Opinion ID: 1179958
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extension of Kalipi

Text: PDF challenges the circuit court's dismissal of its claim that PDF's native Hawaiian members were entitled under Article XII, § 7 to enter Wao Kele `O Puna and the Puna Forest Reserve to exercise traditional and customary rights. The basis of PDF's claim is that Wao Kele `O Puna historically served as a common gathering area which could be utilized by tenants who resided in ahupua'a abutting Wao Kele `O Puna. Accordingly, PDF argues that its members should not need to establish that they are lawful occupants of Wao Kele 'O Puna, although they must establish that they are tenants of ahupua'a abutting Wao Kele 'O Puna and have traditionally used Wao Kele 'O Puna for gathering and other native Hawaiian practices. To determine the efficacy of this claim, we first review article XII, § 7 and the landmark opinion written by Chief Justice Richardson in Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd., 66 Haw. 1, 656 P.2d 745 (1982). Kalipi defined the rudiments of native Hawaiian rights protected by article XII, § 7, commonly known as  Kalipi rights. We now further explicate the scope of these rights under the Hawaii Constitution. Article XII, § 7 provides: The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights. Haw. Const. art. XII, § 7 (1978). We first addressed this constitutional provision in Kalipi, 66 Haw. 1, 656 P.2d 745. Kalipi sought to exercise traditional gathering rights in the Molokai ahupua'a of Ohia in which he owned a houselot. Id. at 3, 656 P.2d at 747. [30] Kalipi did not reside on the property, although he lived in the nearby Keawenui ahupua'a. Id. Kalipi turned to three sources to support his claimed rights: (1) HRS § 7-1; [31] (2) HRS § 1-1; [32] and (3) the kuleana reservation in the title to the lands in question. Id. at 4, 656 P.2d at 747. The court looked to article XII, § 7 for its obligation to preserve and enforce such traditional rights. Id. at 4-5, 656 P.2d at 748. We held that HRS § 7-1 contains two types of rights: gathering rights which are specifically limited and enumerated, and rights to access and water which are framed in general terms. Id. at 5, 656 P.2d at 748. With respect to these rights, we stated that lawful occupants of an ahupuaa may, for the purposes of practicing native Hawaiian customs and traditions, enter undeveloped lands within the ahupuaa to gather those items enumerated in the statute. Id. at 7-8, 656 P.2d at 749. The undeveloped lands limitation was imposed by the court to balance the concept of land ownership with that of native rights. Id. Because Kalipi asserted his rights based on ownership of land and not residence in the ahupua'a, we held that he was not entitled to exercise native gathering rights in Ohia. Id. at 9, 656 P.2d at 750. We further held that HRS § 1-1's Hawaiian usage clause may establish certain customary Hawaiian rights beyond those found in HRS § 7-1. Id. at 9-10, 656 P.2d at 750. Thus, we believe that the retention of a Hawaiian tradition should in each case be determined by balancing the respective interests and harm once it is established that the application of the custom has continued in a particular area. Id. at 10, 656 P.2d at 751. Noting testimony that there have continued in certain ahupuaa a range of practices associated with the ancient way of life which required the utilization of the undeveloped property of others and which were not found in § 7-1, we held that HRS § 1-1 insures the continuance of these enduring practices for so long as no actual harm is done thereby. Id. With respect to Kalipi we held that, regardless of the source of his asserted rights, he was not entitled to exercise them because he did not live in the ahupua'a in which he sought to assert his claimed rights. Id. at 13, 656 P.2d at 752. Like Kalipi, PDF members assert native Hawaiian rights based on article XII, § 7 and HRS § 1-1 in an ahupua'a other than the ones in which they reside. Unlike Kalipi, PDF members claim these rights based on the traditional access and gathering patterns of native Hawaiians in the Puna region. Because Kalipi based his claims entirely on land ownership, rather than on the practiced customs of Hawaiians on Molokai, the issue facing us is somewhat different from the issue in Kalipi. In Kalipi, we foresaw that [t]he precise nature and scope of rights retained by § 1-1 would, of course, depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. 66 Haw. at 12, 656 P.2d at 752. Thus, we upheld the rights of native Hawaiians to enter undeveloped lands owned by others to practice continuously exercised access and gathering rights necessary for subsistence, cultural or religious purposes so long as no actual harm was done by the practice. As found by the Kalipi court, and reported by the Constitutional Convention committee that drafted article XII, § 7, these rights are associated with residency within a particular ahupua'a. See Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 57, reprinted in 1 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of 1978, 637. [33] The Committee on Hawaiian Affairs added what is now article XII, § 7 to reaffirm customarily and traditionally exercised rights of native Hawaiians, while giving the State the power to regulate these rights. Id. at 639. Although these rights were primarily associated with tenancy within a particular ahupua'a, the committee report explicitly states that the new section reaffirms all rights customarily and traditionally held by ancient Hawaiians. Id. at 640 (emphasis added). The committee contemplated that some traditional rights might extend beyond the ahupua'a; [f]or instance, it was customary for a Hawaiian to use trails outside the ahupua'a in which he lived to get to another part of the Island. Id. The committee intended this provision to protect the broadest possible spectrum of native rights: Your Committee also decided that it was important to eliminate specific categories of rights so that the courts or legislature would not be constrained in their actions. Your Committee did not intend to remove or eliminate any statutorily recognized rights or any rights of native Hawaiians from consideration under this section, but rather your Committee intended to provide a provision in the Constitution to encompass all rights of native Hawaiians, such as access and gathering. Your Committee did not intend to have the section narrowly construed or ignored by the Court. Your Committee is aware of the courts' unwillingness and inability to define native rights, but in reaffirming these rights in the Constitution, your Committee feels that badly needed judicial guidance is provided and enforcement by the courts of these rights is guaranteed. Id. at 640 (emphasis added). If, as argued by PDF, [34] the customary and traditional rights associated with tenancy in an ahupua'a extended beyond the boundaries of the ahupua'a, then article XII, § 7 protects those rights as well. The drafters of the constitutional amendment emphasized that all such rights were reaffirmed and that they did not intend for the provision to be narrowly construed. We therefore hold that native Hawaiian rights protected by article XII, § 7 may extend beyond the ahupua'a in which a native Hawaiian resides where such rights have been customarily and traditionally exercised in this manner. PDF has presented evidence supporting the contention that the access and gathering patterns of tenants in Puna do not appear to have conformed to the usual notion that tenants exercised such rights only within the boundaries of a given ahupua'a. Affidavits suggest that Puna region ahupua'a tenants accessed all portions of the Puna Forest Reserve for hunting and gathering, and were not limited to just the narrow corridor of their ahupua'a. The practice of accessing the area as a common area for gathering and hunting by tenants of the Puna district may have commenced from the time of the Great Mahele and Kuleana Acts. One affiant testified that early trails accessed the Puna Forest Reserve from many ahupua'a, the lava tube extending into the Puna Forest Reserve extends across several ahupua'a and has entry points in more than one ahupua'a, and this area was associated with Pele and her family, [35] and not with any particular ahupua'a. Based on the evidence before the trial court, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to PDF's claim under article XII, § 7. [36] If it can be shown that Wao Kele 'O Puna was a traditional gathering area utilized by the tenants of the abutting ahupua'a, and that the other requirements of Kalipi are met in this case, then PDF members such as Ms. Naeole may have a right to enter the undeveloped areas of the exchanged lands to exercise their traditional practices. At a full trial on the merits, PDF will have an opportunity to develop the facts and present evidence to support its claim. Therefore, the summary judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for trial on this issue.