Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Hcdch

177 P.3d 884

117 Hawai'i 174

OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS, Rowena Akana, Haunani Apoliona, Dante Carpenter, Donald Cataluna, Linda Dela Cruz, Colette Machado, Boyd P. Mossman, Oswald Stender, and John Waihe`e, IV, in their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Pia Thomas Aluli, Jonathan Kamakawiwo`ole Osorio, Charles Ka'ai'ai, and Keoki Maka Kamaka Ki`ili, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVEOPMENT CORPORATION OF HWAN (HCDCH), Robert J. Hall, in his capacity as Acting Executive Director of HCDCH, Charles Sted, Chair, Stephanie Aveiro, Francis L. Jung, Charles King, Lillian B. Koller, Betty Lou Larson, Theodore E. Liu, Travis Thompson, Taiaopo, Tuimaleialiifano, Members of the Board of Directors of HCDCH, State of Hawai`i, and Linda Lingle, in her capacity as Governor, State of Hawaii, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 25570.

Supreme Court of Hawaii.

January 31, 2008.

Sherry P. Broder, Honolulu, Jon M. Van Dyke, and Melody MacKenzie, on the briefs, for plaintiffs-appellants Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

William Meheula (of Winer Meheula & Deyens) and Hayden Aluli, Honolulu, on the briefs, for individual plaintiffs-appellants Aluli, et al.

William J. Wynhoff and Sonia Faust, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, for defendants-appellees.

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, and ACOBA, JJ.; and Circuit Judge CHAN, in Place of DUFFY, J., Recused.

Opinion of the Court by MOON, C.J.

Two sets of plaintiffs-appellants—(1) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and its Board of Trustees [hereinafter, collectively, the OHA plaintiffs] and (2) Pia Thomas Aluli, Jonathan Kamakawiwo`ole Osorio, Charles Ka'ai`ai, and Keoki Maka Kamaka [hereinafter, collectively, the individual plaintiffs and, together with the OHA plaintiffs, collectively, the plaintiffs] appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's January 31, 2003 final judgment,¹ entered pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 54(b) (2007).² Following a jury-waived trial, the trial court found in favor of defendants-appellees State of Hawaii (State), the Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii, and the executive director and members of the board of directors of the HCDCH,³ as well as Linda Lingle, in her capacity as Governor of the State [hereinafter, collectively, the defendants] and against the plaintiffs.

Briefly stated, the instant action arises from the defendants' efforts in the mid-1990s to transfer certain parcels of ceded lands to private entrepreneurs for the purpose of residential development. On August 11, 1995, the plaintiffs filed suit, seeking an injunction against the defendants from selling or otherwise transferring to third parties two specific parcels of ceded lands located on the islands of Maui and Hawai`i,⁴ as well as any ceded lands from the public lands trust. Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the State was not authorized to alienate ceded lands from the public lands trust or, if the trial court ruled the State was so authorized, a declaration that (2) such alienation would not limit the claims of native Hawaiians to the ceded lands.

On December 5, 2002, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrines of: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) waiver and estoppel; and (3) justiciability-specifically, political question, ripeness, and the mandate against advisory opinions., Nevertheless, the trial court also concluded that the State had the express authority to alienate ceded lands from the public lands trust. An HRCP Rule 54(h) judgment was, thereafter, entered on January 31, 2003, and the plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, both sets of plaintiffs challenge the aforementioned determinations made by the trial court. Additionally, the OHA plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in making several evidentiary rulings.

For the reasons discussed infra, we vacate the January 31, 2003 judgment and remand this case to the circuit court with instructions to issue an order granting the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the defendants from selling or otherwise transferring to third parties (1) the parcel of ceded land on Maui and (2) any ceded lands from the public lands trust until the claims of the native Hawaiians to the ceded lands has been resolved.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Historical Background

The issues presented in this case have their genesis in the historical events that led to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the surrender of 1.8 million acres of crown, government, and public lands to the United States, the admission of Hawaii as a state of the Union, and the creation of OHA and the public lands trust. See Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. State, 110 Hawai`i 338, 340-42, 133 P.3d 767, 769-71 (2006) [hereinafter, OHA II ]; Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. State, 96 Hawai`i 388, 389-92, 31 P.3d 901, 902-05 (2001) [hereinafter, OHA I ]; Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 585-87, 837 P.2d 1247, 1254-55 (1992); and Trs. of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Yamasaki, 69 Haw. 154, 159-65, 737 P.2d 446, 449-53 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 898, 108 S.Ct. 234, 98 L.Ed.2d 192 (1987); see also Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 501, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000).

As a condition of its admission into the Union, the State of Hawaii agreed to hold certain lands granted to the State by the United States in a public land trust for five purposes [.] See Admission Act of March 18, 1959, Pub.L. No. 86-3, § 5, 73 Stat. 4, reprinted in, [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), vol. 1 at § 5 of the Admissions Act].

OHA I, 96 Hawai`i at 390, 31 P.3d at 903 (emphasis added). The aforementioned five purposes are specifically delineated in section 5(f) of the Admission Act, which provides in relevant part:

The lands granted to the State of Hawaii by subsection (b) of this section and public lands retained by the United States under subsections (c) and (d) and later conveyed to the State under subsection (e), together with the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of any such lands and the income therefrom, shall be held by said State as a public trust [ (1) for the support of the public schools and [ (2) other public educational institutions, [ (3) ] for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended,[⁵ (4) ] for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible for the making of public improvements, and [ (5) ] for the provision of lands for public use. Such lands, proceeds, and income shall be managed and disposed of for one or more of the foregoing purposes in such manner as the constitution and laws of said State may provide, and their use for any other object shall constitute a breach of trust for which suit may be brought by the United States.

(Emphasis added.) The management and administration of the ceded lands subject to the section 5(f) trust, i.e., the public lands trust, is vested in the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), pursuant to HRS § 171-3 (Supp.2006). See also Pele Defense Fund, 73 Haw. at 586-87, 837 P.2d at 1254. * * *

In 1978, the people of Hawaii clarified the State's trust obligation to native Hawaiians during a Constitutional Convention, as set forth in various provisions of the Hawai`i Constitution, including article XII, sections 4 through 6, ... wherein OHA was created and charged with managing proceeds derived from the ceded lands and designated for the benefit of native Hawaiians. Additionally, article XVI, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution requires the State to enact legislation regarding its trust obligations. Thus, in 1979, legislation was enacted that set forth the purposes of OHA and described the powers and duties of the trustees.... 1979 Haw. Sess. L. Act 196, § 2 at 398-99, § 8 at 406 (codified at HRS chapter 10)[.] In 1980, the legislature amended HRS chapter 10 by adding HRS § 10-13.5, which provided that "twenty per cent of all funds derived from the public land trust shall be expended by OHA for the purposes of this chapter." ... 1980 Haw. Sess. L. Act 273, § 1 at 525[.⁶]

OHA II, 110 Hawai`i at 340-41, 133 P.3d at 769-70 (citations, original brackets, and ellipsis omitted) (emphasis in original).⁷

Moreover, in 1993, the year that marked the one-hundredth anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, both houses of Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii [hereinafter, the Apology Resolution], which was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton on November 23, 1993 as Public Law No. 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510 (1993). The Apology Resolution provides, in its entirety, as follows:

Joint Resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to [n]ative Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Whereas, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the [n]ative Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion;

Whereas[,] a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first King of Hawaii;

Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;

Whereas[,] the Congregational Church (now known as the United Church of Christ), through its American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, sponsored and sent more than 100 missionaries to...