IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF [ALLEGED JUVENILE DELINQUIENT], 
An Alleged Juvenile Delinquent.	

Cite as: 2021 Palau 39
Juvenile Case No. 21-004

Decided:	July 1, 2021
BEFORE:	HONORA E. REMENGESAU RUDIMCH, Associate Justice

	DECISION AND ORDER ON ALLEGED JUVENILE DELINQUENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
[¶ 1]	Before the court is the alleged juvenile delinquent’s motion to dismiss filed on April 28, 2021.  The Republic filed its opposition on May 11, 2021, followed by the alleged juvenile’s reply on May 14, 2021.  After reviewing said pleadings and being fully advised on the premise, the court finds that the proceeding is compliant with 34 PNC chapter 61 – Delinquent Children Act, and that the alleged juvenile delinquent’s constitutional rights have not been violated.  The court hereby DENIES the motion.
	Background
[¶ 2]	Alleged juvenile delinquent raises four arguments which can be summed up into two.  The first argument is that despite the case being filed as a juvenile delinquency case, the reality is that this case is being prosecuted as a regular criminal case and the alleged juvenile is being treated like an adult, in violation of the provisions of Title 34, Chapter 61 – Delinquent Children Act.  As a result, any adjudication in essence will be a conviction in violation of the Delinquent Children Act, and Article IV, Section 13 of the ROP Constitution.  Second, the alleged juvenile delinquent argues because there are no special rules of procedures for juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to the Delinquent Children Act, his constitutional right to due process is being violated.
[¶ 3]	The Republic responds that under the Delinquent Children Act, proceedings can be made against a person under 18 years of age who violates the criminal laws of the Republic of Palau and that even though there are no specific rules of procedures for juvenile delinquency proceedings, the ROP Rules of Criminal Procedure and Title 18 of the Palau National Code are still applicable and are used in conjunction with the Delinquent Children Act.  The Republic specifically points out that the requirements of probable cause, proof beyond reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, admissibility of evidence, amongst other fundamental principles remain the foundation of the proceedings regardless of a person’s age.  Further, the Republic contends that the courts, in dealing with alleged juvenile delinquents, practice procedural safeguards to protect the alleged juvenile delinquents.  For instance, the proceedings are closed, the alleged juvenile delinquent and his or her parents are provided notice, and a parent must be present in all proceedings.  Finally, the Republic notes that the pleas are that of “admission” and “no admission”, and upon finding by the court, a minor is adjudged a “juvenile delinquent” or a “juvenile traffic offender” and the records are sealed.
	Analysis
A.	Prosecuted as a Regular Criminal Case
[¶ 4]	As counsels point out, the Delinquent Children Act provides the mechanisms for the court to deal with cases involving “delinquent children.”  The Act defines a “delinquent child” according to four categories: (a) law violators; (b) children who are beyond the control of their parents, guardians, teachers, and custodians; (c) truants from home and school; and (d) children who present a threat to the health or morals of themselves or others.  34 PNC § 6101.
[¶ 5]	Alleged juvenile delinquent argues that even though a petition was filed, the reality is that the Republic is seeking a criminal conviction against him for the crime of Unauthorized Control of Propelled Vehicle and Criminal Property Damage in the Second Degree, in violation of 17 PNC § 2608 and § 2502, respectively.  However, counsel for the juvenile misstates how the Delinquent Children Act works.  Section 6101 of the Act provides that a child can be considered a delinquent for violating a law of the Republic.  Thereafter, protections arise under the status of delinquent, see generally 34 PNC Ch. 61, but still require first that the child is a delinquent, and one such method is finding that the child has violated a law in order to meet the definition of delinquent.  In this case, the alleged juvenile delinquent is alleged to have violated 17 PNC § 2608 and § 2502, respectively.
[¶ 6]	Moreover, the Delinquent Children Act provides that a juvenile delinquency adjudication shall not be considered a criminal conviction.  Id. at § 6103.  Meaning, a finding by this court that the child has violated the aforementioned laws is not a criminal conviction, but rather a finding that the child is in fact a delinquent.  Thereafter, the Act is engaged to protect the delinquent.  At no point will the finding be a criminal conviction.
[¶ 7]	Alleged juvenile delinquent further argues that although this matter was filed as a petition for juvenile delinquency, it is in fact a criminal charge because it is accompanied by an affidavit of probable cause, a penal summons, an entry of a not guilty plea, requirement of bail, and so forth, which is an application of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.  The court begins first by noting that the Delinquent Children Act states that proceedings against a person under 18 years of age as a delinquent child are to be conducted not just according to the provisions of the Act, but that courts shall adopt flexible procedures based on the accepted practices of juvenile courts of the United States.  Id. at § 6102.
