2007-07-23_George_Kahoohanohano_et_al_v._State_of_Hawaii_et_al_-_Opinion_of_the_court_by_Justice_Acoba

Home

Kaho'ohanohano v. State Page 18 of 46 Kemp v. State of Hawaii Child Support Enforcement Agency, 111 Hawaii 367, 385, 141 P.3d 1014, 1032 (2006) (emphases added). Because the State argues only that Trustees' claims for declaratory relief are moot, we address only that contention. It has been noted that the dispositive question under HRS § 632-1 (1993), authorizing actions for declaratory judgment, is "whether'the court is satisfied also that a declaratory judgment will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.' This is a question of law." Island Ins. Co. v. Perry, 94 Hawaii 498, 502, 17 P.3d 847, 851 (App. 2000) (quoting HRS § 632-1). Further, "[i]n determining whether parties still retain sufficient interests and injury as to justify the award of declaratory relief, the question is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant a declaratory judgment." United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 v. Yogi, 101 Hawaii 46, 57, 62 P.3d 189, 200 (2002) (Acoba, J., concurring) (quoting Super Tire Eng'g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 122 (1974) (other citation omitted)) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted). As a matter of law, there manifestly remains a substantial controversy in this case and "'a declaratory judgment will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding."' Perry, 94 Hawaii at 502, 17 P.3d at 851 (quoting HRS § 632-1). As noted above, Trustees requested, inter alia, declarations that Act 100 violates article XVI, section 2 and that future "skimming" will also be in violation of the constitution. Specifically, Trustees requested a declaration that, under[a]rticle XVI,section 2 of the Hawaii Constitution and applicable law,the State and its officers and agents are prohibited from skimming the ERS'investment earnings and from taking any other or further action that(a)will diminish,impair,or otherwise obligate the ERS'actuarial investment earnings;or(b)will reduce the [e]mployers'periodic contributions as determined by the [Trustees'] actuary in accordance with[c]hapter 88 and sound actuarial practice;or(c)otherwise will impair the contractual rights of the members L] (Emphasis added.) Trustees also alleged in their complaint that through the enactment of Act 100, the State had unlawfully "diminished and impaired" the ERS funds: In retroactively diverting the 1997 and 1998 investment earnings from the ERS to the [State and Counties],the State unlawfully diminished and impaired the ERS funds;unlawfully denied the members the protection of the funds to which they are entitled as a matter of law;and unlawfully interfered with and impaired the discretion of the [Trustees]in the investment and reinvestment of the funds of the ERS. Thus, the implementation of Act 100 does not preclude the injuries alleged in Trustees' claims from continuing to occur. XXVII. Further, this case falls within the "public interest" exception to the mootness doctrine. As this court has stated, "when the question involved affects the public interest and an authoritative determination is desirable for the guidance of public officials, a case will not be considered moot." Slupecki v. Admin. Dir. of Courts, State of Hawaii, 110 Hawaii 407, 409 n.4, 133 P.3d 1199, 1201 n.4 (2006) (citations omitted). "Among the criteria . . . are [(1)] the public or private nature of the question presented, [(2)] the desirability of an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers, and [(3)] the likelihood of future recurrence of the question[.]" Yogi, 101 Hawaii at 58, 62 P.3d at 201 (Acoba, J., concurring) (quoting Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381, 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968)). As to the first prong, there is alleged a matter of public interest at stake. As Plaintiffs argue, Act 100 "increased the [ERS'] unfunded liability, increasing the burden that is passed on to future generations of taxpayers and thus [made] it more likely that, as the employer contributions become more onerous for State and county governments, there will be further diversions or deferrals of contributions." Additionally, because all state and county employees obtain membership in the system upon employment, this involves a significant number of people. Thus, there is a matter of public interest sufficient to meet the first prong of the test. See id. (Acoba, J., concurring) (concluding that "[u] doubtedly, the public interest [was] involved" where plaintiffs included four unions representing 48,000). As to the second prong, it is obvious that determination of the matter would assist public officers in the future. Id. at 58, 62 P.3d at 201 (Acoba, J., concurring). Plainly, a decision in this case will assist executive officers and legislators http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2007/26178.htm 8/12/2008