OSCAR L. Takai has petitioned the Superior Court to review the final administrative order of the Department of Public Lands denying his agricultural homestead application.
Takai, represented by attorney Anthony Aguon, said DPL’s handling of his 50-year-old application violated his constitutional rights. DPL’s decision is arbitrary, Takai added.
His petition for judicial review requested the court to vacate DPL’s final agency decision or to set it aside.
“Alternatively, Takai requests that the court vacate or otherwise set aside the DPL final agency decision and remand the matter back to the agency to conduct a fair and adequate hearing and base its decision on the evidence presented by both parties,” the lawsuit stated.
According to the complaint, DPL abdicated its constitutional, statutory and regulatory duty to address Takai’s land application in a fair and equal manner.
DPL’s handling and denial of Takai’s homestead application failed to comply with constitutional due process and the CNMI Administrative Procedure Act, 1 CMC § 9101, et seq., as, among other things: (1) DPL took over 50 years to address Takai’s application; (2) DPL did not provide Takai with a fair hearing; and (3) DPL based its decision on inadequate evidence, the lawsuit stated.
DPL’s denial of Takai’s application violates his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, the lawsuit added.
Background
The homestead provisions of the Commonwealth Code, 2 CMC § 4301 et al, were established to provide eligible persons with property in the CNMI. The CNMI Legislature explicitly noted that a large number of agricultural homestead applicants and other occupants of public lands were authorized by previous government officials to enter public lands for agricultural purposes without agricultural homestead permits, 2 CMC § 4322(a).
The CNMI Legislature then passed the CNMI Agricultural Homestead Waiver Act to provide DPL with sufficient authority and flexibility to waive requirements, limitations, and regulations relating to agricultural homesteading in effect prior to Jan. 9, 1978; and to provide DPL with the authority and flexibility to implement Article XI, S5(a) of the Constitution relating to persons occupying public lands for over 15 years.
In or around 1969 to 1970, Takai submitted his application for agricultural homestead to the Land Management Office of what was then the Marianas Public Land Corporation, which is now DPL.
According to the lawsuit, the Land Management Office advised Takai to apply for a village homestead and an agricultural homestead, and assisted him with submitting the two applications.
Takai was informed that he was eligible for an agricultural homestead because he was 18 years of age, a citizen of the Northern Mariana Islands, and a person of Northern Marianas descent. Takai was a resident and voter of Saipan and did not own any agricultural land in the NMI.
Throughout the years, Takai followed up on his homestead applications with MPLC. In or around 1977, Takai got verbal permission from MPLC, through its employee, the late Dolores Sablan, to enter, occupy and develop a three-hectare lot in Agag, Saipan for agricultural purposes.
Since that time, Takai said he has exhausted resources to maintain the agricultural property that he believed to be his own agricultural homestead.
In or around 1978, Takai inquired whether his leaving Saipan for education would be an issue for his homestead applications. MPLC responded no. Takai thereafter left for the U.S. mainland for educational purposes and returned to Saipan in 1993.
In 1997, Takai’s application for a village homestead was approved and he was deeded a property in Kagman III, Saipan.
In or around September 2021, after over 50 years of inaction, Takai visited DPL to follow up on his agricultural homestead application that he filed back in 1970.
In response, DPL informed Takai that he should fill out a homestead waiver application. DPL assisted Takai with filling out the waiver application and submitting it. Takai was not informed that he was also required to notarize the application and submit a $200 application fee. DPL failed to date and stamp this waiver application.
On or around Jan. 6, 2022, DPL issued a denial of Takai’s homestead waiver application.
On Jan. 21, 2022, Takai wrote to DPL to timely appeal his denial and requested for an evidentiary hearing. In his letter, Takai reiterated that he was following up on his original homestead application and was not seeking a waiver.
On May 26, 2022, DPL held an evidentiary hearing on Takai’s appeal. The hearing was conducted by DPL Administrative Hearing Officer Ramon S. Dela Cruz. Takai represented himself. The witness was Juan C. Reyes. Appearing on behalf of DPL were Assistant Attorney General Ali Nelson and DPL Homestead Director Irene Torres.
On June 21, 2022, DPL issued a decision and order affirming DPL’s denial and dismissing Takai’s claim with prejudice.
On July 14, 2022, Takai timely appealed DPL’s decision and order. In his letter, Takai reiterated that he was following up on his original agricultural homestead application. He also informed DPL that he was not provided a fair and adequate hearing, since the hearing officer only reserved the conference room for one hour and had to cut the hearing short.
Two years later, on Feb. 14, 2024, DPL secretary set a briefing schedule on Takai’s appeal.
On March 26, 2024, Takai filed his appeal, stating that the DPL denial should be overturned because the denial violated his constitutional rights for due process; he was not afforded a fair hearing; and the DPL denial was arbitrary and capricious.
On April 30, 2024, DPL filed a response opposing Takai’s appeal. On May 15, 2024, Takai filed his reply. On June 12, 2024, the DPL secretary issued a final decision affirming DPL’s denial of Takai’s homestead application. The decision found that Takai was afforded an adequate hearing; and that the DPL denial was not arbitrary and capricious.
“DPL egregiously neglected Takai’s application for over 50 years,” his lawsuit stated. “During this period, critical evidence deteriorated, including the loss of his original application and the unfortunate passing of key witnesses, specifically, the MPLC employees who assisted Takai with his application back in 1970. However, the final decision did not consider this factor and held the loss of evidence against Takai,” the lawsuit added.
