Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Natural Resources

8/20/2019 Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Natural Resources

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mauna-kea-anaina-hou-v-board-of-land-and-natural-resources 1/49

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻI

- - -o0o - - - ________________________________________________________________

MAUNA KEA ANAI NA HOU; CLARENCE KUKAUAKAHI CHI NG; FLORES- CASEʻOHANA; DEBORAH J . WARD; PAUL K. NEVES; and KAHEA: THE HAWAI I AN

ENVI RONMENTAL ALLI ANCE, a domest i c non- pr of i t cor porat i on,Appel l ant s- Appel l ant s,

vs .

BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI ʻI ;DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI ʻI ;

SUZANNE CASE, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Chai r of t he Boar dof Land and Natur al Resour ces and Di r ector of t he Depart ment of

Land and Nat ural Resources; and UNI VERSI TY OF HAWAI ʻ

I AT HI LO,Appel l ees- Appel l ees. ________________________________________________________________

SCAP- 14- 0000873

APPEAL FROM THE CI RCUI T COURT OF THE THI RD CI RCUI T( CAAP- 14- 0000873; CI V. NO. 13- 1- 0349)

DECEMBER 2, 2015

CONCURRI NG OPI NI ON BY POLLACK, J . ,I N WHI CH WI LSON, J . , J OI NS,

AND I N WHI CH McKENNA, J . , J OI NS AS TO PART I V

Ri si ng t o a maj est i c 13, 796 f eet above sea l evel ,

Mauna Kea, t he hi ghest mount ai n peak i n the Hawai i an I sl ands, i s

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAP-14-0000873

02-DEC-201501:00 PM




3

speci f i c par t i es ar e r equi r ed by l aw t o be det er mi ned af t er an

oppor t uni t y f or agency hear i ng”) , nor wi t h due pr ocess under t he

Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on ( l ack of meani ngf ul oppor t uni t y t o be hear d

compr omi sed appear ance of j ust i ce) . I t her ef or e concur i n t he

maj or i t y’ s resul t . However , I wr i t e separ at el y because t hi s

cour t ’ s pr ecedent s have est abl i shed t hat , i n addi t i on t o t hese

gr ounds, other pr ovi si ons and guarant ees of t he Hawai ʻi

Const i t ut i on f or ge t he r i ght t o a cont est ed case hear i ng and

est abl i sh pr ocedur es essent i al t o saf eguar d t he r i ght s pr ot ect ed

by t he const i t ut i on i n cases such as t hi s one.

I. Traditional Hawaiian Rights Under Article XII, Section 7

Our pr oud l egal t r adi t i on i n t hi s St at e of pr ot ect i ng

Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s i s not of r ecent vi nt age, f or even as f ar

back as t he days of t he Hawai i an Ki ngdom, pr otect i ons have been

i n pl ace t o ensur e t he cont i nued exer ci se of t r adi t i onal

Hawai i an r i ght s ami dst t he pr essures exer t ed by count er vai l i ng

i nt er est s of a changi ng soci et y. See Pub. Access Shor el i ne Haw.

v. Haw. Ct y. Pl anni ng Comm’ n ( PASH) , 79 Hawai ʻi 425, 437 n. 21,

903 P. 2d 1246, 1258 n. 21 ( 1995) ( di scussi ng l aws dat i ng back t o

t he er a of t he Hawai i an Ki ngdom wi t h pr ovi si ons t hat ensur ed

pr ot ect i on of Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons) .

I n 1978, pr ot ect i on of t r adi t i onal and cust omar y

Hawai i an r i ght s was pr eserved wi t hi n the Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on.




4

Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7 embodi es t he r esol ut e pr omi se by t he

St at e t o “pr ot ect al l r i ght s, cust omar i l y and t r adi t i onal l y

exer ci sed f or subsi st ence, cul t ur al and r el i gi ous pur poses and

possessed by ahupuaʻa[ 1] t enant s who ar e descendant s of nat i ve

Hawai i ans who i nhabi t ed t he Hawai i an I sl ands pr i or t o 1778,

subj ect t o t he r i ght . . . t o r egul at e such r i ght s. ” Haw.

Const. ar t . XI I , § 7; see I n r e ʻĪao Gr ound Wat er Mgmt . Ar ea

Hi gh- Level Sour ce Wat er Use Per mi t Appl i cat i ons ( ʻĪao) , 128

Hawai ʻi 228, 247, 287 P. 3d 129, 148 ( 2012) . So r obust i s t hi s

pr omi se that even t hough Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7 car ves out f or

t he St ate t he power t o regul at e t he exer ci se of cust omar y and

t r adi t i onal Hawai i an r i ght s, t hi s cour t under scor ed t hat “t he

St at e i s obl i gat ed t o pr ot ect t he r easonabl e exer ci se of

cust omar i l y and t r adi t i onal l y exer ci sed r i ght s of Hawai i ans t o

t he ext ent f easi bl e. ” PASH, 79 Hawai ʻi at 450 n. 43, 903 P. 2d at

1271 n. 43.

The meani ng of Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7 was f i r st

exami ned by thi s cour t i n Kal i pi v. Hawai i an Tr ust Co. , 66 Haw.

1, 656 P. 2d 745 ( 1982) . I n t hat case, t he pl ai nt i f f sought “t o

exer ci se t r adi t i onal Hawai i an gat her i ng r i ght s” on undevel oped

l ands wi t hi n an ahupuaʻa on t he i sl and of Mol okaʻi . I d. at 3,

1 An ahupuaʻa r ef er s t o a di vi si on of l and t hat gener al l y r uns f r omt he sea t o the mountai ns. Pal ama v. Sheehan, 50 Haw. 298, 300, 440 P. 2d 95,97 (1968) .




6

cust omary r i ght s” si nce t hey wer e t enant s who resi ded i n t he

ahupuaʻa abut t i ng Wao Kel e ʻO Puna. I d. at 616, 837 P. 2d at

1269. Thi s cour t di savowed any not i on t hat t r adi t i onal Hawai i an

gather i ng r i ght s may onl y be exerci sed wi t hi n an ahupuaʻa and by

t he l awf ul occupant s of t he ahupuaʻa. I d. at 620- 21, 837 P. 2d at

1272. The Pat y cour t r easoned t hat t r adi t i onal Nat i ve Hawai i an

gat her i ng r i ght s are not gr ounded onl y i n l and owner shi p but

al so i n t he pr act i ced cust oms of Nat i ve Hawai i ans. I d. And i f

t hose pr act i ced cust oms i ndi cat e that t r adi t i onal gat her i ng was

conduct ed i n an ar ea out si de of , but abut t i ng, an ahupuaʻa, t hen

undevel oped port i ons of t hat area may be accessed by i ndi vi dual s

of nat i ve Hawai i an descent f or t r adi t i onal gat her i ng pur poses.

I d.

I n PASH, t hi s cour t i nt er pr et ed Kal i pi ’ s di scussi on of

cust omary r i ght s der i ved f r om t he Hawai i an usage except i on i n

HRS § 1- 1 ( 2009) 3 and af f i r med t hat “t he r easonabl e exer ci se of

anci ent Hawai i an usage i s ent i t l ed t o pr ot ect i on under ar t i cl e

XI I , sect i on 7. ” 79 Hawai ʻi at 442, 903 P. 2d at 1263. Fur t her ,

3 HRS § 1- 1, i n r el evant par t , pr ovi des as f ol l ows:

The common l aw of Engl and, as ascer t ai ned by Engl i sh andAmer i can deci si ons, i s decl ared t o be t he common l aw of t heSt at e of Hawai i i n al l cases, except as ot her wi se expr essl ypr ovi ded by the Const i t ut i on or l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es,or by the l aws of t he St at e, or f i xed by Hawai i an j udi ci alpr ecedent , or est abl i shed by Hawai i an usage . . . .

( Emphases added) .




7

t he cour t decl ar ed t hat t he r egul at or y power r eserved f or t he

St at e i n Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7 does not equat e t o t he aut hor i t y

t o ext i ngui sh t r adi t i onal and cust omar y Hawai i an r i ght s because

t hey have become “i nconsi st ent wi t h general l y underst ood

el ement s of t he west er n doct r i ne of ‘ pr oper t y. ’ ” I d.

Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7 was pr onounced by t hi s cour t i n

Ka Paʻakai O KaʻAi na v. Land Use Commi ssi on, 94 Hawai ʻi 31, 7 P. 3d

1068 ( 2000) , as pl aci ng “an af f i r mat i ve dut y on t he St at e and

i t s agenci es t o pr eserve and pr ot ect t r adi t i onal and cust omar y

nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s. ” I d. at 45, 7 P. 3d at 1082 ( emphasi s

added) . At t he cor e of t hi s af f i r mat i ve dut y, as expl ai ned by

t he Ka Paʻakai cour t , i s t he r esponsi bi l i t y of t he St at e and i t s

const i t uent agenci es t o act onl y af t er “i ndependent l y

consi der i ng t he ef f ect of t hei r act i ons on Hawai i an t r adi t i ons

and pr act i ces. ” I d. at 46, 7 P. 3d at 1083.

The cour t al so hel d t hat meani ngf ul prot ect i on of

Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s pur suant t o Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7 means

t hat t hey must be enf orceabl e t hr ough “an anal yt i cal f r amework

[ t hat ] endeavor [ s] t o accommodat e t he compet i ng i nt er est s of

pr ot ect i ng nat i ve Hawai i an cul t ur e and r i ght s, on t he one hand,

and economi c devel opment and secur i t y, on t he other . ” I d. The

anal yt i cal f r amewor k craf t ed by t he cour t r equi r ed t he St at e and

i t s agenci es “at a mi ni mum” t o make par t i cul ar i zed f i ndi ngs and

concl usi ons r egar di ng t he i dent i t y and scope of “‘ val ued




8

cul t ur al , hi stor i cal , or nat ur al r esour ces’ i n t he pet i t i on

ar ea, ” i ncl udi ng

( 1) . . . t he extent t o whi ch t r adi t i onal and cust omar ynat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s ar e exer ci sed i n t he pet i t i on ar ea;

( 2) t he extent t o whi ch t hose r esour ces- - i ncl udi ngt r adi t i onal and cust omar y nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s- - wi l l beaf f ect ed or i mpai r ed by t he pr oposed act i on; and

( 3) t he f easi bl e act i on, i f any, t o be t aken by the[ agency] t o r easonabl y pr ot ect nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s i ft hey ar e f ound t o exi st .

I d. at 47, 7 P. 3d at 1084 ( f or mat al t er ed) .

Because t he Land Use Commi ssi on i n Ka Paʻakai di d not

r ender suf f i ci ent f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons addr essi ng t hese

essent i al consi der at i ons bef or e r ecl assi f yi ng l and i n a

conser vat i on di st r i ct t o an ur ban di st r i ct , t hi s cour t was not

abl e t o det er mi ne whet her t he agency “di schar ged i t s dut y t o

pr ot ect cust omar y and t r adi t i onal pr act i ces of nat i ve Hawai i ans

t o t he ext ent f easi bl e. ” I d. at 48, 7 P. 3d at 1085. Thus, we

concl uded t hat t he Land Use Commi ssi on “f ai l ed t o sat i sf y i t s .

. . const i t ut i onal obl i gat i ons. ” I d. at 52, 7 P. 3d at 1089.

The Ka Paʻakai f r amewor k was l ater appl i ed i n t he

cont ext of an agency’ s amendment of an i nt er i m i nst r eam f l ow

st andar ds ( I I FS) f or cer t ai n st r eams on t he i sl and of Maui .

ʻĪao, 128 Hawai ʻi at 247- 48, 287 P. 3d at 148- 49. Thi s cour t i n

ʻĪao determi ned t hat t he agency f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t he

f r amework because, al t hough t he agency r ecogni zed that t he

amendment woul d l i mi t “t he nat i ve Hawai i an pr act i ces of kal o




9

cul t i vat i on and gat her i ng, ” i t di d not make “f i ndi ngs or

concl usi ons art i cul at i ng t he ef f ect of t he amended I I FS on t he

nat i ve Hawai i an pr act i ces” and t he f easi bi l i t y of pr ot ect i ng

t hose pr act i ces. I d. at 248- 49, 287 P. 3d at 149- 50.

