Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Traditional Councils in the Yap State
The traditional councils of the Yap State are two assemblies of traditional leaders: the Pilung Council for the chiefs of the Yap Islands and the Tamol Council for the chiefs of the Outer Yap Islands. They have been established in 1992 by the Constitution of the Yap State, within the Federated States of Micronesia. The executive, the legislative, the judiciary and the traditional councils are the four institutional branches of government in the Yap State, but the councils, unlike the others, transcend the concept of the separation of powers. The councils are responsible for exercising the functions that relate to tradition and custom, which are not required to be recorded in the written law. In the Yap State, custom and tradition prevail over any interpretation of the constitution and even over any judicial decision. The councils have the right to veto legislation that they consider to be contrary to traditional practices. The constitutionality of these councils and their veto power could be challenged under the Micronesian Federal Constitutional Law, but to this date no one has done it.
The council leaders have great influence over the resignation of government officials they deem to be in violation of the law and over the selection of candidates for governor and lieutenant-governor of the Yap State. The councils meet periodically to discuss matters relating to customs and traditions, provide advice to those who come to them for consultation and approval, and organize cultural and heritage events. The local communities consider the traditional leaders to be the legitimate arbiters of truth in matters of tradition and custom, and as the protectors of the people.
Each of the Constitutions of the Federated States of Micronesia, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei and Kosrae, and even some of the Constitutions of municipalities such as Lukunor and Namoluk in the Chuuk State, recognize and protect to varying degrees the role and legal legitimacy of customs and traditions. At the federal level, the Constitution envisages the creation of a House of Chiefs made up of traditional leaders or elected representatives. However, this project, initiated in the late 1970s by the states of Pohnpei and Yap, has not been successful so far.
The people of the Yap State preserved a solid set of customs and traditions despite long foreign domination (by the Spanish, Germans, Japanese, and then Americans) and in spite of the depopulation caused by the diseases brought by Europeans and external cultural influences. The State of Yap is the only one to have attributed an institutional position to the traditional chiefs. This is unique in the Pacific. Traditionally, Yapese chiefs had complete power over land and authority over everyone. In the past, they also had the power of life and death.
The Constitutions of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Yap State recognise and enforce the interdependence of legal and traditional rights. The Yap State Constitution recognises four branches of government: the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, and traditional leaders.
The first section of Article III of the Yap Constitution, added in 2006 by an amendment, recognises the role in traditions and customs of the Dalip pi Nguchol. They are the three paramount chiefs of the Yap Islands, who own the three most valuable lands in the islands and under whose authority all the villages, which themselves have chiefs, are divided into three nug. Traditionally, the Yap Islands have always had a higher status than the outer Yap Islands, a by-product of the inter-island hierarchical system of sawei, which disappeared in the early 20th century. In the Yap society, the owner of the most valuable land (according to traditional land hierarchy) becomes the traditional chief. In the outer islands of Yap, the eldest man, or in some cases the woman of the oldest matrilineal lineage, is considered the island's or atoll's chief. To ensure that traditions and customs are respected and maintained, the second section of Article III of the Constitution established in 1982 the existence of two councils of chiefs: one for the chiefs of the municipalities of the Yap Islands, the Pilung Council, and the other for the chiefs of the municipalities of the outer Yap Islands, the Tamol Council. The latter is therefore legally considered to be equal to that of the Yap Islands, whereas traditionally it is subordinate to it.
In the Yap Islands, the term pilung, which in Yap means "many voices" (pii - many, lung - voice), is used to refer to the village chief, i.e. the highest ranking landowner in a village. The term Tamol is a generic term used in the outer islands of Yap to refer to a chief.
The third section of Article III states that nothing in the Constitution shall be interpreted as limiting or invalidating recognized traditions or customs. Custom and tradition take precedence over any statute, any interpretation of the Constitution, and even any judicial decision. According to the lawyer Brian Z. Tamanaha, "Unlike the other three branches, however, councils transcend the separation of powers by exercising quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, and judicial functions, not to mention the leadership role".
