Opinion ID: 870682
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpreting the Hawai`i Constitution

Text: In interpreting constitutional provisions: [W]e have long recognized that the Hawai`i Constitution must be construed with due regard to the intent of the framers and the people adopting it, and the fundamental principle in interpreting a constitutional provision is to give effect to that intent. Hirono v. Peabody, 81 Hawai`i 230, 232, 915 P.2d 704, 706 (1996) (citation omitted). This intent is to be found in the instrument itself. State v. Kahlbaun, 64 Haw. 197, 201, 638 P.2d 309, 314 (1981). As we recently reiterated in State of Hawai`i, ex rel. Bronster v. Yoshina, 84 Hawai`i 179, 932 P.2d 316 (1997), [t]he general rule is that, if the words used in a constitutional provision ... are clear and unambiguous, they are to be construed as they are written. Id. [at 186], 932 P.2d [at] 323 (quoting Blair [ v. Cayetano ], 73 Haw. [536,] 543, 836 P.2d [1066,] 1070, [(1992) ] (citation omitted)). In this regard, the settled rule is that in the construction of a constitutional provision the words are presumed to be used in their natural sense unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge them. Pray v. Judicial Selection Comm'n, 75 Haw. 333, 342, 861 P.2d 723, 727 (1993) (citation, internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted). Moreover, a constitutional provision must be construed in connection with other provisions of the instrument, and also in the light of the circumstances under which it was adopted and the history which preceded it[.] Carter v. Gear, 16 Haw. 242, 244 (1904), affirmed, 197 U.S. 348, 25 S.Ct. 491, 49 L.Ed. 787 (1905). In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai`i 97, 131, 9 P.3d 409, 443 (2000) (brackets in the original) (quoting Hawaii State AFL-CIO v. Yoshina, 84 Hawai`i 374, 376, 935 P.2d 89, 91 (1997)).