Thus, t hi s cour t ’ s evol vi ng j ur i sprudence concer ni ng

Nat i ve Hawai i an t r adi t i onal and cust omar y r i ght s has concei ved

of a syst em i n whi ch t he St at e and i t s agenci es bear an

af f i r mat i ve const i t ut i onal obl i gat i on t o engage i n a meani ngf ul

and hei ght ened i nqui r y i nt o t he i nt er r el at i onshi p bet ween t he

ar ea i nvol ved, t he Nat i ve Hawai i an pr act i ces exer ci sed i n t hat

ar ea, t he ef f ect of a pr oposed act i on on t hose pr act i ces, and

f easi bl e measures t hat can be i mpl ement ed t o saf eguard the

vi t al i t y of t hose pr act i ces. See i d. at 247- 48, 287 P. 3d at

148- 49; Ka Paʻakai , 94 Hawai ʻi at 47, 7 P. 3d at 1084. When an

i ndi vi dual of Nat i ve Hawai i an descent assert s t hat a

t r adi t i onal l y exer ci sed cul t ur al , r el i gi ous, or gat her i ng

pr act i ce i n an undevel oped or not f ul l y devel oped ar ea woul d be

cur t ai l ed by t he pr oposed pr oj ect , t he St at e or t he appl i cabl e

agency i s “obl i gat ed t o addr ess” t hi s adver se i mpact i n i t s

f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons pur suant t o t he Ka Pa̒ akai f r amework.

Ka Paʻakai , 94 Hawai ʻi at 46, 50, 7 P. 3d at 1083, 1087.

Consequent l y, i f cust omar y and t r adi t i onal Nat i ve

Hawai i an pr act i ces are t o be meani ngf ul l y saf eguar ded, “f i ndi ngs

on t he ext ent of t hei r exer ci se, t hei r i mpai r ment , and t he




10

f easi bi l i t y of t hei r pr ot ect i on” ar e par amount . Ka Paʻakai , 94

Hawai ʻi at 50, 7 P. 3d at 1087. To ef f ect i vel y r ender such

f i ndi ngs, i t i s i mper at i ve f or t he agency t o r ecei ve evi dence

and t hen make “[ a] determi nat i on . . . support ed by the evi dence

i n t he r ecor d. ” I n r e Haw. El ec. Li ght Co. , 60 Haw. 625, 642,

594 P. 2d 612, 623 ( 1979) ( f i ndi ngs of basi c f act s “are r equi r ed

t o be suppor t ed by the evi dence i n t he r ecor d”) ; Fi ndi ng of

Fact , Bl ack’ s Law Di ct i onar y ( 10t h ed. 2014) . Thus, t he agency

must act as a f act f i nder - - t o eval uat e the evi dence pr esent ed by

t he par t i es- - i n or der t o det er mi ne whet her t he exer ci se of

Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s wi l l be l i mi t ed t o some extent . To

f ul f i l l t hi s dut y and t o per mi t such f i ndi ngs t o be made, t he

agency i s obl i gat ed t o conduct a cont est ed case hear i ng bef or e

t he l egal r i ght s of t he par t i es ar e deci ded. 4

I n t hi s case, sever al i ndi vi dual s t est i f i ed dur i ng t he

publ i c hear i ngs about t he sanct i t y of Mauna Kea to Nat i ve

4 See Ki l aki l a ʻO Haleakalā, 131 Hawai ʻi at 209, 317 P. 3d at 43( Acoba, J . , concur r i ng) ( r easoni ng t hat t he appel l ant s’ asser t i on- - t hat t hei rt r adi t i onal and cust omar y pr act i ces woul d be adver sel y af f ect ed by t heagency’ s act i on- - t r i gger ed t hei r r i ght t o a cont est ed case hear i ng) ; ʻĪao, 128

Hawai ʻi at 271, 271 P. 3d at 172 ( Acoba, J . , concur r i ng) ( “[ W] her e nat i veHawai i an Pet i t i oner s cl ai m t hat t hei r nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s ar e adver sel y

af f ected by t he [ Land Use Commi ssi on’ s] deci si on . . . t hey may sue t oenf or ce t hei r r i ght s under Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7 of t he Hawai ʻiConst i t ut i on. ”) ; Kal ei ki ni v. Thi el en, 124 Hawai ʻi 1, 31, 237 P. 3d 1067, 1097( 2010) ( Acoba, J . , concur r i ng) ( “[ N] at i ve Hawai i ans . . . have equal r i ght st o a cont est ed case hear i ng wher e t hese [ t r adi t i onal and cust omary] pr act i cesar e adver sel y af f ect ed. ”) .




11

Hawai i an cul t ur e. 5 Pr i or t o t he vot e gr ant i ng t he per mi t , t he

Admi ni st r at or of t he Of f i ce of Conservat i on and Coast al Lands

pr ovi ded the Boar d wi t h a backgr ound rel at i ng to UH’ s

appl i cat i on f or t he per mi t . Hi s comment s al so i nf or med t he

Boar d of t he pr oj ect ’ s pot ent i al f or si gni f i cant i mpact s on t he

exer ci se of Hawai i an cul t ur al pr act i ces:

Number one we acknowl edge and di scussed t he i mpor t ance oft he anci ent and cont emporary cul t ur al val ues and r esour cesat Mauna Kea. . . .

[ W] e acknowl edge concerns r emai n r egardi ng t he proj ect [ ’ ] si mpact on t he spi r i t ual natur e of Mauna Kea and on thecul t ur al bel i ef s and pr acti ces of many- - t hat i s cl ear .I nt er pr et at i on of t he spi r i t ual i mpact i s based uponi ndi vi dual per cept i on. For some no mi t i gat i on i s possi bl eand any devel opment on t he mountai n woul d be sacr i l egi ous.. . .

At t he end of t he day what i t comes down to i s t hese val ueswer e i dent i f i ed- - t he wor shi ppi ng, t he pl acement of pi ko,t he gat her i ng of wat er , gat her i ng of st ones and bur i al swer e al l i dent i f i ed. The [ e] f f ect s of t he pr oj ect on t heset hi ngs wer e consi der ed. What f l owed f r om t hat i s the t hi r dpar t of t he Ka Paʻakai anal ysi s whi ch i s how do we mi t i gatet he ef f ect of t he pr oj ect on t hese val ues . . . .

( Emphasi s added) . Thus, t he Boar d was i nf ormed of mul t i pl e

t r adi t i onal Hawai i an cul t ur al pr act i ces exer ci sed i n t he pr oj ect

ar ea and was awar e of t he pr oj ect ’ s pot ent i al adver se i mpact on

5 An exampl e of the concerns r ai sed can be f ound i n a l et t er , whi chwas submi t t ed t o the Boar d dur i ng t he cour se of t he publ i c heari ngs, f r om

pet i t i oner Mauna Kea Anai na Hou, The Royal Or der of Kamehameha, Si er r a Cl ub,and pet i t i oner Cl arence Kukauakahi Chi ng. The l et t er emphasi zed t hat “MaunaKea i s consi der ed t he Templ e of t he Supreme Bei ng[ , ] t he home of Na Akua ( t heDi vi ne Dei t i es, Na ʻAumakua ( t he Di vi ne Ancest or s) , and t he meet i ng pl ace ofPapa ( Ear t h Mot her ) and Wakea ( sky Fat her ) . ” Addi t i onal l y, t he l et t er st at edt hat “[ t ] he cer emoni es and pract i ces on Mauna Kea are pr act i ced nowher eel se[ ] and f ormed the basi s of t he navi gat i onal knowl edge t hat al l owedHawai i ans t o navi gat e over t en mi l l i on squar e mi l es of t he Paci f i c. ”




12

t he “spi r i t ual nat ur e of Mauna Kea” and t he “cul t ur al bel i ef s

and pr act i ces of many. ”

Nonet hel ess, despi t e numer ous r equest s f or a cont est ed

case hear i ng, t he Boar d proceeded t o summar i l y appr ove the

per mi t i n cont r avent i on of i t s obl i gat i on t o det er mi ne t he

extent of t he i mpai r ment of Nat i ve Hawai i an cul t ur al pr act i ces

t hat woul d be caused by t he pr oposed act i on and t he f easi bi l i t y

of pr ot ect i ng such pr act i ces. The Boar d’ s act i on was i n cl ear

der ogat i on of i t s “af f i r mat i ve dut y” t o f ul l y and car ef ul l y

assess evi dence pr esent ed i n a hear i ng, whi ch i s cr i t i cal t o

maki ng essent i al f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons pur suant t o t he Ka

Paʻakai f r amewor k. “The pr omi se of pr eser vi ng and pr ot ect i ng

cust omar y and t r adi t i onal r i ght s woul d be i l l usor y absent

f i ndi ngs on t he ext ent of t hei r exer ci se, t hei r i mpai r ment , and

t he f easi bi l i t y of t hei r pr ot ect i on. ” Ka Paʻakai , 94 Hawai ʻi at

50, 7 P. 3d at 1087. Thus, t he Boar d was requi r ed t o conduct a

hei ght ened i nqui r y eval uat i ng t he requi si t e f act or s i n a

cont est ed case hear i ng bef or e reachi ng a det er mi nat i on on the

permi t appl i cat i on. Such a hear i ng woul d have enabl ed t he Boar d

t o make t he f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons t hat ar e essent i al t o t he

Boar d’ s det er mi nat i on of whet her or not t o gr ant t he per mi t .

Because such a hei ght ened i nqui r y was not conduct ed, t he Boar d

had no basi s f or i t s deci si on, and “as a mat t er of l aw, ” t he

Boar d “f ai l ed t o sat i sf y i t s . . . consti t ut i onal obl i gat i ons”




13

under Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7 of t he Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on. I d. at

52, 7 P. 3d at 1089.

II. The Public Trust Doctrine Under Article XI, Section 1

A.

The publ i c t r ust doct r i ne i s an anci ent pr i nci pl e

r ecogni zi ng t hat cer t ai n r esour ces best owed by nat ur e ar e so

i nvi ol abl e t hat t hei r benef i t s shoul d accr ue t o t he col l ect i ve,

r at her t han onl y t o cer t ai n member s of soci et y. See Mar t i n v.

Waddel l ’ s Lessee, 41 U. S. 367, 414 ( 1842) ( opi ni ng t hat

navi gabl e wat er s and l ands under t hem ar e not suscept i bl e t o

pr i vat e owner shi p) ; J . I nst . 2. 1. 1 ( under Roman l aw, “t he

f ol l owi ng t hi ngs are by nat ur al l aw common al l —t he ai r , r unni ng

wat er , t he sea, and consequent l y t he sea- shor e”) ; 2 H. Br act on,

De Legi bus et Consuet udi ni bus Angl i ae 40 ( S. Thor ne t r ansl .

1968) ( t hi r t eent h- cent ur y Engl i sh common l aw st at ed t hat “[ a] l l

r i ver s and por t s ar e publ i c, so t hat t he r i ght t o f i sh t her ei n

i s common t o al l per sons. The use of r i ver banks, as of t he

r i ver i t sel f , i s al so publ i c”) . The val ues vi ndi cat ed by t hi s

doctr i ne ar e so uni ver sal i n t hei r appl i cat i on t hat , i n t hi s

j ur i sdi ct i on, i t s r oot s can be t r aced t o t he t i me of t he

Hawai i an Ki ngdom, when i t was r eaf f i r med t hat i t was not t he

Ki ng- - t he sover ei gn- - but “t he peopl e of Hawai ʻi [ who] ar e t he




14

or i gi nal owner s of al l Hawai i an l and. ” St at e v. Zi mr i ng, 58

Haw. 106, 111, 566 P. 2d 725, 729 ( 1977) .

The Const i t ut i on of 1840, t he f i r st one t o bi nd

Hawai ‘i , expr essl y pr ovi ded t hat “al l t he l and f r om one end of

t he I sl ands t o t he other” bel onged t o Kamehameha I , “t hough i t

was not hi s own pr i vat e pr oper t y[ , f or i ] t bel onged t o t he

chi ef s and t he peopl e i n common, of whom Kamehameha I , was t he

head. ” Fundament al Law of Hawai i 3 ( Lor r i n A. Thur st on ed. ,

1904) . Hence, l ands hel d i n t he publ i c domai n- - t hose t hat t he

popul ace owned at l ar ge- - const i t ut ed al l l ands i n Hawai ‘i , and

t he Ki ng “owned” t hem onl y f or t he pur pose of benef i t i ng

everyone wi t hi n hi s Ki ngdom. Thi s ar r angement was changed af t er

t he Gr eat Māhel e, “a pr ocess wi t h mul t i pl e di vi si ons or

al l ocat i ons of l and, ” Nat i ve Hawai i an Law: A Tr eat i se 13 ( Mel ody

Kapi l i al oha MacKenzi e et al . eds. , 2015) , whi ch usher ed i n an

era where pr i vat e ownershi p of Hawai i an l ands was al l owed. See

Zi mr i ng, 58 Haw. at 112- 13, 566 P. 2d at 730- 31 ( di scussi ng how

t he Ki ng si gned i nst r ument s t r ansf er r i ng owner shi p of r oyal

l ands t o t he Hawai i an gover nment , t he chi ef s and konohi ki , 6 and

t he peopl e at l ar ge, whi l e r et ai ni ng f or hi msel f and hi s hei r s

some desi gnated l ands) .

