***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI`I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
CONCURRING OPINION BY ACOBA, J.
I concur in the
result but on the ground that Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) §
91-7 (1993) on its face is specific and thus
plainly and unambiguously controls as to Plaintiff-Appellant Hawaii
Home Infusion Associates' particular "petition" for
declaratory review of an agency rule. See Richardson
v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai`i 46, 55,
868 P.2d 1193,
1202 (1994) (stating that, "'where there is a 'plainly irreconcilable'
conflict between a general and a specific statute
concerning the same subject matter, the specific will be favored'"
(quoting Mahiai
v. Suwa,
69 Haw. 349, 356-57, 742 P.2d
359, 366 (1987) (citations omitted)). Because HRS § 91-7 is the
applicable statute, "may" must be construed as
compulsory, i.e., allowing a
judicial declaration upon the filing of a petition in the circuit court
of the affected county,
rather than as indicating an alternative basis for jurisdiction. See Kepoo
v. Kane,
106 Hawai`i 270, 288 n.30, 103 P.3d
939, 957 n.30 (2005) (stating that "'[m]ay' is also defined as 'shall,
must -- used especially in deeds, contracts, and
statutes'" (brackets and citation omitted)); cf. Lingle
v. Hawai`i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 107
Hawai`i 178, 187 & n.1, 111 P.3d 587, 596 & n.1 (2005) (Acoba,
J., concurring) (stating that HRS § 91-8 (1993), which
provides that "'[a]ny interested person may petition an agency
for a declaratory order as to the applicability of any statutory
provision or of any rule or order of the agency[,]'" must be construed
as "authoriz[ing] interested persons
to petition
agencies for declaratory rulings" (emphases added)).