Three alleged victims have accused Archbishop Apuron of sexually molesting them. One of them accused him of sexually molesting her son. All of them support lifting the statutes of limitations on sexual abuse. And the jungle is misleading them into thinking that they can bring a criminal lawsuit against Archbishop Apuron once Bill 326-33 is passed into law. According to the jungle:
I told you not to ask Rome for help. Let's do this ourselves. Today's public hearing was the first step. We're going to pass this bill and get it signed into law and then we are going to clean house. Anyone dirty better run now.Even if passed into law, one cannot press charges against Archbishop Apuron using the new law. According to a legal website:
States cannot retroactively change the rules to allow prosecution of crimes that are already barred by an existing statute of limitations. For example, assume that Will sexually molests a teenager named Joe. Joe doesn’t report what happened for many years. By the time he tells the police about the molestation, the statute of limitations has expired. Although the legislature can enact a new law that would allow the state more time to prosecute offenders, that new law won't apply retroactively to Will's case. (Stogner v. California, U.S. Sup. Ct. 2003.)You can read the U.S. Supreme court case of Stogner v. California here. This is probably what B.J. Cruz meant when he said that it may be unconstitutional in that it goes against the ex post facto law. The new law cannot change the rules to allow prosecution of crimes that have already been barred by an existing statute of limitations.
All four alleged victims accuse Archbishop Apuron of sexual molestation about 40 years ago. The statutes of limitations have already expired; therefore, even if Bill 326-33 is passed, it cannot apply to their allegations. However, it does not prevent Archbishop Apuron from filing a defamation lawsuit and probably even charge them with criminal conspiracy if the case warrants it.