Hub AI
Traditional Councils in the Yap State AI simulator
(@Traditional Councils in the Yap State_simulator)
Traditional Councils in the Yap State
The traditional councils of the Yap State are two assemblies of traditional leaders: the Pilung Council for the chiefs of the Yap Islands and the Tamol Council for the chiefs of the Outer Yap Islands. They have been established in 1992 by the Constitution of the Yap State, within the Federated States of Micronesia. The executive, the legislative, the judiciary and the traditional councils are the four institutional branches of government in the Yap State, but the councils, unlike the others, transcend the concept of the separation of powers. The councils are responsible for exercising the functions that relate to tradition and custom, which are not required to be recorded in the written law. In the Yap State, custom and tradition prevail over any interpretation of the constitution and even over any judicial decision. The councils have the right to veto legislation that they consider to be contrary to traditional practices. The constitutionality of these councils and their veto power could be challenged under the Micronesian Federal Constitutional Law, but to this date no one has done it.
The council leaders have great influence over the resignation of government officials they deem to be in violation of the law and over the selection of candidates for governor and lieutenant-governor of the Yap State. The councils meet periodically to discuss matters relating to customs and traditions, provide advice to those who come to them for consultation and approval, and organize cultural and heritage events. The local communities consider the traditional leaders to be the legitimate arbiters of truth in matters of tradition and custom, and as the protectors of the people.
Each of the Constitutions of the Federated States of Micronesia, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei and Kosrae, and even some of the Constitutions of municipalities such as Lukunor and Namoluk in the Chuuk State, recognize and protect to varying degrees the role and legal legitimacy of customs and traditions. At the federal level, the Constitution envisages the creation of a House of Chiefs made up of traditional leaders or elected representatives. However, this project, initiated in the late 1970s by the states of Pohnpei and Yap, has not been successful so far.
The people of the Yap State preserved a solid set of customs and traditions despite long foreign domination (by the Spanish, Germans, Japanese, and then Americans) and in spite of the depopulation caused by the diseases brought by Europeans and external cultural influences. The State of Yap is the only one to have attributed an institutional position to the traditional chiefs. This is unique in the Pacific. Traditionally, Yapese chiefs had complete power over land and authority over everyone. In the past, they also had the power of life and death.
The Constitutions of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Yap State recognise and enforce the interdependence of legal and traditional rights. The Yap State Constitution recognises four branches of government: the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, and traditional leaders.
The first section of Article III of the Yap Constitution, added in 2006 by an amendment, recognises the role in traditions and customs of the Dalip pi Nguchol. They are the three paramount chiefs of the Yap Islands, who own the three most valuable lands in the islands and under whose authority all the villages, which themselves have chiefs, are divided into three nug. Traditionally, the Yap Islands have always had a higher status than the outer Yap Islands, a by-product of the inter-island hierarchical system of sawei, which disappeared in the early 20th century. In the Yap society, the owner of the most valuable land (according to traditional land hierarchy) becomes the traditional chief. In the outer islands of Yap, the eldest man, or in some cases the woman of the oldest matrilineal lineage, is considered the island's or atoll's chief. To ensure that traditions and customs are respected and maintained, the second section of Article III of the Constitution established in 1982 the existence of two councils of chiefs: one for the chiefs of the municipalities of the Yap Islands, the Pilung Council, and the other for the chiefs of the municipalities of the outer Yap Islands, the Tamol Council. The latter is therefore legally considered to be equal to that of the Yap Islands, whereas traditionally it is subordinate to it.
In the Yap Islands, the term pilung, which in Yap means "many voices" (pii - many, lung - voice), is used to refer to the village chief, i.e. the highest ranking landowner in a village. The term Tamol is a generic term used in the outer islands of Yap to refer to a chief.
The third section of Article III states that nothing in the Constitution shall be interpreted as limiting or invalidating recognized traditions or customs. Custom and tradition take precedence over any statute, any interpretation of the Constitution, and even any judicial decision. According to the lawyer Brian Z. Tamanaha, "Unlike the other three branches, however, councils transcend the separation of powers by exercising quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, and judicial functions, not to mention the leadership role".