Hetherington v. McHale et al., Appellants.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
November 22, 1974
458 Pa. 479 | 329 A.2d 250
The statue provides: “Any order heretofore or hereafter made by any court of this Commonwealth for the support of a wife, child or parent, may be altered, repealed, suspended, increased, or amended, and the said court may, at any time, remit, correct or reduce the amount of any arrearages, as the case may warrant.”
Decree vacated and the matter remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Hetherington v. McHale et al., Appellants.
Larry Silver, Deputy Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellants.
Edward C. Hussie and Stephen C. MacNett, for amicus curiae.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, November 22, 1974:
In these appeals from the Commonwealth Court, we are called upon to determine the constitutionality of a statute which grants to three private organizations absolute authority to designate a controlling number of the members of a Commonwealth committee responsible for the disbursement of substantial public funds. The Commonwealth Court determined that the statute is valid. Because we conclude that the power to appoint persons to conduct governmental functions cannot be delegated to private organizations, we hold the selection procedures of the challenged statute unconstitutional. We reverse.
The challenged statutory provision is an amendment to section 16(e) of the Pennsylvania Harness Racing Act.1 It became law on September 20, 1972, when the
Section 16 provides for the allocation of revenue collected pursuant to the Pennsylvania Harness Racing Act. After mandating certain disbursements, subsection (e) provides that half the remaining funds of $400,000, whichever is greater, shall be allocated for agricultural research projects selected by a committee of seventeen including six persons designated by the Pennsylvania Council of Farm Organizations, one person designated by the Pennsylvania Canners and Fruit Processors Association and one person designated by the Pennsylvania Association of County Fairs.
Following enactment of the amendment, the Secretary of Agriculture notified the Pennsylvania State Council of Farm Organizations of a scheduled meeting of the committee. The Council selected appellees as its designees. On April 4, 1973, one day prior to the scheduled session, the Pennsylvania Attorney General
Appellees filed three actions in the Commonwealth Court: an action in equity to enjoin the committee from meeting or taking action in appellees’ absence and separate actions in quo warranto and mandamus to obtain judicial enforcement of their appointments. Appellants filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer in each of the actions.
The Commonwealth Court overruled appellants’ objections.2 It held (1) that the statute did not violate the Constitution (2) that the Attorney General lacked the authority to unilaterally implement his opinion as to the unconstitutionality of a statute.3 These appeals ensued.4
In adjudicating the merits of these appeals, the standard of review is clear. ““An Act of [the General] Assembly will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the constitution.“” Daly v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 263, 271, 191
A fundamental precept of the democratic form of government imbedded in our Constitution is that the people are to be governed only by their elected representatives. Section 16(e) violates this principle by surrendering to private organizations the power to select eight of seventeen members of a committee responsible for the disbursement of public funds. Neither the Legislature nor the Governor may reject the appointees of these private groups. And it is unclear that either could remove these designees, for the power to appoint governmental officials includes the power to remove them.
In fact, the people of this Commonwealth, through their duly elected representatives, have no voice in the appointments of those selected by these three private groups. No opportunity is provided for the public interest to assert itself. Instead, private groups responsive only to the interests of their membership choose those charged with performing governmental functions.
This Court has previously held that governmental powers cannot be delegated to private individuals or organizations. For example, in Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. White Cross Stores, Inc., 414 Pa. 95, 199 A.2d 266 (1964), we invalidated the Pennsylvania Fair Trade Act‘s “non-signers” provision. In that case, Mr. Justice EAGEN, speaking for the Court stated: “Price regulatory power vests only in the elected legislative body. It may in limited ways be delegated to other responsible governmental agencies, such as public service or utility commissions .... However, it may not be delegated to private persons. The vesting of a discretionary regulatory power over
We are equally concerned with the preservation of the “essential concepts of a democratic society” when the power delegated is the authority to make appointments to a committee exercising governmental functions. The power to select those who make public decisions is too vital a part of our scheme of government to be delegated to private groups. Olin Mathieson, supra; cf.
Appellees contend, however, that because they represent a large number of Pennsylvania farmers, they are more aware of the needs of agriculture than are the popularly selected branches of government. No doubt the organization that designated appellees does have an understanding of farm problems. Nevertheless, claims of expertise do not sap the vitality of the fundamental principle that we are to be governed by our elected representatives in accordance with the Constitution.
In a similar context the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reasoned that expertise does not justify delegation of the appointment power to politically unresponsive groups: “Their [private interest groups‘] memberships undoubtedly contain many individuals as well qualified as any who may be found to serve on the commission. But each individual is accountable solely to his own respective organization and has no connection with any branch of government in which the sovereign power is lodged by our Constitution.” Opinion of the Justices, 337 Mass. 777, 784, 150 N.E.2d 693, 698 (1958).