[¶ 8]	Under the United States Federal Juvenile Delinquents Act, the United States Supreme Court has found that the Constitution demands many of the same features of an adult criminal trial, including notice of charges, right to counsel, privilege against self-incrimination, right to confrontation and cross examination, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, protection against double jeopardy, and application of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, to name a few.  Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 263 (1984) (citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 31-57 (1967); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 365-67 (1970); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1971)); see also United States v. Doe, 226 F.3d 672, 680 (6th Cir. 2000) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt); United States v. Doe, 801 F. Supp. 1562, 1568 (E.D. Tex. 1992).  As the Republic points out, these are all addressed under the ROP Rules of Criminal Procedure and Title 18 of the Palau National Code.  Therefore, this court notes that in a delinquency proceeding, the rules of criminal procedures apply in addition to the heightened protections, not instead of.  In other words, the application of the criminal procedure rules assures that the rights of the alleged juvenile delinquent are protected but does not inherently convert the proceeding into a criminal proceeding.
[¶ 9]	Finally, if a delinquent is confined by the court, such confinement does not make the proceeding criminal in nature.  While Section 6107 requires that the term of confinement be no more than the maximum for the crime, crucially it also requires no minimum confinement.  34 PNC § 6107.  This discretion and flexibility allow a court to determine an appropriate disposition in the best interest of the delinquent.  See Id.  As a result, confinement would not be a criminal punishment, but instead a rehabilitation disposition in the best interest of the delinquent.
B.	Constitutional Violation
[¶ 10]	Alleged juvenile delinquent argues that because there are no rules of procedures specifically for juvenile delinquency proceedings, his right to due process is violated.  Due process requires “notice and opportunity to be heard.”  Ngerketii Lineage v. Seid, 8 ROP Intrm. 44, 47 (1999).  The alleged juvenile delinquent fails to point to a specific instance where these rights, or his rights in general, were violated.  The idea that because there are no specific rules of procedures for delinquency proceedings that this inherently violates his constitutional rights is flawed for two reasons.  Firstly, there is nothing in the Act to suggest that not having specific procedures makes the proceeding unconstitutional.  Secondly, the courts have adopted procedures based on accepted practices as mentioned above for delinquents.  For instance, through the application of the Rules of Criminal Procedures, alleged juvenile delinquent and his parents were given notice of the allegations, informed of his rights, and provided an opportunity to be heard.  In addition, the proceedings are closed, his parent(s) and attorney must be present during all proceedings, and his records are sealed and will not be unsealed without notice to him and court approval.
[¶ 11]	Under the United States Federal Juvenile Delinquents Act, upon finding of a delinquency, the court may dispose of a juvenile by suspending sentence, or by ordering restitution or probation, or by committing juvenile to custody.  18 U.S.C. § 5037.  Although Palau’s Delinquent Children Act does not specify other options of disposition aside from confinement, Palau’s Penal Code does, and provides for different dispositions of convicted defendants ranging from deferring acceptance of a guilty plea, probation, suspension of sentences, restitution and other similar alternatives aside from imprisonment or confinement, that are also available for the courts to consider when adjudicating a juvenile delinquent.  17 PNC § 601, et seq.  The argument of escaping delinquency due to lack of specific rules of procedures is therefore misguided.
[¶ 12]	There is no dispute alleged juvenile offenders should be treated differently from adult offenders because they are considered to lack the same capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions as adult offenders.  In the Matter of Robin Kuchad, 1 ROP Intrm. 547EE (1988).  Furthermore, the aim of delinquency proceedings is to promote the policy against classifying juvenile offenders as “criminal”, but instead to guide and rehabilitate a juvenile offender.  Marbou v. Termeteet, 5 TTR 655 (1971).  This is why, in addition to 34 PNC chapter 61 – Delinquent Children Act, the Palau Judiciary has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Juvenile Procedures with the Bureau of Public Safety and Attorney General’s Office on July 31, 2013 (Appendix A) to improve the system of juvenile justice.  The Judiciary among others, agreed to set aside days/times for juvenile hearings separate from adults, and to the extent beneficial to the youth, agreed to consider referral to specific services or programs prior to disposition.  In addition, the Judiciary agreed to expedite the initial processing of the matter and to the extent possible, strive for a “one judge or justice, one juvenile” policy.  These are all consistent with the mandate of the Delinquent Children Act.
	Conclusion
[¶ 13]	Accordingly, the court based on the above, hereby DENIES alleged juvenile delinquent’s motion to dismiss.