Opinion ID: 1451125
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hearing required by law

Text: According to HRS § 91-1(5), a discretionary hearing cannot be a contested case because it fails to meet the required by law test. See Bush, 76 Hawai`i at 134-35, 870 P.2d at 1278-79. The parties do not dispute that public hearings held by the DOH were not required by statute or agency rule. [8] Consequently, the remaining question is whether the hearings were required by constitutional due process. See id. at 135-36, 870 P.2d at 1279-80. Constitutional due process protections mandate a hearing whenever the claimant seeks to protect a property interest, in other words, a benefit to which the claimant is legitimately entitled. Id. at 136, 870 P.2d at 1280 (citing Aguiar v. Hawaii Housing Authority, 55 Haw. 478, 495, 522 P.2d 1255, 1267 (1974), and Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council, 70 Haw. 361, 377, 773 P.2d 250, 260 (1989)). [9] The dispositive issue, therefore, is whether [PGV's] interest in [obtaining an ATC permit] ... constitutes a `property' interest such that the agency hearing was a `contested case' pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a). Bush, 76 Hawai`i at 136, 870 P.2d at 1280. PGV itself asserts that a [contested case] is required when property interests, such as PGV's use of its project site, are implicated. PGV is correct with respect to the agency's denial of a proposed property use. See supra note 8 (quoting HRS § 342-6(c)). Furthermore, as a matter of constitutional due process, an agency hearing is also required where the issuance of a permit implicating an applicant's property rights adversely affects the constitutionally protected rights of other interested persons who have followed the agency's rules governing participation in contested cases. See infra sections II.B.2.b. and c.; cf. Bush, 76 Hawai`i at 136, 870 P.2d at 1280 (holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims of persons aggrieved by a final agency decision involving third party agreements because the subject matter of the hearing did not concern property interests under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and the HAR). The public hearings held by the DOH were proceedings in which PGV sought to have the legal rights, duties or privileges of land in which it held an interest declared over the objections of other landowners and residents of Puna. Mahuiki v. Planning Comm'n, 65 Haw. 506, 513, 654 P.2d 874, 879 (1982) (concluding that this characteristic is an obvious element of a contested case hearing); see also Town v. Land Use Comm'n, 55 Haw. 538, 548, 524 P.2d 84, 91 (1974) (holding that adjacent property owner has a property interest in the amendment of a district boundary). Thus, the DOH hearings were contested case[s] because they were proceeding[s] in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties were required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing. HRS § 91-1(5).