Cobos
Liccia v. De Jean Packing Co., Inc. 124 D.P.R. 896, 902 (1989); A.P.P.R. v.
Tribunal Superior, 103 D.P.R. 903, 906 (1975). So, when evaluating whether a
preliminary injunction proceeds we must examine the following:
(1) The nature of the damages that may be cause to the parties when conceding or
denying the injunction;
(2) The irreparability of the damages or the existence of an adequate remedy in
law;
(3) The likeliness that the moving party will eventually prevail after trial;
(4) The probability that the cause of action becomes academic if the injunction is
not conceded; and over all,
(5) The possible impact over the public interest of the remedy being solicited
MIsin Industrial v. Junta de Planificacin 142 D.P.R. 656 (1997).
6. The injunction, is the energetic arm of justice for protection of citizens against excesses
of public officials who act under the authority and cause them an irreparable harm. The
criteria for irreparable harm is: it must be marked within another broader and most
flexible who advocates the precedence of the injunction whenever the exiting remedy in
the course of law will not adequately protect the substantive rights of the petitioner as
quickly and efficiently as would be protected under equity Yiyi Motors v. ELA 2009
TSPR 159.
7. The remedy is conceded if among others, from the petition, the petitioners have a right to
the solicited remedy and said remedy, or part of it, consist in preventing the commission
or continuation of the denounced act, for a limited period of time, or permanently. Art.
677 of the Code of Civil Prosecution; 32 P.R. Laws Ann. Sec. 3523
8. Granting it in its preliminary version has the purpose of conserving the status quo until
the principal case is solved in its merits, so that the authenticity of the judicial function is
not questioned. Municipio de Ponce v. Rossell 136 D.P.R. 776 (1994). In this case it is
indispensible that the requested injunction be granted, preliminarily, if not the plaintiffs

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 12

COMPLAINT

will suffer irreparable and irreversible harms If the action taken by the defendants
remains in force. They will be deprived of executing their constitutional prerogatives.
9. This complaint seeks to stop the actions taken by the defendants, because that way the
constitutional principles that assist the legislatures in the performance of their functions
are protected.
10. Therefore, under 32 P.R. Laws Ann & 3524 the requested preliminary injunction should e
granted.
Nature of the damages and inexistence of an adequate remedy
11. This case presents a situation without precedents by which the defendants, for the
aforementioned reasons and acts, clearly constitute an act contrary to the Constitution and
violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, and
usurps the functions of the plaintiffs; above all when Law 22/2013 in article 20 the
legislature clearly established that said law would not have an effect over legislation
related to marriage. In other words, the legislative body will not deal with this issue
indirectly.
12. The Governor of Puerto Rico, ceasing to defend the complaint filed in federal court
against article 68 of the Civil Code, acted in express contradiction against the will of the
legislature that when presented with the possibility of redefining marriage to include
same sex couples, they have manifested their legislative will of continuing to reserve
marriage exclusively to heterosexual couples. This is why the Supreme Court of the
United States has recalled in Youngstown Sheet v. Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952) that when
the executive acts against the express or implicit will of the legislative branch it is al it
lowest ebb making the action of the executive unconstitutional for infringing the
separation of powers of the Constitution
13. The plaintiffs have no other adequate remedy in law to prevent the impairment of their
rights and constitutional prerogatives under the law and constitution.
Likeliness of prevailing in the merits
14. For the aforementioned reasons it is demonstrated that the Legislative Assembly, not the
executive, establishes the public policy. Above all in this case we have seen that the
Supreme Court has established so. In the end, it is the Legislative Assembly were the acts
accepted by the majority of the people who elected them are discussed.

