SUPERIOR Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja has denied Oscar L. Takai’s request for an evidentiary hearing in his petition for judicial review of the Department of Public Lands’ final administrative order denying his agricultural homestead application.
In a 19-page order, Judge Naraja reviewed the case under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard and found that a hearing was not necessary.
The court denied Takai’s motion due to procedural and evidentiary deficiencies, finding no procedural irregularities that would justify granting an evidentiary hearing.
In the same order, Judge Naraja scheduled oral arguments on the petition for Judicial Review of Agency Action for Aug. 20, 2025, at 9 a.m.
Takai, represented by attorney Anthony Aguon, claims that DPL’s handling of his 50-year-old application violated his constitutional rights and that the agency’s decision was arbitrary.
His petition asks the court to vacate or set aside DPL’s final agency decision.
“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 states.
According to the complaint, DPL failed to fulfill its constitutional, statutory, and regulatory duties to address Takai’s land application in a fair and equitable manner.
The lawsuit alleges that DPL’s denial of the homestead application violated Takai’s rights under the CNMI Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 1 CMC § 9101, et seq., for several reasons:
• DPL took over 50 years to act on Takai’s application;
• it failed to provide him with a fair hearing; and
• its decision was based on inadequate evidence.
The lawsuit further states that DPL’s neglect of Takai’s application led to the loss of critical evidence, including the original application and the deaths of key witnesses such as former government employees who had assisted Takai in 1970.
“DPL egregiously neglected Takai’s application for over 50 years,” the lawsuit states. “During this period, critical evidence deteriorated, including the loss of his original application and the unfortunate passing of key witnesses…. However, the final decision did not consider this factor and held the loss of evidence against Takai.”
