Puerto Rico hearing debates expanding municipal judges' power to order temporary guardians for older adults

The Commission on Older Adults and Social Welfare of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives held a public hearing Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025, on Senate Project 650 (PDLS 650), a bill that would amend Law 100‑2019 (the charter of rights and public policy for older adults) and the Judiciary Law (Law 201‑2003) to clarify that judges in municipal courts of first instance may, when appropriate, order the appointment of a temporary guardian under Article 140‑B of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico for a term not to exceed 90 days.

Proponents said the change is intended to provide a faster, summary remedy to protect older adults who face urgent risks to their personal safety or property. Jorge A. Roger Reyes, member of the advisory council for ARP Puerto Rico, told the commission that Puerto Rico is experiencing demographic change and rising vulnerability among older adults. "Estamos experimentando un envejecimiento poblacional ... esto representa unos retos para la sociedad," he said, noting census-based estimates and statistics on financial‑exploitation complaints.

The bill would add a new subsection (inciso k) to Article 9 of Law 100‑2019 to authorize the appointment of a temporary guardian "cuando un juez municipal o superior del tribunal de primera instancia determine que la incapacidad por accidente o condición médica grave de la persona adulta mayor pone en riesgo su seguridad física o de la de las otras personas," and would add parallel language to the Judiciary Law to make municipal‑court jurisdiction explicit. Supporters said the reform would permit summary protective measures commonly sought at municipal court level and avoid procedural delays that can leave older adults exposed.

Office of the Advocate for Older Adults (OPEA) testimony and written recommendations urged guardrails. Francis Vidal Rodríguez of OPEA pointed to OPEA and census data showing high rates of disability and vulnerability among older adults and cautioned that PDLS 650 as drafted broadens the circumstances for temporary guardianship beyond what Article 140‑B currently contemplates. "Estas circunstancias son tan amplias y subjetivas que podrían minar el derecho a la autodeterminación de la persona adulta mayor," OPEA said, and recommended removing the term "moral" from the bill and limiting the grounds to incapacity caused by accident or a serious medical condition, or otherwise clarifying standards to avoid arbitrary determinations.

The Department of Justice, represented by Francisco Javier Caballero Rivera, said the bill's purpose is legitimate but raised technical drafting concerns. DOJ noted that the proposed amendment to the Judiciary Law omitted the full existing text of the amended subsection and warned the omission could be read as an implicit repeal of other provisions. "La omisión del texto vigente ... podría tener el efecto no deseado de su derogación tácita," Caballero said, and recommended harmonizing the statutory text and consulting the Office of Administration of the Courts before final drafting.

Several members of the commission pressed presenters on specific safeguards. Lawmakers and witnesses discussed that Article 140‑B permits a temporary guardian for urgent cases, that the appointment is summary and limited to three months, and that the Civil Code already requires financial and administrative reporting from a guardian. OPEA and other witnesses recommended adding a requirement that a temporary guardian submit an accounting of the elder's assets at the start and end of the temporary guardianship and that the judge specify the scope and degree of the guardian's authority in each case (for example, whether the guardian may administer assets, make health‑care decisions, or both).

Witnesses also described the practical reasons for the change: multiple presenters said municipal courts are where many older‑adult protection matters are initially filed and that some judges have hesitated to use Article 140‑B because the Civil Code's text does not specify the precise court level. Supporters gave examples of cases in which a quick summary remedy permitted families to freeze accounts and obtain medical records that enabled further proceedings; they emphasized that the proposed change would not eliminate existing procedural safeguards in the Civil Code.

No formal vote or action on PDLS 650 occurred at the hearing. Commissioners asked for follow‑up information: presenters agreed to provide additional materials, and the Department of Justice accepted a 10‑business‑day period to supply requested information about training or other implementation matters. The commission indicated it will consider DOJ drafting recommendations and coordinate with the courts' administration in preparing any final statutory language.

Ending: The hearing closed after testimony from representatives of ARP Puerto Rico, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Advocate for Older Adults. The commission's next steps include reviewing technical edits recommended by DOJ and possible language changes suggested by OPEA to limit the grounds and require reporting by temporary guardians. No committee vote on the bill was recorded at the session.