6 “Konohi ki i n anci ent Hawai ‘i wer e agent s of t he Ki ng or chi ef s. ”Zi mr i ng, 58 Haw. at 112 n. 4, 566 P. 2d at 730 n. 4.




15

Af t er t he ef f ect uat i on of t he Gr eat Māhel e, al l l ands

t hat were not cl ai med f or pr i vat e owner shi p r emai ned i n t he

publ i c domai n, subj ect t o the st ewar dshi p of t he gover nment f or

t he benef i t of t he peopl e. See i d. at 114, 566 P. 2d at 731

( “[ L]and i n i t s or i gi nal st at e i s publ i c l and and i f not awar ded

or gr ant ed, such l and r emai ns i n t he publ i c domai n. ”) .

Fol l owi ng t he over t hr ow of t he monarchy, t he Cr own Lands were

al so added t o t he publ i c domai n. I d. at 113, 566 P. 2d at 731.

The nat ure of t he publ i c t r ust i n t he moder n er a was

expounded upon by t hi s cour t i n Zi mr i ng. I n t hat case, l ava

f l ows f r om t he 1955 Puna vol cani c er upt i on on t he i sl and of

Hawai ‘i r esul t ed i n t he addi t i on of “appr oxi mat el y 7. 9 acr es of

new l and” to t he shor el i ne. I d. at 107, 566 P. 2d at 727. These

l ava ext ensi ons were adj acent t o pr i vat e l and owned by the

def endant s. I d. at 107, 566 P. 2d at 727- 28. The def endant s

ent ered t he l ava extensi ons and made i mprovement s upon t hem, at

whi ch poi nt t he St ate demanded t hat t hey vacat e t he l ava

extensi ons and cease and desi st f r om engagi ng i n any ot her

act i vi t i es t her eon. I d. at 108, 566 P. 2d at 728. Ther eaf t er ,

t he St at e sued t he def endant s and t hei r pr edecessors- i n- i nt er est

t o qui et t i t l e, and t he case was l at er appeal ed. I d. at 108- 10,

566 P. 2d at 728- 29.

Chi ef J ust i ce Ri char dson concl uded f or t he cour t t hat

t he peopl e of Hawai ‘i ar e t he benef i ci al owner s of publ i c l ands.




16

I d. at 125, 566 P. 2d at 737. Thi s f undament al pr i nci pl e was

acknowl edged i n t he Admi ss i on Act , whi ch “pr ovi ded t hat t he

publ i c l ands conveyed t o t he St at e upon admi ssi on ‘ shal l be hel d

by sai d St at e as a publ i c t r ust f or t he suppor t of publ i c

school s and ot her publ i c i nst i t ut i ons, f or t he bet t er ment of t he

condi t i ons of nat i ve Hawai i ans . . . , f or maki ng of publ i c

i mpr ovement s, and f or t he pr ovi si ons of l ands f or publ i c use. ’ ”

I d. ( quot i ng Admi ssi on Act , Pub. L. No. 86- 3, 73 St at . 5

( 1959) ) . The Zi mr i ng cour t hel d t hat “t he equi t abl e owner shi p

of t he [ l ava extensi ons] and ot her publ i c l and i n Hawai ‘i has

al ways been i n i t s peopl e. Upon admi ssi on, t r ust eeshi p t o such

l ands was t r ansf er r ed t o the St at e, and t he subj ect l and has

r emai ned i n publ i c t r ust si nce t hat t i me. ” I d. ( emphases

added) . The cour t was cl ear , however , t hat t he t r ust eeshi p t hat

t he St ate assumed was coupl ed wi t h t he associ at ed obl i gat i on “t o

pr ot ect and mai nt ai n t he t r ust pr oper t y and r egul at e i t s use. ”

I d. at 121, 566 P. 2d at 735.

Shor t l y af t er Zi mr i ng, t he concept of publ i c t r ust was

r eaf f i r med by the f r amer s of t he 1978 Const i t ut i on:

For t he benef i t of pr esent and f ut ur e gener at i ons, t he

St at e and i t s pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons shal l conser ve andpr ot ect Hawai i ’ s nat ur al beaut y and al l nat ur al r esour ces,i ncl udi ng l and, wat er , ai r , mi ner al s and ener gy sour ces,and shal l pr omote the devel opment and ut i l i zat i on of t heser esour ces i n a manner consi st ent wi t h t hei r conservat i onand i n f ur t her ance of t he sel f - suf f i ci ency of t he St at e.

Al l publ i c nat ur al r esour ces ar e hel d i n t r ust by the St at ef or t he benef i t of t he peopl e.




17

Haw. Const . ar t . XI , § 1 ( emphases added) .

Thi s cour t has never preci sel y demar cat ed t he

di mensi ons of t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne as i ncor por at ed i n

Ar t i cl e XI , Sect i on 1. Nonet hel ess, t hr ough case- by- case

adj udi cat i on, t hi s cour t has car ef ul l y appl i ed t he f undament al

pr i nci pl es i nher ent i n t he concept of publ i c t r ust and, i n t he

pr ocess, has addr essed at t endant dut i es t hat t he St at e and i t s

agenci es must di schar ge i n i nst ances wher e i t appl i es.

I n t he cont ext of wat er r esour ces, t hi s cour t i n I n r e

Water Use Per mi t Appl i cat i ons ( Wai āhol e I ) , 94 Hawai ‘i 97, 9 P. 3d

409 ( 2000) , det er mi ned t hat “[ t ] he pl ai n r eadi ng of ” Ar t i cl e XI ,

Sect i on 1 “mani f est s t he f r amer s’ i nt ent t o i ncor por at e t he

not i on of t he publ i c t r ust i nt o our const i t ut i on. ” I d. at 131,

9 P. 3d at 443. Hence, we hel d “t hat ar t i cl e XI , sect i on 1 . . .

adopt [ s] t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne as a f undament al pr i nci pl e of

const i t ut i onal l aw i n Hawai ‘i . ” I d. at 132, 9 P. 3d at 444.

Def i ni ng t he subst ance of t he publ i c t r ust , t he cour t st at ed

t hat i t “i s a dual concept of sover ei gn r i ght and

r esponsi bi l i t y. ” I d. at 135, 9 P. 3d at 447. As a l ogi cal

ext ensi on of t hi s dual i t y, t he cour t concl uded, based on t he

expr ess l anguage of Ar t i cl e XI , Sect i on 1, t hat t he publ i c t r ust

r epr esent s t he t wi n “mandate of 1) pr otect i on and 2) maxi mum

r easonabl e and benef i ci al use. ” I d. at 139, 9 P. 3d at 451.




18

Appl i ed t o wat er r esour ces, t he cour t f ound t hat “t he

[ S] t at e has bot h t he aut hor i t y and dut y t o pr eserve t he r i ght s

of pr esent and f ut ur e gener at i ons i n t he wat er s of t he [ S] t at e. ”

I d. at 141, 9 P. 3d at 453. Thi s means t hat t he St at e and i t s

agenci es may not gr ant or asser t “vest ed r i ght s t o use wat er t o

t he det r i ment of publ i c t r ust pur poses. ” I d. Ther ef or e, i n

pl anni ng and al l ocat i ng var i ous wat er r esour ces, t he St at e

“bear s an ‘ af f i r mat i ve dut y t o t ake t he publ i c t r ust i nt o

account . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Nat ’ l Audubon Soc’ y v. Super . Ct . , 658

P. 2d 709, 728 ( Cal . 1983) ) .

Wai āhol e I was an expl i ci t acknowl edgement by t hi s

cour t t hat t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne, as i ncor por at ed i nt o t he

Hawai ‘i Const i t ut i on, necessi t at es “a bal anci ng pr ocess” bet ween

t he const i t ut i onal r equi r ement s of pr ot ect i on and conser vat i on

of publ i c t r ust r esour ces, on t he one hand, and t he devel opment

and ut i l i zat i on of t hose r esour ces, on t he ot her . I d. at 142, 9

P. 3d at 454. Thi s bal anci ng pr ocess, however , exi st s i n a

f r amewor k demandi ng t hat “any bal anci ng bet ween publ i c and

pr i vat e pur poses [ must ] begi n wi t h a pr esumpt i on i n f avor of

publ i c use, access, and enj oyment . ” I d. The bur den of showi ng

t hat t he r equi si t e bal ance has been pr oper l y eval uat ed “i n l i ght

of t he pur poses pr ot ect ed by t he t r ust ” r est s on “t hose seeki ng

or appr ovi ng such uses. ” I d.




19

Because of t he const i t ut i onal st at ur e of t he St at e’ s

dut i es under t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne, t he Wai āhol e I cour t

descr i bed t he f ol l owi ng st andar d by whi ch t he St at e’ s act i ons

concer ni ng publ i c t r ust r esour ces ar e revi ewed on appeal :

“The dut i es i mposed upon t he st ate ar e the dut i es of at r ust ee and not si mpl y t he dut i es of a good busi nessmanager . ” J ust as pr i vat e t r ust ees ar e j udi ci al l yaccount abl e t o thei r benef i ci ar i es f or di sposi t i ons of t her es, so the l egi sl at i ve and execut i ve br anches are

j udi ci al l y account abl e f or t he di sposi t i ons of t he publ i ct r ust . The benef i ci ar i es of t he publ i c t r ust ar e not j ustpresent gener at i ons but t hose t o come. The check andbal ance of j udi ci al r evi ew pr ovi des a l evel of pr ot ect i onagai nst i mpr ovi dent di ssi pat i on of an i r r epl aceabl e r es.

I d. at 143, 9 P. 3d at 455 ( emphases added) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed)

( quot i ng Ar i z. Ct r . f or Law i n Pub. I nt er est v. Hassel l , 837

P. 2d 158, 168–69 ( Ar i z. Ct . App. 1991) ) .

The compel l i ng dut y of t he Stat e i s “t o consi der t he

cumul at i ve i mpact of exi st i ng and pr oposed di ver si ons on t r ust

pur poses[ , ] t o i mpl ement r easonabl e measures t o mi t i gat e t hi s

i mpact , i ncl udi ng t he use of al t er nat i ve sour ces, ” and t o pl an

and make deci si ons “f r om a gl obal , l ong- t er m per spect i ve. ” I d.

Di st i l l ed t o i t s essence, “t he [S] t at e may compr omi se publ i c

r i ght s i n t he r esour ce pur suant onl y t o a deci si on made wi t h a

l evel of openness, di l i gence, and f or esi ght commensur at e wi t h

t he hi gh pr i or i t y t hese r i ght s command under t he l aws of our

s tat e. ” I d.

Thi s cour t , i n I n r e Wai ‘ol a O Mol oka‘i , I nc. , 103

Hawai ‘i 401, 83 P. 3d 664 ( 2004) , hel d t hat t he St at e has a




20

cont i nui ng t r ust obl i gat i on t o “ensur e t he cont i nued

avai l abi l i t y and exi st ence of i t s wat er r esour ces f or pr esent

and f ut ur e gener at i ons. ” I d. at 431, 83 P. 3d at 694 ( quot i ng

Wai āhol e I , 94 Hawai ‘i at 139, 9 P. 3d at 451) . That case

i nvol ved, i nt er al i a, whet her a St at e agency’ s gr ant of a wat er

use per mi t was pr oper i n l i ght of anot her St at e agency’ s water

r eservat i on. I d. The cour t det er mi ned t hat t he agency’ s

f ai l ur e “t o r ender t he r equi si t e [ f i ndi ngs of f act ] and

[ concl usi ons of l aw] wi t h r espect t o whet her [ t he per mi t

appl i cant ] had sat i sf i ed i t s bur den as mandat ed by the [ St at e

Water] Code” was t ant amount t o a vi ol at i on of t he agency’ s

“publ i c t r ust dut y t o pr ot ect ” t he r eser vat i on of wat er r i ght s

at i ssue. I d. at 432, 83 P. 3d at 695.

