The FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, Petitioners, v. JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW BOARD.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 27, 1983.
460 A.2d 722 | 501 Pa. 129
In this case the Board has found no good cause for discipline. Therefore, we are plainly without jurisdiction to act further in the proceedings and the petition must be summarily dismissed. Petitioners’ dissatisfaction with either the procedures or the results in this case are not cognizable in this forum.*
460 A.2d 722
Katherine Hatton, Philadelphia, for petitioners.
Perry Bechtle, Philadelphia, for respondent.
Before ROBERTS, C.J., and NIX, FLAHERTY, HUTCHINSON and ZAPPALA, JJ.
ZAPPALA, Justice.
Petitioners, the First Amendment Coalition and Coalition members, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, request that this Court issue a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent Judicial Inquiry and Review Board to file with this Court as a public document the record of its investigation of charges against a member of the judiciary of this Commonwealth. As the Board, a constitutionally independent body, has made no recommendation to this Court of suspension, removal, discipline, or compulsory retirement in this matter, this Court is prohibited by Article
The present action was brought on Friday, May 6, 1983. On Wednesday, May 11, the Board filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that there is no constitutional basis for the filing of the record in a case where the Board has made no recommendation of action, and on the further ground that Petitioner Philadelphia Inquirer had, on Sunday, May 8, 1983, stated in an editorial that it had obtained a full transcript of the proceedings and had begun to publish extensive verbatim excerpts of the transcript. In their answer to the motion to dismiss, Petitioners acknowledged the publication of portions of the transcript by Petitioner Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News, another member of Petitioner First Amendment Coalition, but alleged that the transcript was not available to the public or to the other members of the First Amendment Coalition. According to Petitioners, “[o]ther members of the Coalition may, if the transcripts were available, publish them verbatim. Others reviewing the transcripts may find that portions unpublished to date are worthy of public notice.”
The Judicial Inquiry and Review Board was created in 1968 with the adoption by the citizens of this Commonwealth of present
Subsection (e) directs the Board to receive complaints and reports, formal or informal, pertaining to matters relating to the suspension, removal, discipline, or compulsory retirement of justices or judges, and to make such preliminary investigations as the Board deems necessary. Should the Board
Pursuant to subsection (h), upon receipt of such a recommendation, the Supreme Court “shall review the record of the board‘s proceedings on the law and facts and may permit the introduction of additional evidence. It shall order suspension, removal, discipline, or compulsory retirement, or wholly reject the recommendation, as it finds just and proper.... All papers filed with and proceedings before the board shall be confidential but upon being filed by the board in the Supreme Court, the record shall lose its confidential character.”
From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board was created to act as a constitutionally independent body. This Court is authorized to appoint some of the Board‘s members and to remove those same appointees for cause, but unless and until the Board “recommend[s] the suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement of [a] justice or judge,” the Board‘s decisions are constitutionally its own, and may not be disturbed by this Court, whether the decision be to regard a complaint as unfounded, to conduct a preliminary investigation, to hold a hearing, or, following the hearing, to make no recommendation of action to this Court.
The authority conferred upon this Court by subsection (h) to “order suspension, removal, discipline or compulsory retirement, or wholly reject the recommendation” is the only dispositional authority granted to this Court by
Nor can this Court circumvent the mandate of the Constitution by using its plenary jurisdiction to reopen the matter, for this jurisdiction applies only to matters “pending before any court or district justice of this Commonwealth....”
“[t]he Board is not a court as defined under this Act. The Board was established as an independent Board not beholden to this Court until a recommendation of discipline is filed. Therefore, a matter before the Board is not pending before a ‘court’ for purposes of plenary jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would be to permit this Court to interfere at any time in the proceedings before the Board, even to the extreme of prohibiting the Board from considering an action properly filed.”
In re Proceedings of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board Concerning “XYZ,” No. 72 E.D.Misc.Dkt.1983, Concurring Opinion of Zappala, J., joining in the Order of the Court, at pp. 4-5 (filed May 6, 1983).
Although we recognize that this matter has engendered public controversy, we must be guided by our fundamental obligation as judges to render our decisions “unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.” Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3A(1). Our sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution of this Commonwealth, not to rewrite it.
Petition denied.
HUTCHINSON, J., files a concurring opinion.
NIX, J., would grant the motion for expedited consideration of the petition and deny the motion to dismiss the petition.
HUTCHINSON, Justice, concurring:
For the reasons given in my concurring opinion In the Matter of Petition of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Frank B. Boyle, 501 Pa. 127, 460 A.2d 721, 1983, I concur.