Opinion ID: 2514143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relevant Subsequent History

Text: Following the completion of briefing in the instant appeal, the State notified this court that Governor Benjamin Cayetano had signed Act 329 into law on June 30, 1997. See 1997 Haw. Sess. L. Act 329, at 956. Section 2 of Act 329 (codified at HRS § 10-13.3 (Supp.2000)) added a new section to Chapter 10 that reads: Interim revenue. Notwithstanding the definition of revenue contained in this chapter and the provisions of section 10-13.5, and notwithstanding any claimed invalidity of Act 304, Session Laws of Hawaii 1990, the income and proceeds from the pro rata portion of the public land trust under article XII, section 6 of the state constitution for expenditure by the office of Hawaiian affairs for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians for each of fiscal year 1997-1998 and fiscal year 1998-1999 shall be $15,100,000. 1997 Haw. Sess. L. Act 329, at 958. In section 1 of Act 329, the legislature acknowledges the instant appeal and attempts to establish a mechanism ... for the resolution of all outstanding issues between the executive and legislative branches and [OHA] outside of the litigation process and which involves representatives of each. 1997 Haw. Sess. L. Act 329, at 957. Further, section 1 of Act 329 states: It is in the public interest that the relevant issues relating . . . but not limited to issues currently under litigation between the state and [OHA], be addressed within and remain under the control of the executive and legislative branches of state government as essentially political questions within the spirit of the Supreme Court of Hawaii's opinion in Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Yamasaki, 69 Haw. 154 [737 P.2d 446] (1987).[ [6] ] 1997 Haw. Sess. L. Act 329, at 957. The State essentially contends that section 1 of Act 329, effective July 1, 1997, removes this case from judicial scrutiny because it confirms the Legislature's intent that disputes between OHA and the State be resolved by the Legislature and not in the courts. Another subsequent development has become relevant to this appeal. On December 10, 1997, the State, pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(j) (1995), [7] submitted supplemental authority i.e., the subsequent federal legislation, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub.L. No. 105-66, § 340, 111 Stat. 1425, 1448 (1998) [hereinafter, the Forgiveness Act]which the State believes governs this court's construction of Act 304 as codified at HRS § 10-2. Specifically, the State brought to this court's attention the following provisions in the Forgiveness Act: [C]ontrary to the prohibition against diverted airport revenues from airport purposes under Section 47107 of title 49, United States Code, certain payments from airport revenues may have been made for the betterment of Native Hawaiians, or Alaskan natives based upon the claims related to lands ceded to the United States.... There shall be no further payment of airport revenues for claims related to ceded lands, whether characterized as operating expenses, rent, or otherwise, and whether related to claims for periods of time prior to or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Letter from Attorney General [on behalf of the State] to Chief Clerk, Supreme Court of Hawai`i of 12/10/97 at 1 (citing Pub.L. No. 105-66, § 340, 111 Stat. at 1448). In light of the subsequent federal legislation and the fact that the Honolulu International Airport (the Airport) sitsat least partiallyon ceded land, this court is charged with the task of determining whether the Forgiveness Act impacts the interpretation of Act 304 and HRS § 10-2. OHA contends that, rather than extinguishing the State's duty to pay any monies to OHA in connection with the lease of ceded land at the Airport, the following savings clause in the Forgiveness Act requires the State to pay the past due amounts from a different funding source: CLARIFICATIONNothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any existing Federal statutes, enactments, or trust obligations created thereunder, or any statute of the several States that defined the obligations of such States to Native Americans, Native Hawaiians or Alaska natives in connection with ceded lands, except to make clear that airport revenues may not be used to satisfy such obligations. Forgiveness Act, § 340(d), 111 Stat. at 1448. In further support of its proposition, OHA also points to HRS § 10-5(1) (1993), which states that OHA's board of trustees has the power to [m]anage, invest, and administer... all moneys received by the office equivalent to that pro rata portion  derived from the ceded lands. See also HRS § 10-13(b) (1993) (also using equivalent to language). The State, however, contends that the Forgiveness Act indirectly extinguishes the State's duty to pay any monies from airport revenues because money from an alternative source would not be derived from the Airport as required by HRS § 10-13.5. Alternatively, the State argues that the Forgiveness Act fatally conflicts with Act 304, and that Act 304, therefore, by its own terms, is effectively repealed. If repealed, this court would then left in the position it was at the time of Yamasaki.