The Wai ‘ol a O Mol oka‘i cour t al so i nt er l i nked t wo

const i t ut i onal l y based l egal pr i nci pl es: t he publ i c t r ust

doct r i ne and t he r i ght t o exer ci se Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and

t r adi t i ons. Accor di ng t o t he cour t , t he appl i cant was r equi r ed

t o pr ove t hat “t he pr oposed water use woul d not abr i dge or deny

t r adi t i onal and cust omar y nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s. ”7 I d. at 442,

83 P. 3d at 705. Because t he agency excl uded evi dence as t o t he

7 The Wai āhol e I cour t al so, consi st ent wi t h Hawai i ’ s l egalhi st or y, pr i or pr ecedent , and t he const i t ut i onal mandat e, “cont i nue[ d] t ouphol d t he exer ci se of Nat i ve Hawai i an and t r adi t i onal and cust omar y r i ght sas a publ i c t r ust pur pose. ” Wai āhol e I , 94 Hawai ‘i at 137, 9 P. 3d at 449( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .




21

adver se ef f ect of t he pr oposed wat er use on t he t r adi t i onal and

cust omar y Nat i ve Hawai i an gat her i ng r i ght s, t he cour t hel d t hat

t he agency f ai l ed t o “ef f ect i vel y bal anc[ e] [ t he] pr oposed

pr i vat e commerci al use of water agai nst an enumerated publ i c

t r ust pur pose, namel y t he pr ot ect i on of nat i ve Hawai i ans’

t r adi t i onal and cust omar y gat her i ng r i ght s, as mandat ed by

ar t i cl e XI I , sect i on 7 of t he Hawai ‘i Const i t ut i on. ”8 I d. at

443, 83 P. 3d at 706 ( emphasi s added) .

I n Kel l y v. 1250 Oceansi de Part ners, 111 Hawai ‘

i 205,

140 P. 3d 985 ( 2006) , t hi s cour t agai n expounded upon t he dut i es

i nher ent i n t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne. Ther e, we hel d t hat t he

dut i es under t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne bi nd not onl y the St at e

and i t s agenci es but al so t he sever al count i es of t hi s St at e.

See i d. at 224, 140 P. 3d at 1004. Pur suant t o t he agency’ s dut y

as a publ i c t r ust ee, and as “guar di an of t he wat er qual i t y i n

t hi s [ S] t at e, ” t he agency “must not r el egat e i t sel f t o t he r ol e

of a ‘ mer e umpi r e’ . . . but i nst ead must t ake t he i ni t i at i ve

i n consi der i ng, pr ot ect i ng, and advanci ng publ i c r i ght s i n t he

8 The cour t cl ar i f i ed, i n I n r e Cont est ed Case Hear i ng on Water

Use Per mi t Appl i cat i on Fi l ed by Kukui ( Mol okai ) , I nc. , 116 Hawai ‘i 481, 174P. 3d 320 ( 2007) , t hat i n cases wher e Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s f i gur e i n anagency’ s publ i c t r ust bal anci ng, t he bur den i s not on par t i es of Nat i veHawai i an ancest r y t o pr ove t hat t he pr oposed use woul d harm t r adi t i onal andcust omar y Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s; r at her, t he per mi t appl i cant s and t heagency ar e t he par t i es obl i gat ed t o j ust i f y the pr oposed use and t he appr ovalt her eof i n l i ght of t he t r ust pur pose of pr ot ect i ng Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s.I d. at 507- 09, 174 P. 3d at 346- 48.




22

r esour ce at ever y st age of t he pl anni ng and deci si onmaki ng

pr ocess. ” I d. at 231, 140 P. 3d at 1011 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Wai āhol e I , 94 Hawai ‘i at 143, 9 P. 3d at 456) . 9

I n I n r e ‘Īao Gr ound Wat er Mgmt . Ar ea Hi gh- Level Source

Wat er Use Per mi t Appl i cat i ons ( ‘Īao) , 128 Hawai ‘i 228, 287 P. 3d

129 ( 2012) , t hi s cour t f ound t hat , i n i nst ances wher e an agency

l acks dat a or i nf or mat i on t o di schar ge i t s dut i es pur suant t o

t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne, t he agency “must ‘ t ake t he

i ni t i at i ve’ t o obt ai n t he i nf or mat i on i t needs. Wher e t he

[ agency] ’ s deci si onmaki ng does not di spl ay ‘ a l evel of openness,

di l i gence, and f or esi ght commensur at e wi t h t he hi gh pr i or i t y

t hese r i ght s command under t he l aws of our st at e, ’ t he deci si on

cannot s t and. ” I d. at 262, 287 P. 3d at 163 ( quot i ng Wai ‘ol a O

Mol oka‘i , 103 Hawai ‘i at 422, 83 P. 3d at 685) .

Recent l y, t hi s cour t r ei t er at ed t he i ndependent nat ur e

of t he dut i es pur suant t o t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne i n Kauai

Spr i ngs, I nc. v. Pl anni ng Commi ssi on of Kaua‘i , 133 Hawai ‘i 141,

324 P. 3d 951 ( 2014) . I n t hat case, we obser ved t hat , “[ a] s t he

9 The dut y of t he agency does not cease af t er i t has engaged i n t he

r equi r ed bal anci ng of compet i ng i nt er est s i n t he cour se of eval uat i ng whethera water use permi t shoul d i ssue and i n determi ni ng whether a pr escr i bedmeasure under t he permi t compl i es wi t h t he l aw; r ather , t he agency has acont i nui ng dut y, even af t er t he i ssuance of t he per mi t , t o “ensur e that t hepr escr i bed measures [ under t he permi t ] are actual l y bei ng i mpl ement ed af t er at hor ough assessment of t he poss i bl e adver se i mpact s t he devel opment woul dhave on t he State’ s nat ur al r esour ces. ” 1250 Oceansi de Par t ners, 111 Hawai ‘iat 231, 140 P. 3d at 1011.




23

publ i c t r ust ar i ses out of a const i t ut i onal mandat e, t he dut y

and aut hor i t y of t he [ S] t at e and i t s subdi vi si ons t o wei gh

compet i ng publ i c and pr i vat e uses on a case- by- case basi s i s

i ndependent of st at ut or y dut i es and aut hor i t i es cr eat ed by the

l egi sl at ur e. ” I d. at 172, 324 P. 3d at 982.

B.

The publ i c t r ust doct r i ne under t he Hawai ‘i

Const i t ut i on, and t he pr i nci pl es t hat i t embodi es, appl i es t o

t he conservat i on l and- - t he summi t of Mauna Kea- - i nvol ved i n thi s

case. Thi s concl usi on i s suppor t ed by t he pl ai n l anguage of

Ar t i cl e XI , Sect i on 1, t he hi st or i cal cont ext under whi ch t hi s

pr ovi si on was r at i f i ed, and t hi s cour t ’ s pr ecedent s. 10

Const r uct i on of const i t ut i onal pr ovi si ons i s l ar gel y

gui ded by t he same pr i nci pl es t hat cour t s use i n i nt er pr et i ng

st at ut es. Because of t he exal t ed posi t i on t hat const i t ut i onal

pr ovi si ons occupy i n t he const el l at i on of l aws t hat oper at e i n

our St at e, “we have l ong r ecogni zed t hat t he Hawai ‘i Const i t ut i on

must be const r ued wi t h due regar d t o t he i nt ent of t he f r amer s

and t he peopl e adopt i ng i t , and t he f undament al pr i nci pl e i n

i nt er pr et i ng a const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on i s t o gi ve ef f ect t o

10 I t i s not ed t hat t he Boar d acknowl edged t he appl i cabi l i t y of t hepubl i c t r ust doctr i ne i n t hi s case: “I n assessi ng t he Proj ect and det er mi ni ngwhether t he cr i t er i a of [ t he Depar t ment of Land and Nat ur al Resour ces r ul es]have been sat i sf i ed, t he St at e must pr ot ect t he publ i c t r ust and thecust omar y and t r adi t i onal r i ght s and pr act i ces of nat i ve Hawai i ans. ”( Emphasi s added) .




24

t hat i nt ent . ” Hanabusa v. Li ngl e, 105 Hawai ‘i 28, 31, 93 P. 3d

670, 673 ( 2004) ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng Bl ai r v. Har r i s, 98

Hawai ‘i 176, 178–79, 45 P. 3d 798, 800–01 ( 2002) ) . Di vi ni ng

i nt ent , however , al ways st ar t s wi t h t he wor ds of t he

const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on, and i t i s an el ement ar y pr ecept t hat

“i f t he wor ds used i n a const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on ar e cl ear and

unambi guous, t hey ar e t o be const r ued as t hey ar e wr i t t en. ” I d.

( quot i ng Bl ai r , 98 Hawai ‘i at 179, 45 P. 3d at 801) . I t i s al so a

set t l ed canon t hat “t he words are pr esumed t o be used i n t hei r

nat ur al sense unl ess t he cont ext f ur ni shes some gr ound t o

cont r ol , qual i f y, or enl ar ge t hem. ” I d. at 31—32, 93 P. 3d at

673—74 ( quot i ng Bl ai r , 98 Hawai ‘i at 179, 45 P. 3d at 801) . Gi ven

t hat our const i t ut i onal pr ovi si ons exi st under one i nst r ument ,

const r uct i on of one pr ovi si on must be i n har mony “wi t h ot her

pr ovi si ons of t he i nst r ument . ” I d. at 32, 93 P. 3d at 674

( quot i ng Bl ai r , 98 Hawai ‘i at 179, 45 P. 3d at 801) . Fi nal l y, t he

ci r cumst ances under whi ch the pr ovi si on was adopt ed and t he

“hi st or y whi ch pr eceded i t ” i nf or m j udi ci al const r uct i on of t he

Hawai ‘i Const i t ut i on. I d. ( quot i ng Bl ai r , 98 Hawai ‘i at 179, 45

P. 3d at 801) .

Ar t i cl e XI , Sect i on 1 pr ovi des t hat “t he St at e and i t s

pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons shal l conser ve and pr ot ect . . . al l

nat ur al r esour ces, i ncl udi ng l and. ” Fur t her , “[ a] l l publ i c




25

nat ur al r esour ces ar e hel d i n t r ust by t he St at e f or t he benef i t

of t he peopl e. ” Haw. Const . ar t . XI , § 1. Thus, i t was t he

expr ess i nt ent of t he l egi sl at ur e t hat t he pr ot ect i ons af f or ded

by t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne extend t o one of our most pr eci ous

nat ur al r esour ces- - l and. A concl usi on t hat woul d excl ude publ i c

l ands f r om t he scope of t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne woul d be

cont r ar y t o t he expr ess st at ement s t hat al l publ i c nat ur al

r esour ces ar e hel d i n t r ust and nat ur al r esour ces i ncl ude l and.

Such a r esul t i s t o be avoi ded because, as i s t r ue i n const r ui ng

st at ut es, al l wor ds of a const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on must be gi ven

ef f ect , and “no cl ause, sent ence, or wor d shal l be const r ued as

super f l uous, voi d, or i nsi gni f i cant i f a const r uct i on can be

l egi t i mat el y f ound whi ch wi l l gi ve f or ce t o and pr eser ve al l

wor ds of t he st at ut e. ” Bl ai r , 98 Hawai ‘i at 179, 45 P. 3d at 801

( quot i ng Kel i i pul eol e v. Wi l son, 85 Hawai ‘i 217, 221, 941 P. 2d

300, 304 ( 1997) ) .

Thi s pl ai n l anguage i nter pret at i on i s ampl y support ed

by t he hi st or y and devel opment of t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne i n

t hi s St at e. As di scussed, l ands i n t he publ i c domai n have

al ways been hel d, f r om t he t i me of t he Hawai i an Ki ngdom t o t he

post - st at ehood er a, by the sover ei gn f or t he benef i t of t he

peopl e of Hawai ‘i at l ar ge, and t hi s ar r angement has al ways

r equi r ed t he sover ei gn, as a publ i c t r ust ee, t o pr ot ect and

mai nt ai n t hose l ands. Concl udi ng t hat t he f r amer s of t he 1978




26

Const i t ut i on i nt ended t o excl ude publ i c l ands f r om t he

pr ot ect i ons of t he publ i c t r ust i s not r econci l abl e wi t h t he

deep r oot s of t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne i n t hi s St at e, t he f act

t hat t he doct r i ne has been r epeat edl y reaf f i r med t hr oughout t he

St at e’ s hi st or y, and t hi s cour t ’ s unwaver i ng adher ence t o t he

val ues t hat t he doct r i ne encompasses. Such a concl usi on woul d

over l ook “t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch [ Ar t i cl e XI , Sect i on 1]

was adopt ed and t he hi st ory whi ch pr eceded i t . ” Hanabusa, 105

Hawai ‘i at 32, 93 P. 3d at 674 ( quot i ng Bl ai r , 98 Hawai ‘i at 179,

45 P. 3d at 801) . I ndeed, i f t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne wer e not

i nt ended by the f r amer s of t he 1978 Const i t ut i on t o cover l ands

i n t he publ i c domai n, t hey coul d have di savowed such a vi ew by

excl udi ng any ref er ences t o “l and” f r om t he expr ess l anguage of

Ar t i cl e XI , Sect i on 1. The f r amer s di d not do so but , i nst ead,

af f i r mat i vel y i ncl uded l and as a speci f i c exampl e of publ i c

“nat ur al r esour ces” cover ed by t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne.