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 13

COMPLAINT
Likeliness that the cause will become academic

15. If the requested remedy is not granted, the collusion between the plaintiffs and defendants
in federal court will have a consequence a ruling based on false grounds: that the
executive can determine in a matter of high public interest that they will not defend a law
because they consider it unconstitutional. Not only that, if not advocating so that it is left
without effect, when this is a matter to be discussed in the legislature. We are before a
matter of domestic law that corresponds to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. U.S. v.
Windsor.
16. The executive branch acts as a totalitarian government imposing its constitutional
preference and not defending the law, as its obligated by the constitution, in a matter that
does not correspond to it.
Possible impact over public interest
17. The public interest in this case is tied to the violation by the executive of the composition
of our republican system of government, the separation of powers, and the constitutional
prerogatives of legislators to exercise their functions. The public interest is well served
and protected by reestablishing the rule of law and sending a message of legal stability
and balance of powers between the branches of government of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
18. The authority of the courts to issue declaratory judgments is regulated by the procedure
rules to hear civil matters. Specifically, rule 59.1 of Civil Procedure, 32 P.R. Laws Ann.
Ap. V R 59.1, allows for the forum of instance to declare rights, states, and other judicial
relations, even when it has been urged or another remedy can be sought. The declaration
will have the efficiency and validity of definite rulings or resolutions.
19. According to the prevailing doctrine, the mechanism of declaratory judgment is useful to
put an end to situations of uncertainty or insecurity regarding rights. The declaratory
judgment is of remedial character because it makes it viable for a citizen to expose before
the courts the merits of any claim were he faces a potential danger against him. Charana
v. Pueblo, 109 D.P.R. 641, 653, (1980); Moscoso v. Rivera, 76 D.P.R. 481, 488 (1954). It
is also the appropriate procedural mechanism to settle a constitutional dispute. Asoc. De
Periodistas v. Gonzlez, 127 D.P.R. 704, 724 (1991).

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 14

COMPLAINT

20. In the present case, because of the uncertainty created by the act of the Secretary of
Justice with the acts described is the remedy by excellence to solve the controversy
presented.
21. Therefore, it is requested that this Honorable Court declares the position taken by the
executive in the federal case referenced unconstitutional for violating the Constitution of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and that the Court does not give legal validity to the
arguments presented by the Secretary of Justice in his brief, because these do not legally
proceed.
MANDAMUS
22. The defendants have not complied with their ministerial and non-discretional duties
imposed on them by the Constitution. The noncompliance with them involves the
nullification of the action. This is so, because the defendants acted unconstitutionally and
have no capacity in Law to perform an act whose real effect is a collusion that allows for
the party to litigate alone in its favor. The Secretary of Justice has neither the authority to
not defend a law and declare it unconstitutional nor mocking the legislative process.
23. The plaintiffs have no other remedy in law to deal with the problematic situation and
potentially violation of their constitutional prerogatives other than ordering the
Department of Justice to defend in a real manner article 68 or in its alternative that his
brief be declared unconstitutional.
24. To achieve this, in this case, there is no other adequate or efficient remedy in the ordinary
course of law, 32 P.R. Laws Ann. 3423, than mandamus. It is meritorious because as our
Highest Forum has said:
To demand compliance of the duty imposed by law, that is to say a duty
classified as ministerial and that, as such, does not admit discretion in its
exercise, is mandatory and imperative. The fundamental requirement to issue a
mandamus resides in loyalty to a duty clearly defined that must be executed. That
is, the law must not only authorize, but demand a required action. AMPR v.
Secretario, 178 DPR 253, 263-264 (2010).
25. All these requirements are completely satisfied as has been demonstrated. Rule 54 of
Civil Procedure establishes that a right to demand the immediate execution of an act be
evident and appear that no excuse for not executing it exists the expeition of the
mandamus proceeds. Rule 54 of Civil Procedure, 32 A P.R. Laws Ann. Ap. V, R. 54.
This is the present case.

