Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 16 No. 07
• Publication year: 2012

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Administrative

Department of Envtl. Serv. v. Land Use Comm'n, et al., No. SCAP-10-0000157, May 4, 2012 (Duffy, J.). This case arises from the 2008 application of the Department of Environmental Services, City and County (DES) for a special use permit to expand the existing Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill (Landfill). The Land Use Commission (LUC) approved the permit subject to, inter alia, a condition prohibiting Landfill from accepting municipal solid waste (or any other waste besides ash and residue from H-Power) after July 31, 2012. The validity of this condition is the sole issue raised on appeal.

The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the condition was inconsistent with the evidence shown in the record and not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, because the LUC's approval of the permit was expressly given "subject to" the LUC's imposition of the condition, a condition that appears to be material to the LUC's approval, the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the matter to the LUC.

Alohacare v. Dep't of Human Serv., No. SCWC-29630, May 11, 2012 (Acoba, J.; Recktenwald, C.J. and Nakayama, J., concurring and dissenting in part). The Hawaii Supreme Court held that: (1) Petitioner, a bidder for a health and human services contract under Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103F, may not appeal the denial of a contract award under the procedures set forth in Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103D that afford judicial review for bidders denied protests; (2) however, as construed, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103F did not prohibit judicial review of the administrative denial of such matters and review may be afforded under the declaratory judgment statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 632; (3) review and denial of a bidder's protest by Respondent as the purchasing agency and subsequent denial of a request for reconsideration by the chief procurement officer housed in a different executive agency did not assuage separation of powers concerns between the executive and judicial branches of government because review is accomplished only in the executive branch of government; and (4) Petitioner was not denied the constitutional rights of due process or equal protection by Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103F, inasmuch as judicial review could be obtained by way of a declaratory judgment action.

Recktenwald, C.J. and Nakayama, J. concurred in the majority's conclusion that Petitioner could not seek review of its procurement protest pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103D and that Petitioner did not have a property interest in the contract at issue that implicated due process protections. However, the dissent did not agree with the majority's conclusion that agency decisions on protests regarding the procurement of health and human services are reviewable pursuant to the declaratory judgment statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 632-1. Instead, the dissent would hold that the legislature clearly intended to preclude judicial review of these protest decisions under Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103F and that preclusion of judicial review did not raise separation of powers concerns in the circumstances presented here.

Alakai Na Keiki, Inc. v. Matayoshi, No. SCWC-29742, May 11, 2012 (Acoba, J.; Recktenwald, C.J. and Nakayama, J., concurring and dissenting in part). The Hawaii Supreme Court held that decisions of administrative officers of the Department of Education (DOE) to reject the proposal of Petitioner that responded to a request for proposals to provide health and human services under contracts pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103F are subject to judicial review under the circumstances of this case. In so holding, the Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that: (1) as construed, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103F is not unconstitutional for violating the doctrine of separation of powers because although the DOE, in interpreting and applying provisions of Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103F and in deciding disputes to which it is a party exercises aspects of judicial power, its decisions are subject to judicial review under the declaratory judgment statute; (2) Petitioner's request for a declaratory judgment was moot to the extent the subject contracts were awarded and their terms expired; (3) Petitioner's claim for alleged negligence by the DOE in evaluating Petitioner's proposal and in deciding the dispute with Petitioner is barred under Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 662 because the DOE's conduct herein was not analogous to a "recognized claim for relief against a private person." Kahoohanohano v. State, 117 Hawaii 262, 282, 178 P.3d 538, 558 (2008); and (4) Petitioner's claim for injunctive relief, premised on the DOE's alleged faulty administration of the contract process, was moot inasmuch as the Hawaii Supreme Court interpreted such process in Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 103F as subject to judicial...