Fi nal l y, t hi s cour t ’ s pr ecedent s suppor t t he

i nt er pr et at i on t hat t he publ i c tr ust doct r i ne under Ar t i cl e XI ,

Sect i on 1 appl i es to l ands i n t he publ i c domai n. As di scussed,

t hi s cour t hel d i n Zi mr i ng t hat al l l ands i n t he publ i c domai n

ar e wi t hi n t he publ i c t r ust , whi ch means t hat t he sover ei gn i s

obl i gat ed t o pr ot ect and mai nt ai n t hem and t o regul at e thei r

use. Zi mr i ng, 58 Haw. at 121, 566 P. 2d at 735 ( concl udi ng t hat

t he St at e hel d l ava ext ensi ons i n publ i c t r ust f or t he benef i t




27

of t he popul ace) . Addi t i onal l y, i n Mor i mot o v. Boar d of Land

and Nat ural Resources, 107 Hawai ‘i 296, 113 P. 3d 172 ( 2005) , t hi s

cour t i mpl i ci t l y concl uded t hat t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne under

Ar t i cl e XI , Secti on 1 appl i es t o conser vat i on di st r i ct l ands.

At i ssue i n t hat case was t he pr opr i et y of an agency’ s deci si on

t o appr ove a permi t t o upgr ade a r oad on t he i sl and of Hawai ‘i

t hat t r aver ses acres of conser vat i on di st r i ct l ands. I d. at

297- 98, 113 P. 3d at 173- 74. The ci r cui t cour t concl uded, i nt er

al i a, t hat t he Boar d’ s deci si on “d[ i d] not vi ol at e Ar t i cl e [ XI ] ,

Sect i on 1 of t he Hawai ‘i Const i t ut i onal Publ i c Tr ust Doctr i ne. ”

I d. at 301, 113 P. 3d at 177. I n addr essi ng t he appel l ant s’

cont ent i on t hat t he agency was r equi r ed t o “af f i r mat i vel y

pr ot ect publ i c r esour ces, i ncl udi ng nat ur al r esour ces, ” pur suant

t o the publ i c t r ust doct r i ne, we revi ewed t he ar gument s of t he

appel l ant s i n suppor t of t hi s cont ent i on and concl uded t hat t he

ar gument s wer e si mi l ar t o t hose chal l engi ng t he agency’ s al l eged

f ai l ur e t o f ol l ow i t s own admi ni st r at i ve r ul es- - ar gument s t hat

t he cour t had al r eady consi der ed and r ej ect ed; t hus, we

det er mi ned t hat t he ci r cui t cour t di d not er r i n concl udi ng t hat

t her e was no publ i c t r ust vi ol at i on on t he agency’ s par t . I d.

I mpor t ant l y, t he cour t di d not concl ude t hat t he publ i c t r ust

doct r i ne was not appl i cabl e t o l and.

Accor di ngl y, based on t he pl ai n l anguage of Ar t i cl e

XI , Sect i on 1, t he appl i cat i on of pr i nci pl es gui di ng t he




28

i nt er pr et at i on of const i t ut i onal pr ovi si ons, t he speci al hi st or y

of t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne i n t hi s St at e, and t hi s cour t ’ s

pr ecedent s i mpl i cat i ng t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne i n l and cases,

t he summi t ar ea of Mauna Kea, as s t at e conservat i on l and, i s

wi t hi n t he publ i c t r ust and ent i t l ed t o t he pr ot ect i ons t hat t he

publ i c t r ust doct r i ne pr ovi des.

C.

The Board’ s er r or i n t hi s case l i es i n approvi ng t he

per mi t bef or e maki ng speci f i c f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons on

whet her t he pr oposed use sat i sf i es al l r equi si t es of t he publ i c

t r ust doct r i ne. See Wai ‘ol a O Mol oka‘i , 103 Hawai ‘i at 432, 83

P. 3d at 695. By doi ng so, t he agency deci ded t he mer i t s of UH’ s

appl i cat i on wi t hout di schar gi ng i t s af f i r mat i ve dut y of

“consi der i ng, pr ot ect i ng, and advanci ng publ i c ri ght s i n t he

r esour ce at ever y st age of t he pl anni ng and deci si onmaki ng

pr ocess . ” 1250 Oceansi de Par t ners, 111 Hawai ‘i at 231, 140 P. 3d

at 1011 ( quot i ng Wai āhol e I , 94 Hawai ‘i at 143, 9 P. 3d at 456) .

That i s, t he Board i ssued t he per mi t wi t hout “‘ t ak[ i ng] t he

i ni t i at i ve’ t o obt ai n t he i nf or mat i on i t needs” i n or der t o

r each a wel l - consi der ed deci si on. ‘Īao, 128 Hawai ‘i at 262, 287

P. 3d at 163. Rel at edl y, t he Boar d f ai l ed t o pl ace on UH t he

const i t ut i onal bur den of “j ust i f y[ i ng] t he pr oposed . . . use i n

l i ght of t he t r ust pur poses. ” Kauai Spr i ngs, I nc. , 133 Hawai ‘i

at 173, 324 P. 3d at 984.




29

Accor di ngl y, t he Boar d “compr omi se[d] publ i c r i ght s i n

t he r esour ce” wi t hout adher i ng t o a deci si onmaki ng pr ocess

consi st ent wi t h “a l evel of openness, di l i gence, and f or esi ght

commensur ate wi t h t he hi gh pr i or i t y t hese r i ght s command under

t he l aws of our [ S] t at e. ” Wai āhol e I , 94 Hawai ‘i at 143, 9 P. 3d

at 455 ( emphasi s added) . Fur t her , t he Board’ s er r or was not

cur ed merel y by conduct i ng a cont est ed case hear i ng, t hr ough

whi ch f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons concer ni ng t he publ i c t r ust

doct r i ne wer e made, af t er t he per mi t had al r eady i ssued. Under

t he f act s of t hi s case, such a pr ocedur e- - whi ch may be vi ewed,

r i ght l y or wr ongl y, as an at t empt t o l egi t i mi ze a f or egone

concl usi on- - cannot be consi der ed per mi ssi bl e pur suant t o the

St at e’ s publ i c t r ust dut i es when deci si onmaki ng concer ni ng

publ i c- t rust resources i s i nvol ved. I d. ; cf . Ki l aki l a ‘O

Hal eakal ā v. Bd. of Land & Nat . Res. , 131 Hawai ‘i 193, 214, 317

P. 2d 27, 48 ( 2013) ( Acoba, J . , concur r i ng) ( r easoni ng t hat

“[ a] ny post hoc rat i onal e by t he agency t o j ust i f y i t s ear l i er

deci si on wi l l not const i t ut e a det er mi nat i on of [ t he per mi t

appl i cant ’ s] l egal r i ght s or pr i vi l eges” si nce t hose r i ght s had

al r eady been deci ded pur suant t o t he agency’ s gr ant of t he

per mi t ) .

Hence, t he Boar d vi ol at ed Ar t i cl e XI , Sect i on 1 of t he

Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on as a mat t er of l aw by deci di ng t he mer i t s of

UH’ s appl i cat i on bef or e conduct i ng a cont est ed case hear i ng i n




30

whi ch t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne, and t he obl i gat i ons i t i mposes

on t he St ate, coul d have been dul y consi dered. See Wai ‘ol a O

Mol oka‘i , 103 Hawai ‘i at 432, 83 P. 3d at 695 ( hol di ng t hat t he

agency f ai l ed t o di schar ge i t s publ i c t r ust obl i gat i ons by

gr ant i ng wat er use per mi t s wi t hout r ender i ng f i ndi ngs of f act s

and concl usi ons of l aw r egar di ng t he appl i cant ’ s bur den under

t he publ i c- t r ust bal anci ng f r amewor k) ; Wai āhol e I , 94 Hawai ‘i at

158, 9 P. 3d at 470.

III. Due Process Under Article I, Section 5

The not i on t hat an i ndi vi dual must be accor ded

suf f i ci ent pr ocedur al saf eguar ds bef or e bei ng depr i ved of a

“pr oper t y” i nt er est i s a cor ner st one of Hawai ʻi l aw. I n Agui ar

v. Hawai i Housi ng Aut hor i t y, 55 Haw. 478, 522 P. 2d 1255 ( 1974) ,

t hi s cour t expl ai ned t hat a cl ai m of due pr ocess r equi r es a t wo-

st ep i nqui r y: “( 1) i s t he par t i cul ar i nt er est whi ch t he cl ai mant

seeks t o pr ot ect by a hear i ng ‘ pr oper t y’ wi t hi n t he meani ng of

t he due pr ocess cl auses of t he f eder al and st at e const i t ut i ons,

and ( 2) i f t he i nt er est i s ‘ pr oper t y, ’ what speci f i c pr ocedur es

ar e r equi r ed t o pr ot ect i t . ” I d. at 495, 522 P. 2d at 1266. I n

t hat case, t he i ssue was “whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s’ i nt er est [ s] i n

cont i nui ng t o r ecei ve t he benef i t of l ow cost housi ng and hence

i n not payi ng asser t edl y er r oneous r ent i ncr eases [ ar e]

subst ant i al enough t o r equi r e agency hear i ngs pr i or t o t he




31

i mposi t i on of t he i ncr eases. ” I d. at 495, 522 P. 2d at 1267

( emphasi s added) . The cour t answer ed i n t he af f i r mat i ve,

r easoni ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s’ i nt er est s i n t he st at ut or y

benef i t of l ow- cost housi ng wer e so subst ant i al t hat t hey

const i t ut ed “‘ pr oper t y i nt er est [ s] ’ f or due pr ocess pur poses. ”

I d. at 496, 522 P. 2d at 1267. I n t hi s l i ght , t he cour t hel d

t hat ( 1) t he pl ai nt i f f s wer e ent i t l ed t o a hear i ng bef or e t he

st ate agency coul d i mpose r ent i ncr eases upon t hem, ( 2) t he

agency “must f ol l ow t he adj udi catory pr ocedur es of t he [ Hawai ʻi

Admi ni st r at i ve Pr ocedur e Act ( HAPA) ] pr i or t o i ncr easi ng r ent s

because of any pl ai nt i f f ’ s al l eged over i ncome st at us, ” and ( 3)

“[ a]ny admi ni st r at i ve bur den [ t hat f ol l owi ng HAPA may] i mpose on

t he [ agency] i s mor e t han of f set by the subst ant i al saf eguar ds

[ i t ] af f or d[ s] t o l ow- i ncome t enant s agai nst er r oneous r ent

i ncr eases whi ch may under mi ne t hose t enant s’ ver y abi l i t y t o

survi ve. ” I d. at 497—98, 522 P. 2d at 1267—68.

Wi t h t he r at i f i cat i on of Ar t i cl e I , Secti on 5 of t he

Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on i n 1978, due pr ocess pr i nci pl es wer e

r eaf f i r med by t he peopl e of t hi s St at e. As i s rel evant her e,

t hat pr ovi si on decl ar es t hat “[ n] o per son shal l be depr i ved of

l i f e, l i ber t y or pr oper t y wi t hout due pr ocess of l aw. ” Haw.