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 15

COMPLAINT

26. On the other hand, it has been solved that this ministerial duty, although immanent to the
mandamus, does not have to be express, because this will be reduced to the exclusive
function of this Court of interpreting the Constitution and its laws. The duty arises or not
clearly in the applicable disposition regarding a matter subject to judicial interpretation
that does not depend of a trial a priori founded exclusively in the wording of the statute.
Said determination has to come from the test and analysis of all the elements to the
interpretative function; from the patient exam and rigorous that parts from letter of the
law and the evaluation of all the elements available, so the true definition may be
discovered and the purpose of the legal disposition. AMPR, supra, 264-265. (quotes
omitted) See also, Hernndez Agosto v. Romero Barcel, 112 DPR 407, 418 (1982).
27. The authority of the courts to issue declaratory judgments is regulated by the system of
procedural rules to hear civil matters. Specifically, rule 59.1 of Civil Procedure, 32 P.R.
Laws Ann., Ap. V R. 59.1, allows for the instance court to declare rights and other legal
relations, even when another remedy has been sought or can be sought. The declaration
will have the efficiency and validity of definitive judgments or resolutions.
28. In conformity with the prevailing doctrine, the mechanism of declaratory judgment is
useful to put an end to situations of uncertainty or insecurity regarding rights. A
declaratory judgment is of remedial or prophylactic remedy because it makes it viable
that a citizen can present the merits of a claim before the courts when a potential harm
against him exisst. Charana v. Pueblo, 109 D.P.R. 641, 653 (1980); Moscoso v. Rivera,
76 D.P.R. 481, 488 (1954). It is also the appropriate procedural mechanism to settle a
constitutional dispute. Asoc. de Periodistas v. Gonzlez, 127 D.P.R. 704, 724 (1991).
29. In the present case, because of the uncertainty created by the act of the executive, a
Declaratory Judgment is the remedy by excellence for the present controversy.
30. Therefore, we request this Honorable Court to declare unconstitutional the act of the
executive for abrogating the powers of the Legislative Assembly in a matter of high
public interest as the referenced. Doing so, this Honorable Court should not give legal
validity to the arguments presented by the Secretary of Justice in their brief and declare
them in breach of his ministerial duty for being ultravires.
PRAYER
IN MERIT OF ALL we respectfully request this Honorable Court the following:

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 16

COMPLAINT

A. A Preliminary Injunction and, in its moment permanent to prevent the State from
abrogating the functions of the legislative and judicial branches, breaching the separation
of powers. Therefore, ordering the defendants to withdraw their brief in Federal Court for
being nulo ab initio and unconstitutional and inducing the Circuit Court of Appeals to
error.
B. Declare the act by the defendants one that violates Article 4 Section 4 and Article 3 of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Therefore issue a Mandamus ordering
the defendants name a Special Commissioner to defend the Constitutionality of Article 68
of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico.
C. Issue a Mandamus so that the defendants comply with their legal duty.
D. A declaratory judgment to declare void and illegal the action taken by the defendants.
The plaintiffs have been deprived of their constitutional prerogatives of dealing with a
matter of great public interest that corresponds only and exclusively to the Legislative
Assembly. The public interest in this case is tied to the constitutional balance that
provides our constitution in the separation of powers. The public interest will be served
with issuing the remedy requested. The act by the defendants is not academic, because it
leaves the people of Puerto Rico without a defense. By not defending Article 68 before
the Federal Court, the Secretary of Justice (his subsequent act of publicly congratulating
in media de plaintiffs for helping him change his initial position) creates uncertainty in
stability and trust in our State of Law. His action is unconstitutional. This act by the
Executive makes the Declaratory Judgment the remedy by excellence to solve the
controversy presented.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, in San Juan, Puerto Rico on March 24, 2015.

<signature>
JUAN M. GAUD PACHECHO 9095
P.O. Box 9512
Bayamn, Puerto Rico 00960
Tel. 787-612-9747
lcojuangaud@gmail.com

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Page 17

COMPLAINT

<signature>
CARLOS PEREZ TORO 18466
Calle Lesbos 1765
Ro Piedras, P.R. 00926
Tel. 787-761-6586
totustuus63@hotmail.com

<signature>
EDWARDO GARCIA REXACH 4950
PO Box 1679
Trujillo Alto, PR 00977-1679
Tel. (787) 226-9893
egarciarexach@gmail.com

OSCAR SANTAMARIA 15,552

Calle Pino H-23
Urb. Villa Turabo
Caguas, P.R. 00725
Tel. 787-590-4444

NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION