Opinion ID: 2607272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Standing as a person aggrieved

Text: The remaining element in our jurisdictional analysis requires PASH to demonstrate [that its] ... interests were injured[.] Puna Geothermal, 77 Hawai`i at 69, 881 P.2d at 1215. Although the HPC Rules allow formal intervention through specified procedures, PASH was denied standing to participate in a contested case hearing because the agency found that its asserted interests were substantially similar to those of the general public. The HPC's restrictive interpretation of standing requirements is not entitled to deference. See id. at 67, 70, 881 P.2d at 1213, 1216 (citing Hawaii`s Thousand Friends v. Anderson, 70 Haw. 276, 283, 768 P.2d 1293, 1299 (1989); Akau v. Olohana Corp., 65 Haw. 383, 388-89, 652 P.2d 1130, 1134 (1982)). Cf. Mahuiki, 65 Haw. at 515, 654 P.2d at 880 (recognizing that a decision to permit the [proposed] construction ... on undeveloped land in the [SMA] could only have an adverse effect on the appellants' essentially aesthetic and environmental interests). [15] Accordingly, we review de novo whether PASH has demonstrated that its interests were injured. We agree with the ICA's thorough assessment of PASH's standing. See PASH I, at 251-254, 900 P.2d at 1318-1321. Through unrefuted testimony, PASH sufficiently demonstrated that its members, as native Hawaiian[s] who [have] exercised such rights as were customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes on undeveloped lands[,] [have] an interest in a proceeding for the approval of [a SMA permit] for the development of lands within the ahupua`a which are [sic] clearly distinguishable from that of the general public. Id. at 252, 900 P.2d at 1319. Although we hold that PASH sufficiently demonstrated standing to participate in a contested case, at least for the purposes of the instant appeal, we observe that [o]pportunities shall be afforded all parties to present evidence and argument on all issues involved in the contested case hearing held on remand. HRS § 91-9(c). For the reasons discussed in subsections III.A. through D., supra, we hold that the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine the issues raised by PASH in this case.