Const . ar t . I , § 5 ( emphasi s added) . Thi s cour t l at er

el abor at ed upon what const i t ut es a pr oper t y i nt er est i n Sandy

Beach Def ense Fund v. Ci t y Counci l of Honol ul u, 70 Haw. 361,




32

377, 773 P. 2d 250, 260- 61 ( 1989) . I n t hat case, t he appel l ant s

chal l enged t he i ssuance of a Speci al Management Ar ea use permi t

wi t hout t he agency f i r st conduct i ng a cont est ed case hear i ng,

r easoni ng t hat t he pr ocedur e was vi ol at i ve of const i t ut i onal due

pr ocess. I d. at 361, 773 P. 2d at 253. Thi s cour t expl ai ned

t hat a due pr ocess cl ai m must be gr ounded i n a pr opert y

i nt er est . I d. at 377, 773 P. 2d at 260- 61. “To have a pr oper t y

i nt er est i n a benef i t , a per son cl ear l y must have mor e t han an

abst r act need or desi r e f or i t . He must have more t han a

uni l at er al expect at i on of i t . He must , i nst ead, have a

l egi t i mat e cl ai m of ent i t l ement t o i t . ” I d. at 377, 773 P. 2d at

260 ( quot i ng Bd. of Regent s v. Rot h, 408 U. S. 564, 577 ( 1972) ) .

The Sandy Beach cour t expl ai ned t hat “[ t ] he basi c

el ement s of pr ocedur al due pr ocess of l aw r equi r e not i ce and an

opport uni t y t o be hear d at a meani ngf ul t i me and i n a meani ngf ul

manner bef or e gover nment al depr i vat i on of a si gni f i cant pr oper t y

i nt er est . ” I d. ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng Mat hews v. El dr i dge,

424 U. S. 319, 333 ( 1976) ; and N. Ga. Fi ni shi ng, I nc. v. Di –Chem,

I nc. , 419 U. S. 601, 605–06 ( 1975) ) . The cour t adopt ed t he

Mathews v. El dr i dge f r amework i n determi ni ng t he pr eci se

pr ocedur es r equi r ed t o compl y wi t h const i t ut i onal due pr ocess.

I d. Accor di ng t o t he cour t , sever al f act or s must f i gur e i n t he

bal anci ng pr ocess: “( 1) t he pr i vat e i nt er est whi ch wi l l be

af f ect ed; ( 2) t he r i sk of an er r oneous depr i vat i on of such




33

i nt er est t hr ough t he pr ocedur es act ual l y used, and t he pr obabl e

val ue, i f any, of addi t i onal or al t er nat i ve pr ocedur al

saf eguar ds; and ( 3) t he gover nment al i nt er est , i ncl udi ng t he

bur den t hat addi t i onal pr ocedur al saf eguar ds woul d ent ai l . ” I d.

( ci t i ng Mat hews, 424 U. S. at 335; and Si l ver v. Cast l e Mem’ l

Hosp. , 53 Haw. 475, 484, 497 P. 2d 564, 571 (1972) ) .

I n Pel e Def ense Fund v. Puna Geot hermal Vent ur e, 77

Hawai ʻi 64, 881 P. 2d 1210 ( 1994) , t hi s cour t r eaf f i r med t he

pr i nci pl e t hat “[ c] onst i t ut i onal due pr ocess pr ot ect i ons mandat e

a hear i ng whenever t he cl ai mant seeks t o pr ot ect a ‘ pr oper t y

i nt er est , ’ i n ot her wor ds, a benef i t t o whi ch t he cl ai mant i s

l egi t i mat el y ent i t l ed. ” I d. at 68, 881 P. 2d at 1214. That case

i nvol ved an appeal f r om a St at e agency’ s gr ant of an appl i cant ’ s

permi t s t o const r uct geot hermal and devel opment al wel l s and a

power pl ant . I d. at 66, 881 P. 2d at 1212. Thi s cour t f ound t wo

i nst ances i n whi ch a pr oper t y i nt er est i s consi der ed

suf f i ci ent l y subst ant i al so as t o t r i gger due pr ocess

pr ot ect i ons: ( 1) wher e an agency deni es an appl i cant ’ s proposed

pr oper t y use and ( 2) “where t he i ssuance of a per mi t i mpl i cat i ng

an appl i cant ’ s pr oper t y ri ght s adver sel y af f ect s t he

const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed r i ght s of ot her i nt er est ed per sons

who have f ol l owed t he agency’ s r ul es gover ni ng par t i ci pat i on i n

cont est ed cases. ” I d. at 68, 881 P. 2d at 1214 ( second emphasi s

added) . The f i r st avenue was not appl i cabl e because t he agency




34

appr oved t he appl i cant ’ s pr oposed pr oper t y use. See i d. The

second al t er nat i ve, on t he ot her hand, appl i ed because bot h of

i t s r equi r ement s wer e sat i sf i ed. See i d. Fi r st , cer t ai n

appel l ant s aver r ed or t est i f i ed t hat t hey wer e owner s of

pr oper t y adj acent t o t he ar ea wher e t he appl i cant engaged i n

const r uct i on act i vi t i es pur suant t o t he per mi t i ssued by t he

agency and t hat t hey had been det r i ment al l y af f ected by t hose

act i vi t i es. I d. at 70 & n. 14, 881 P. 2d at 1216 & n. 14. Second,

t hose appel l ant s f ol l owed t he pr ocedur es i mposed by t he agency

i n r equest i ng cont est ed case hear i ngs, i ncl udi ng t hose gover ni ng

t he submi ssi on of appl i cat i ons f or cont est ed cases pur suant t o

t he r ul es of t he agency. See i d. at 69, 881 P. 2d at 1215.

Recent l y, i n I n r e ʻĪao Gr ound Wat er Management Area

Hi gh- Level Sour ce Wat er Use Per mi t Appl i cat i ons ( ʻĪao) , 128

Hawai ʻi 228, 287 P. 3d 129 ( 2012) , t hi s cour t consi der ed whet her

t he exer ci se of t r adi t i onal and cust omar y Nat i ve Hawai i an

pr act i ces i s a pr oper t y i nt er est deser vi ng of due pr ocess

pr ot ect i ons. I d. at 241, 287 P. 3d at 142. Thi s cour t f ocused

i t s anal ysi s on t he second al t er nat i ve under Puna Geot her mal ,

whi ch woul d t r i gger due pr ocess pr otect i ons because t he agency

was consi der i ng t he i ssuance of a per mi t t hat coul d adver sel y

af f ect const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ected r i ght s of ot her i nt er est ed

par t i es. I d. at 240, 287 P. 3d at 141. Rel yi ng on Agui ar , t he

cour t emphasi zed “t hat ‘ a benef i t whi ch one i s ent i t l ed t o




35

r ecei ve by st at ut e const i t ut es a const i t ut i onal l y- pr ot ect ed

pr oper t y i nt er est . ’ ” I d. at 241, 287 P. 3d at 142 ( emphasi s

added) ( quot i ng Agui ar , 55 Haw. at 496, 522 P. 2d at 1267) .

Pr oceedi ng f r om t hi s pr emi se, t hi s cour t f ound t hat t he exer ci se

of t r adi t i onal and cust omar y Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s const i t ut es

a pr oper t y i nt er est because i t has “a st at ut or y basi s i n t he

water code. ” I d. at 241—42, 287 P. 3d at 142—43 ( di scuss i ng HRS

§§ 174C- 101 and 174C- 63) . Hence, because the water r esour ces

i mpl i cated i n t he per mi t gr ant ed by the agency af f ect ed t he

pr oper t y i nt er est of t he appel l ant s i n t he exer ci se of Nat i ve

Hawai i an t r adi t i onal and cust omar y pr act i ces, t he cour t f ound

t hat pur suant t o const i t ut i onal due pr ocess, t he agency was

r equi r ed t o conduct a hear i ng. I d. at 244, 287 P. 3d at 145.

I n t hi s case, under Puna Geot her mal , t he f i r st avenue

t hat t r i gger s due pr ocess prot ect i ons- - an agency’ s deni al of an

appl i cant ’ s pr oposed use- - i s i napposi t e because the Boar d

act ual l y appr oved UH’ s pr oposed use, and t he Boar d’ s deci si on

di d not di r ect l y adj udi cat e any pr oper t y i nt er est of t he

appel l ant s. Cf . Agui ar , 55 Haw. at 496, 522 P. 2d at 1267

( deci di ng whet her one i s ent i t l ed t o t he pr oper t y i nt er est of

l ow- r ent publ i c housi ng) . I nst ead, j ust l i ke ʻĪao, t hi s case

f al l s under t he second Puna Geot her mal al t er nat i ve f or f i ndi ng a

pr oper t y i nt er est i nasmuch as t he Boar d’ s i ssuance to UH of a

per mi t woul d af f ect t he appel l ant s’ exer ci se of Nat i ve Hawai i an




36

cust oms and t r adi t i ons. See ʻĪao, 128 Hawai ʻi at 240, 287 P. 3d

at 141. The onl y di f f er ence bet ween ʻĪao and t hi s case i s t he

venue i n whi ch Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons ar e bei ng

exer ci sed. Thus, j ust as t he exer ci se of t r adi t i onal and

cust omary Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s was f ound i n ʻĪao t o be a

pr oper t y i nt er est when perf or med i n wat er r esour ces, t he

quest i on i n t hi s case i s whet her t he exer ci se of t hese cust oms

and t r adi t i ons shoul d recei ve the same t r eat ment when perf ormed

on conser vat i on l and. See i d. at 241, 287 P. 3d at 142. Because

t he exer ci se of Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons on

conser vat i on l and has a st atut ory sour ce and because t he

appel l ant s i n t hi s case adher ed t o t he admi ni st r at i ve r ul es f or

a cont est ed case hear i ng i mposed by t he Boar d, t he r equi r ement s

of Puna Geot her mal wer e sat i sf i ed.

The st at utor y sour ce of t he appel l ant s’ ent i t l ement t o

exer ci se Nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s i s t he “Hawai i an usage except i on

t o t he adopt i on of t he Engl i sh common l aw” under HRS § 1- 1, 11

whi ch was i nt ended “t o avoi d r esul t s i nappr opr i at e t o t he i sl es’

i nhabi t ant s by per mi t t i ng t he cont i nuance of nat i ve

underst andi ngs and pr act i ces whi ch di d not unr easonabl y

i nt er f er e wi t h t he spi r i t of t he common l aw. ” Kal i pi v.

Hawai i an Trust Co. , 66 Haw. 1, 10, 656 P. 2d 745, 750—51 ( 1982) .

11 See supr a not e 3.




37

I n Kal i pi , t hi s cour t concl uded t hat t he Hawai i an usage

except i on i s “a vehi cl e f or t he cont i nued exi st ence of t hose

cust omary r i ght s whi ch cont i nued t o be pr act i ced and whi ch

wor ked no act ual har m upon t he r ecogni zed i nt er est s of ot her s. ”

I d. at 12, 656 P. 2d at 751- 52. I nasmuch as t he exer ci se of

Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons on the summi t of Mauna

Kea i s st at ut or i l y suppor t ed by HRS § 1- 1, i t i s a pr oper t y

i nt er est prot ect ed by const i t ut i onal due pr ocess. See ʻĪao, 128

Hawai ʻ

i at 241- 42, 287 P. 3d at 142—43.

The appel l ant s i n t hi s case al so adher ed t o t he

Boar d’ s admi ni st r at i ve r ul es wi t h r espect t o r equest i ng a

cont est ed case hear i ng. I n r el evant par t , Hawai ʻi Admi ni st r at i ve

Rul es ( HAR) § 13- 1- 28 ( 2009) pr ovi des, “When r equi r ed by l aw,

t he board shal l hol d a cont est ed case hear i ng upon i t s own

mot i on or on a wr i t t en pet i t i on of any government agency or any

i nt er est ed per son. ” Addi t i onal l y, t he Boar d’ s r ul es pr ovi de as

f ol l ows wi t h r espect t o t he i ni t i at i on of a cont est ed case

hear i ng:

( a) On i t s own mot i on, t he board may hol d a cont est ed casehear i ng. Ot her s must bot h r equest a cont est ed case andpet i t i on t he boar d t o hol d a cont est ed case hear i ng. An

oral or wr i t t en r equest f or a cont est ed case heari ng mustbe made t o t he boar d no l ater t han the cl ose of t he boar dmeet i ng at whi ch the subj ect matt er of t he request i sschedul ed f or boar d di sposi t i on. An agency or per son sor equest i ng a cont est ed case must al so f i l e ( or mai l apostmar ked) wr i t t en pet i t i on wi t h t he boar d f or a cont est edcase no l ater t han t en cal endar days af t er t he cl ose of t heboard meet i ng at whi ch t he mat t er was schedul ed f ordi sposi t i on. For good cause, t he t i me f or maki ng t he or al




38

or wr i t t en request or submi t t i ng a wr i t t en pet i t i on or bot hmay be wai ved.

