|
Kaho'ohanohano v. State Page 2 of 46
<br /> NO. 26178
<br /> APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
<br /> (CIV. NO. 02-1-1001)
<br /> July 23, 2007
<br /> NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE TOWN,
<br /> IN PLACE OF DUFFY, J., RECUSED; AND MOON, C.J.,
<br /> DISSENTING, WITH WHOM LEVINSON, J., JOINS
<br /> OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA J.
<br /> We hold, in this appeal by Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees George Kahoohanohano (Kahoohanohano), Loren
<br /> Andrade (Andrade), Pauline Efhan (Efhan),Norma Caravalho (Caravalho), and the State of Hawaii Organization of
<br /> Police Officers (SHOPO) [collectively, Plaintiffs] and Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees Jackie
<br /> Ferguson-Miyamoto, Henry F. Beerman, Odetta Fujimori, Darwin J. Hamamoto, Pilialoha E. Lee Loy, Alton Kuioka,
<br /> Colbert M. Matsumoto, and Georgina Kawamura, in their official capacities as Trustees of the Employees' Retirement
<br /> System of the State of Hawaii (ERS) [collectively, Trustees], from the June 24, 2003 judgment of the first circuit
<br /> court (the court) in favor of Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee/Cross-Appellant State of Hawaii (the State) and
<br /> against Plaintiffs and Trustees, that(1) Plaintiffs lack standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages,
<br /> regarding Act 100 of the 1999 Hawaii legislative session, see 1999 Haw. Sess. L. Act 100, § 1 at 368 [hereinafter,
<br /> Act 100], as codified under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 88-107 (Supp. 2006), (2) Trustees have standing to
<br /> seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the court regarding Act 100, (3)the arguments raised by the State as to
<br /> Trustees concerning ripeness, mootness, the political question doctrine, sovereign immunity, and the statute of
<br /> limitations are unpersuasive, (4) Act 100 violates article XVI, section 2 of the Hawaii Constitutions which prohibits
<br /> the impairment of accrued benefits of ERS members, inasmuch as (a)the Proceedings of the 1950 Constitutional
<br /> Convention of Hawaii indicate that article XVI, section 2 was intended to ensure that the State and local governments
<br /> provide a sound retirement system for their employees; (b)the proceedings sought to confirm that the retirement
<br /> system would fulfill its obligations into the future; (c) necessarily implied in article XVI, section 2 prohibiting
<br /> impairment of accrued benefits is the protection of the sources for those benefits; (d) Act 100 retroactively divested
<br /> the ERS of$346.9 million of employer contributions for 1997, 1998, and 1999, thereby eliminating the sources used
<br /> to fund constitutionally protected "accrued benefits"; and (e) Act 100 undermined the retirement system's continuing
<br /> security and integrity; (5) article XVI, section 2 of the Hawaii Constitution is patterned after the New York system,
<br /> and New York case law similarly requires that the sources of ERS benefits be protected; and (6) other relevant
<br /> jurisdictions hold similarly. Plaintiffs also challenge the court's June 24, 2003 order granting summary judgment in
<br /> favor of the State and denying Plaintiffs' two motions for partial summary judgment that were filed on October 1,
<br /> 2002.
<br /> Accordingly, as to Plaintiffs, the court's June 24, 2003 final judgment entered in favor of the State and against the
<br /> Plaintiffs is remanded to the court with instructions to enter an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim for lack of
<br /> jurisdiction.
<br /> http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2007/26178.htm 8/12/2008
<br />
|