Opinion ID: 2629570
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: concerns of a multiplicity of suits

Text: As previously discussed in the Relevant Law section supra, a conclusion that Osorio, like PDF, has standing is consistent with this court's decisions lowering standing barriers in cases of public interest because a multiplicity of suits may be avoided by allowing [Osorio] to sue to enforce the State's compliance with the [section] 5(f) trust provisions. Id. at 594, 837 P.2d at 1258. In other words, granting a remedy to Osorio would also provide relief to him and other trust beneficiaries. Id. (emphasis added). Additionally, as stated in PDF, unless members of the public [ (like Osorio, who happens to be Hawaiian)] and native Hawaiians, as beneficiaries of the trust, have standing, the State would be free to dispose of the trust res without the citizens of the State having any recourse. Id. Indeed, if this court were to conclude that Osorio  as a Hawaiian, which category is not specifically delineated in article XII, section 7  does not have standing to bring suit for a breach of trust under article XII, section 7, such a conclusion would be absurd and contrary to this court's rules of constitutional interpretation. In re Pioneer Mill Co., 53 Haw. 496, 500, 497 P.2d 549, 552 (1972) (stating that this court is always reluctant to decide that the constitutional draftsmen intended to accomplish what appears to be an absurd result). Such a conclusion would effectively carve out a class of citizens in this state who are not beneficiaries under the public land trust established pursuant to article XII, section 7. In other words, although non-Hawaiian members of the general public would be able to sue for alleged breaches of trust, as would native Hawaiians, Hawaiians, like Osorio, would be specifically excluded. Such result would, as stated above, be absurd. Thus, based on the rationale expressed by this court in PDF, the concerns regarding a multiplicity of lawsuits are satisfied in this case. PDF, 73 Haw. at 594, 837 P.2d at 1258. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we hold Osorio has standing to pursue the claims raised in the instant case and, thus, turn next to examine the State's contention that this case is no longer ripe for decision.