HAR § 13- 1- 29 ( 2009) ( emphases added) .

Dur i ng t he Febr uar y 25, 2011 publ i c hear i ng f or t he

per mi t , t he appel l ant s made or al r equest s f or a cont est ed case

hear i ng. At t he concl usi on of t hat publ i c hear i ng, t he Boar d

deci ded t o hol d a cont est ed case hear i ng t hat woul d i nvol ve

par t i es who made ei t her an or al or wr i t t en r equest f ol l owed by

t he submi ssi on of a pet i t i on and t he payment of a f i l i ng f ee

wi t hi n t he t i mef r ame pr ovi ded by t he Boar d’ s admi ni st r at i ve

r ul es. The appel l ant s t her eaf t er f i l ed t hei r r espect i ve wr i t t en

pet i t i ons wi t hi n t he t en- day per i od f ol l owi ng t he cl ose of t he

Febr uar y 25, 2011 publ i c hear i ng. Thus, t he appel l ant s

“f ol l owed t he agency’ s r ul es gover ni ng par t i ci pat i on i n

contest ed cases. ” Puna Geot her mal , 77 Hawai ʻi at 68, 881 P. 2d at

1214; see HAR § 13- 1- 29; ʻĪao, 128 Hawai ʻi at 234- 35, 287 P. 3d at

135- 36 ( st at i ng t hat sever al at t endees at a publ i c hear i ng

r equest ed a cont est ed case hear i ng and f i l ed wr i t t en pet i t i ons

t o t hat ef f ect ) ; see al so Ki l aki l a ʻO Hal eakal ā v. Bd. of Land &

Nat . Res. , 131 Hawai ʻi 193, 211, 317 P. 3d 27, 45 ( 2013) ( Acoba,

J . , concur r i ng) ( di scussi ng how t he appel l ant i n t hat case

sat i sf i ed t he same admi ni st r at i ve r ul es i nvol ved i n t hi s case by

maki ng an or al r equest f or a cont est ed case hear i ng bef or e t he

cl ose of a publ i c hear i ng f ol l owed by the submi ssi on of a




39

wr i t t en pet i t i on wi t hi n t he t en- day per i od i mposed by the

rul es) .

I n vi ew of t he f act t hat t he appel l ant s’ exer ci se of

Nat i ve Hawai i an t r adi t i onal and cust omar y pr act i ces on the

summi t of Mauna Kea i s a propert y i nt erest under t he

const i t ut i onal due pr ocess f r amewor k, and because t hat pr oper t y

i nt er est coul d be adver sel y af f ect ed by UH’ s pr oposed act i on,

t he appel l ant s wer e ent i t l ed t o a cont est ed case hear i ng pr i or

t o bei ng depr i ved of t hei r pr oper t y i nt er est . Cf . Agui ar , 55

Haw. at 495- 96, 522 P. 2d at 1267 ( hol di ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s’

i nt er est i n l ow- cost housi ng was a pr oper t y i nt er est

“subst ant i al enough t o r equi r e agency hear i ngs pr i or t o t he

i mposi t i on of [ r ent ] i ncr eases” ( emphasi s added) ) .

The same concl usi on i s r eached under t he Mat hews

t hr ee- f act or bal anci ng t est , as adopt ed by t hi s cour t i n Sandy

Beach. The i nt er est i nvol ved, whi ch i s t he f i r st Mat hews

f act or , Sandy Beach, 70 Haw. at 378, 773 P. 2d at 261, i s t he

pr oper t y i nt er est of t he appel l ant s of Nat i ve Hawai i an ancest r y

t o pr act i ce Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons on the summi t

ar ea of Mauna Kea. The r i sk of er r oneous depr i vat i on of t hi s

pr oper t y i nt er est by vi r t ue of t he pr ocedur es f ol l owed by t he

Boar d- - t he second f act or , i d. - - was hi gh because t he mer i t s of

UH’ s appl i cat i on were summari l y deci ded wi t hout a pr ocess

ensur i ng t he pr oper pr esent at i on of evi dence and a t hought f ul




40

del i ber at i on. The pr ocedur e t hat t he Boar d used si mpl y f ai l ed

t o assess t he appel l ant s’ pr oper t y i nt er est i n l i ght of

count er vai l i ng consi der at i ons rel evant t o t he per mi t t i ng

pr ocess. Addi t i onal l y, t he f act t hat t he Boar d’ s admi ni st r at i ve

r ul es do not appear t o pr ovi de a pr ocedur al vehi cl e f or t he

Boar d t o r ever se i t s gr ant of a per mi t , i f i t wer e l at er f ound

t hat t he per mi t was i mpr oper l y gr ant ed, el evat ed t he r i sk of

er r oneous depr i vat i on.

Al so to be consi der ed under t he second f act or i s t he

pr obabl e val ue of addi t i onal or al t er nat i ve pr ocedur es. I d. An

al t er nat i ve pr ocedur e that was avai l abl e t o t he Boar d was t o

conduct a cont est ed case hear i ng pr i or t o gr ant i ng t he per mi t t o

UH. Thi s pr ocedur e woul d have al l owed t he Boar d t o r ecei ve

evi dence, i ncl udi ng t est i mony adduced by the par t i es, wei gh t he

pr obat i ve val ue of such evi dence, consi der ar gument s, engage i n

t hor ough del i ber at i on, and t her eaf t er make t hought f ul f i ndi ngs

of f act and concl usi ons of l aw based on t he evi dence. The

“pr obabl e val ue” of t hi s al t er nat i ve pr ocedur e i s consi der abl e,

especi al l y under t he f act s of t hi s case, wher e t he pr oper t y

i nt er est at st ake i s as pr of ound as t he exer ci se of Nat i ve

Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons. That i s, as compar ed t o t he

pr ocedur e t hat t he Boar d act ual l y f ol l owed, t hi s al t er nat i ve




41

pr ocedur e subst ant i al l y l essens t he r i sk of er r oneous

depr i vat i on. 12

Fi nal l y, t he bur den t hat t he al t er nat i ve pr ocedur e

pl aces on t he Boar d- - t he f i nal Mat hews f act or , i d. - - i s mi ni mal ,

especi al l y i n vi ew of t he f act t hat t he pr oper t y i nt er est

i mpl i cat ed i n t hi s case has const i t ut i onal under pi nni ngs. See

Haw. Const . ar t . XI I , § 7. 13 I t al so cannot be r easonabl y ar gued

t hat i t woul d have been bur densome f or t he Boar d t o hol d a

cont est ed case hear i ng bef or e i ssui ng t he per mi t si nce t he Boar d

act ual l y conduct ed such a hear i ng af t er t he i ssuance of t he

permi t . I n any event , what ever bur den t he Boar d must bear

because of a pr e- i ssuance cont est ed case hear i ng i s more t han

out wei ghed by t he pr otect i ons such pr ocedur e pr ovi des t o t he

appel l ant s’ const i t ut i onal l y r oot ed i nt er est i n exer ci si ng

Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons. Cf . Agui ar , 55 Haw. at

498, 522 P. 2d at 1268 ( bur den i mposed on t he agency by t he

12 Notabl y, cases have voi ced a pr ef er ence f or pr edepr i vat i onheari ngs whenever t hey ar e f easi bl e regar dl ess of t he mer i t s of apost depr i vat i on r emedy. See Zi nermon v. Bur ch, 494 U. S. 113, 132 ( 1990) ( “I nsi t uat i ons wher e the St at e f easi bl y can pr ovi de a pr edepr i vat i on hear i ngbef ore t aki ng pr opert y, i t gener al l y must do so regar dl ess of t he adequacy ofa postdepr i vat i on t ort r emedy to compensate f or t he t aki ng. ”) ; Cl evel and Bd.of Educ. v. Loudermi l l , 470 U. S. 532, 542 (1985) ; Memphi s Li ght , Gas & WaterDi v. v. Cr af t , 436 U. S. 1, 18 ( 1978) .

13 Cf . Agui ar , 55 Haw. at 496, 522 P. 2d at 1267 ( concl udi ng t hat apl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o a pr edepr i vat i on hear i ng bef or e bei ng r equi r ed t opay hi gher r ent f or l ow- cost publ i c housi ng) ; Si l ver , 53 Haw. 475, 486, 497P. 2d 564, 572 ( 1972) ( r equi r i ng a pr edepr i vat i on hear i ng bef ore deci di ngwhet her t o r enew a medi cal doct or ’ s pri vi l eges i n a f eder al l y f unded pr i vat ehospi t al ) . Bot h Agui ar and Si l ver i nvol ved pr oper t y r i ght s not r oot ed i n t heHawai ʻi Const i t ut i on.




42

pr ocedur es t hat t hey must f ol l ow “i s mor e t han of f set by the

subst ant i al saf eguar ds t hey af f or d t o l ow- i ncome t enant s agai nst

err oneous r ent i ncr eases whi ch may undermi ne t hose t enant s’ ver y

abi l i t y t o survi ve”) .

Accor di ngl y, t he Boar d shoul d not have gr ant ed the

per mi t bef or e hol di ng a cont est ed case hear i ng because t hat

pr ocedur e i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he pr ocedur al saf eguar ds

cont empl at ed by Ar t i cl e I , Sect i on 5 of t he Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on.

By deci di ng UH’ s appl i cat i on on t he mer i t s wi t hout t he benef i t

of a cont est ed case hear i ng, t he Boar d f ai l ed t o pr ovi de t he

pr ocedur al saf eguar ds t o whi ch t he appel l ant s wer e

const i t ut i onal l y ent i t l ed pr i or t o bei ng depr i ved of a pr ot ect ed

pr oper t y i nt er est , vi ol at i ng Ar t i cl e I , Sect i on 5 of t he Hawai ʻi

Const i t ut i on.

IV. Constitutional Responsibilities of an Agency

Al t hough t he power of a St ate agency i s del i neat ed by

st at ut e, an agency’ s st at ut or y dut i es must be per f or med i n a

manner t hat i s consi st ent wi t h t he Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on. 14 Thus,

t he agency must f unct i on i n accor dance wi t h bot h i t s gover ni ng

14 An agency i s a cr eat ur e of t he l egi sl at ur e, and t he scope of i t saut hor i t y i s speci f i cal l y del i neat ed by st at ut e. See Mar quet t e Cement Mf g.Co. v. FTC, 147 F. 2d 589, 592- 93 ( 7t h Ci r . 1945) ( emphasi zi ng t hat “Congr essi s t he cr eat or of al l . . . admi ni st r at i ve agenci es” and t hat agenci es’“j ur i sdi ct i on and aut hor i t y . . . i s conf i ned sol el y t o t hat whi ch Congr essbest ows”) .




43

st at utes and t he Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on. Wi t h r espect t o t he

Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on, an agency’ s obl i gat i on i s t wof ol d: t he

agency must not onl y avoi d i nf r i ngi ng upon pr ot ect ed r i ght s t o

t he ext ent f easi bl e, but i t al so must execut e i t s st at ut or y

dut i es i n a manner t hat f ul f i l l s t he St at e’ s af f i r mat i ve

const i t ut i onal obl i gat i ons. 15

I n ot her wor ds, t he aut hor i t y and obl i gat i ons of an

agency are necessar i l y ci r cumscr i bed and regul ated by t he Hawai ʻi

Const i t ut i on. See Czer ki es v. U. S. Dep’ t of Labor , 73 F. 3d

1435, 1441- 42 ( 7t h Ci r . 1996) ( st at i ng t hat “an admi ni st r at i ve

agency [ may not ] cl ai m t o recei ve f r om Congr ess by sheer

i nadver t ence a l i cense t o i gnor e t he Const i t ut i on”) ; Hennessey

v. I ndep. Sch. Di st . No. 4, 552 P. 2d 1141, 1145 ( Okl a. 1976)

( “Al l government al bodi es must r emai n wi t hi n bounds of t he

Const i t ut i on. ”) ; Ci t y of Modest o v. Modest o I r r i gat i on Di st . ,

110 Cal . Rpt r . 111, 114 ( Cal . Ct . App. 1973) ( hol di ng t hat st at e

agenci es “must submi t t o a const i t ut i onal mandat e”) . Hence, an

agency may not f ul f i l l i t s st at ut or y dut i es wi t hout r ef er ence t o

and appl i cat i on of t he r i ght s and val ues embodi ed i n t he

consti t ut i on.

15 The Hawai ʻi Const i t ut i on sets out many speci f i c mandat es t hat t heSt at e must f ul f i l l . For exampl e, Ar t i cl e XI I , Secti on 7 set s f or t h t heSt at e’ s obl i gat i on t o “r eaf f i r m[ ] ” and “pr ot ect” cer t ai n r i ght s of Nat i veHawai i ans.




44

As a rel at ed mat t er , an agency i s of t en i n t he

posi t i on of deci di ng i ssues t hat af f ect mul t i pl e st akehol der s

and i mpl i cat e const i t ut i onal r i ght s and dut i es. See I n r e ʻĪao

Gr ound Wat er Mgmt . Ar ea Hi gh- Level Source Wat er Use Per mi t

Appl i cat i ons ( ʻĪao) , 128 Hawai ʻi 228, 231, 287 P. 3d 129, 132

( 2012) ( deci di ng wat er use appl i cat i ons of sever al par t i es wi t h

a mul t i t ude of i nt er est s i n sever al wat er r esour ces) ; Ka Paʻakai

O KaʻAi na v. Land Use Comm’ n, 94 Hawai ʻi 31, 34, 7 P. 3d 1068,

1071 ( 2000) ( r ecl assi f i cat i on of appr oxi mat el y 1, 000 acr es of

l and f r om a conser vat i on di st r i ct t o an ur ban di st r i ct ) . As a

r esul t , an agency i s of t en t he pr i mar y pr ot ect or of

const i t ut i onal r i ght s and per haps i s i n t he best posi t i on t o

f ul f i l l t he St at e’ s af f i r mat i ve consti t ut i onal obl i gat i ons. 16

Cf . Save Our sel ves, I nc. v. La. Envt l . Cont r ol Comm’ n, 452 So.

2d 1152, 1157 ( La. 1984) ( hol di ng t hat “t he r i ght s of t he publ i c

must r ecei ve act i ve and af f i r mat i ve pr ot ect i on at t he hands of

t he” agency maki ng the deci si on ( emphasi s added) ) .

Consequent l y, an agency bear s a si gni f i cant r esponsi bi l i t y of

16 Thi s i s not t o say t hat an agency, l i ke t he Boar d i n t hi s case,must assume t hi s r ol e at al l t i mes. Gi ven t he var i ous power s t hat t he Boar d

wi el ds and t he dut i es t hat i t must f ul f i l l , t he Boar d’ s r ol e obvi ousl ychanges dependi ng on t he matt er , f act s, and ci r cumst ances pr esent ed t o i t .Cf . Save Our sel ves, I nc. v. La. Envt l . Cont r ol Comm’ n, 452 So. 2d 1152, 1157( La. 1984) ( r easoni ng t hat t he agency becomes “t he r epr esent at i ve of t hepubl i c i nt er est ” when act i ng “as t he pr i mar y publ i c t r ust ee of nat ur alr esour ces” ( emphasi s added) ) . The Boar d’ s rol e as def ender and enf orcer ofconst i t ut i onal r i ght s i s i nvoked wher e, as her e, an act i on or deci si on of t heagency i mpl i cat es cer t ai n const i t ut i onal r i ght s and val ues.




45

assur i ng t hat i t s act i ons and deci si ons honor t he const i t ut i onal

r i ght s of t hose di r ectl y af f ected by i t s deci si ons.

I n t hi s case, t he Boar d, whi ch heads t he Depar t ment of

Land and Nat ur al Resour ces, was asked t o per f or m i t s s t at ut or y

dut y t o consi der an appl i cat i on f or a per mi t t o bui l d on

conser vat i on l and. See HRS § 183C- 6 ( 2011) ( “The depar t ment

shal l r egul at e l and use i n t he conser vat i on di st r i ct by t he

i ssuance of per mi t s. ”) ; HRS § 171- 3( a) ( Supp. 2008) ( st at i ng

t hat t he depar t ment “shal l manage, admi ni st er , and exer ci se

cont r ol over , ” i nt er al i a, “publ i c l ands, t he wat er r esour ces,

ocean wat er s, navi gabl e st r eams, coast al ar eas ( excl udi ng

commer ci al har bor ar eas) , and mi ner al s and al l ot her i nt er est s

t her ei n and exer ci se such power s of di sposi t i on t her eof as may

be aut hor i zed by l aw”) . As r ecogni zed by t he Admi ni st r at or of

t he Of f i ce of Conservat i on and Coast al Lands, t he pr oposed use

of t he conser vat i on l and i mpl i cat es t he const i t ut i onal r i ght of

i ndi vi dual s of Nat i ve Hawai i an descent t o exer ci se t r adi t i onal

and cust omar y Nat i ve Hawai i an pr act i ces.

Under such f act s, t he r ol e of an agency i s not merel y

t o be a passi ve act or or a neut r al umpi r e, and i t s dut i es are

not f ul f i l l ed si mpl y by pr ovi di ng a l evel pl ayi ng f i el d f or t he

par t i es. See Save Our sel ves, I nc. , 452 So. 2d at 1157 ( “[ T] he

commi ssi on’ s r ol e as t he r epr esent at i ve of t he publ i c i nt er est

does not per mi t i t t o act as an umpi r e passi vel y cal l i ng bal l s




46

and st r i kes f or adver sar i es appear i ng bef or e i t . ”) . Rat her , an

agency of t he St at e must per f or m i t s st at ut or y f unct i on i n a

manner t hat f ul f i l l s t he St at e’ s af f i r mat i ve const i t ut i onal

obl i gat i ons. See, e. g. , Ka Paʻakai O KaʻAi na, 94 Hawai ʻi at 45, 7

P. 3d at 1082 ( pl aci ng “an af f i r mat i ve dut y on t he St at e and i t s

agenci es to pr eserve and pr ot ect t r adi t i onal and cust omar y

nat i ve Hawai i an r i ght s”) ; I n r e Wat er Use Per mi t Appl i cat i ons

( Wai āhol e I ) , 94 Hawai ‘i 97, 143, 9 P. 3d 409, 456 ( 2000)

( descr i bi ng t he st at e agency’ s af f i r mat i ve dut y of “consi der i ng,

pr ot ect i ng, and advanci ng publ i c r i ght s i n t he resour ce at ever y

st age of t he pl anni ng and deci si onmaki ng pr ocess”) . I n

par t i cul ar , an agency must f ashi on pr ocedur es t hat ar e

commensur at e t o t he const i t ut i onal st at ur e of t he r i ght s

i nvol ved, see, e. g. , Wai āhol e I , 94 Hawai ʻi at 143, 9 P. 3d at 455

( deci si ons i nvol vi ng publ i c ri ght s t o a publ i c- t r ust r esour ce

must be “made wi t h a l evel of openness, di l i gence, and f or esi ght

commensur ate wi t h t he hi gh pr i or i t y t hese r i ght s command under

t he l aws of our st at e”) , and pr ocedur es t hat woul d pr ovi de a

f r amewor k f or t he agency t o di scover t he f ul l i mpl i cat i ons of an

act i on or deci si on bef or e appr ovi ng or denyi ng i t , see, e. g. ,

Kauai Spr i ngs, I nc. v. Pl anni ng Comm’ n of Kauaʻi , 133 Hawai ʻi

141, 174- 75, 324 P. 3d 951, 984- 85 ( 2014) ( cr af t i ng an assi st i ve

f r amework t hat can gui de agenci es when consi der i ng t he

appl i cat i on of t he publ i c t r ust doct r i ne t o wat er r esour ces) .




47

I n l i ght of t he uni que posi t i on t hat an agency

occupi es, t he agency may be at t he f r ont l i ne of deci di ng i ssues

t hat i nvol ve var i ous i nt er est s t hat i mpl i cat e const i t ut i onal

r i ght s. Especi al l y i n i nst ances wher e an agency act s or deci des

mat t er s over whi ch i t has excl usi ve or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on, t hat

agency i s t he pr i mar y ent i t y t hat can and, t her ef or e, shoul d

consi der and honor st at e const i t ut i onal r i ght s i n t he cour se of

f ul f i l l i ng i t s dut i es. Fur t her mor e, t o t he ext ent possi bl e, an

agency must execut e i t s s t at ut or y dut i es i n a manner t hat

f ul f i l l s t he St at e’ s af f i r mat i ve obl i gat i ons under t he Hawai ʻi

Const i t ut i on. An agency i s not at l i ber t y t o abdi cat e i t s dut y

t o uphol d and enf orce r i ght s guarant eed by t he Hawai ʻi

Const i t ut i on when such r i ght s are i mpl i cat ed by an agency act i on

or deci si on. 17

V. Conclusion

Thi s case i l l ust r at es t he i nter weavi ng nat ure of t he

var i ous pr ovi si ons of our const i t ut i on. When r i ght s as i nt egr al

as t he exer ci se of Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons are

17 The non- del egabl e nat ur e of an agency’ s dut y t o pr ot ect and

enf or ce const i t ut i onal r i ght s onl y i nt ensi f i es t he i mpor t ant r ol e t hat anagency pl ays. See Ka Paʻakai O KaʻAi na, 94 Hawai ʻi at 51, 7 P. 3d at 1088( hol di ng t hat “t he del egat i on of t he pr otect i on and pr eser vat i on of nat i veHawai i an pr acti ces t o [ t he par t y pet i t i oni ng f or t he r ecl assi f i cat i on ofl and] was i nappr opr i at e”) . I n t hi s case, out si de of j udi ci al r evi ew, noot her ent i t y but t he Boar d can pr eser ve const i t ut i onal r i ght s i nvol ved i n t hepermi t t i ng of a pr oposed use of a conser vat i on l and. See HRS § 26- 15( a)( Supp. 2005) .




48

i mpl i cat ed by a pr oposed act i on, our const i t ut i on pr ovi des

sever al saf eguar ds t hat combi ne t o pr eserve t hose r i ght s.

I n t hi s case, t he Boar d was asked t o gr ant a per mi t t o

UH f or t he const r uct i on of an ast r onomi cal observat or y on t he

summi t of Mauna Kea, an ar ea sacr ed t o Nat i ve Hawai i ans. 18

Because t he pr oj ect coul d i nf r i nge upon t he const i t ut i onal r i ght

of Nat i ve Hawai i ans t o exer ci se thei r cust oms and t r adi t i ons,

t he guar ant ees of Ar t i cl e XI I , Sect i on 7, t he publ i c t r ust

obl i gat i ons of t he St at e under Ar t i cl e XI , Sect i on 7, and t he

due pr ocess pr ot ect i ons encompassed by Ar t i cl e I , Sect i on 5 wer e

al l t r i gger ed t o const i t ut i onal l y saf eguar d t he cont i nued

pr act i ce of Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons.

Under t he f or egoi ng const i t ut i onal pr ovi si ons and t he

pr ecedent s of t hi s cour t , t he Boar d’ s obl i gat i ons wer e t o

pr ot ect Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons t o t he extent

f easi bl e, t o ef f ectuat e t he val ues of t he publ i c t r ust , and t o

pr ovi de a pr ocedur e bef i t t i ng t he compel l i ng i nt er est s at st ake.

To per f or m t hese obl i gat i ons, t he Board was r equi r ed t o deci de

UH’ s appl i cat i on pur suant t o a deci si onmaki ng pr ocess t hat

i ncor por at es t he r i ght s, val ues, and dut i es embodi ed by t he

const i t ut i onal pr ovi si ons i nvol ved. I nst ead, t he Boar d f ai l ed

18 I t has been not ed t hat “[ i ] n Hawai i an cul t ur e, nat ur al andcul t ural r esour ces ar e one and t he same. ” Mauna Kea Sci ence Reserve Mast erPl an V- 1 (2000) .




t o conduct a cont est ed case hear i ng bef or e deci di ng t he mer i t s

of UH’ s appl i cat i on and summari l y gr ant ed t he r equest ed permi t

wi t hout dul y account i ng f or t he const i t ut i onal r i ght s and val ues

i mpl i cat ed. The Boar d act ed i n cont r avent i on of t he pr ot ect i ons

of Nat i ve Hawai i an cust oms and t r adi t i ons provi ded by Ar t i cl e

XI I , Secti on 7; Ar t i cl e XI , Secti on 7; and Ar t i cl e I , Secti on 5.

Accor di ngl y, as a mat t er of const i t ut i onal l aw, t he per mi t

i ssued by t he Boar d must be i nval i dat ed.

/ s/ Ri char d W. Pol l ack

/ s/ Mi chael D. Wi l son

I j oi n i n Par t I V of t hi s concur r i ng opi ni on.

/ s/ Sabr i na S. McKenna

Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Natural Resources

Documents

Transcript of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Board of Land and Natural Resources