Appellees contend that the process by which they were appointed does not affect the validity of their appointments because the statute contains some stan-
In the past, this Court has vigilantly guarded the right of the people to representative government. When the necessity arose, we struck down legislation designed to impermissibly delegate governmental policy making to private parties. See, e.g., State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Life Fellowship of Pennsylvania, 441 Pa. 293, 272 A.2d 478 (1971); Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. White Cross Stores, Inc., 414 Pa. 95, 199 A.2d 266 (1964). Now we must again hold invalid a statutory attempt to dilute the people‘s right to be governed only by their constitutionally chosen representatives.
Courts of other states have also recognized the danger to constitutional government posed by delegation of public decisionmaking to private interest groups. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held unconstitutional a virtually identical provision. That court said: “We think that it would not be proper to authorize the selection of persons to expend public funds by organizations or groups not themselves public bodies or made up of public officers.” Opinion of the Justices, 337 Mass. 777, 784, 150 N.E.2d 693, 698 (1958). See also Corning Glass Works v. Ann & Hope, Inc., 294 N.E.2d 354, 362 (Mass. 1973).
See also Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 20 Cal. App. 3d 1, 97 Cal. Rptr. 431 (1st Div. 1971); Zale-Las Vegas, Inc. v. Bulova Watch Co., 80 Nev. 483, 396 P.2d 683 (1964); Fink v. Cole, 302 N.Y. 216, 224-25, 97 N.E.2d 873, 876 (1951) (licensing power); State v. Watkins, 259 S.C. 185, 203, 191 S.E.2d 135, 143-44 (1972), vacated on other grounds, 413 U.S. 905, 93 S. Ct. 3053 (1973) (power to censor movies); The House of Seagram, Inc. v. Assam Drug Co., 85 S.D. 27, 176 N.W.2d 491 (1970).
Here as in Olin Mathieson, the Opinion of the Justices and James, it must be concluded that the Constitution prohibits delegation to private groups of the power to make governmental appointments. Since the process by which appellees were designated violates this principle, it is unconstitutional.
The order of the Commonwealth Court is reversed and the preliminary objections of the appellants are sustained.
Mr. Justice MANDERINO joins in this opinion.
Mr. Justice EAGEN concurs in the result.
CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MANDERINO:
I agree with Mr. Justice ROBERTS’ majority opinion. The legislative branch cannot constitutionally
Private interest groups indirectly play an important role in our system of government. Any member of these groups may be appointed to any committee, as a knowledgeable citizen with particular expertise in a given area. It may be that specific private organizations or their leaders can be designated as members of advisory governmental committees which have completely nonbinding powers. Such is not the case before us however. Under the guise of creating a committee of the executive branch, the legislative branch in this case delegated, to a private organization, governmental authority to expend public funds and to appoint persons to governmental positions. This the legislature may not do.
Moreover, this legislative enactment usurps authority which belongs to the executive branch. “The supreme executive power shall be vested in the Governor, who shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
DISSENTING OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JONES:
The challenged provision of Act No. 212 of 1972 permits three private organizations—the Pennsylvania State Council of Farm Organizations, the Pennsylvania Canners and Fruit Processors Association and the Pennsylvania Association of County Fairs—to designate, i.e., appoint, eight of seventeen members of the committee charged with the task of approving and overseeing the expenditure of excess proceeds in the Pennsylvania Fair Fund for agricultural research projects. The majority contends that the statutory provision is unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative power. In evaluating this charge, we proceed, as the majority correctly points out, in compliance with the well-settled rule that an act of the General Assembly will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution. Absentee Ballots Case (No. 2), 431 Pa. 178, 181-82, 245 A.2d 265, 267 (1968); Daly v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 263, 191 A.2d 835 (1963); Rubin v. Bailey, 398 Pa. 271, 157 A.2d 882 (1960). I believe that the majority has misapplied this standard.
Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968 provides that: “The legislative power of this Commonwealth shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” The legislative power is indisputably the power to make laws. See, e.g., Baldwin Township‘s Annexation, 305 Pa. 490, 158 A. 272 (1931). In control of the State‘s finances, the General Assembly is supreme; appropriations may be made for whatever purposes and in whatever amounts the legislature deems desirable, subject to certain well-settled con-
It is fundamental that the General Assembly cannot delegate its power to make laws to any other branch of government, or to any other body or authority. Chartiers Valley Joint Schools v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors, 418 Pa. 520, 211 A.2d 487 (1965); Archbishop O‘Hara‘s Appeal, 389 Pa. 35, 131 A.2d 587 (1957); Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia, 357 Pa. 329, 54 A.2d 277 (1947); Holgate Brothers Co. v. Bashore, 331 Pa. 255, 200 A. 672 (1938). In State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Life Fellowship of Pennsylvania, 441 Pa. 293, 297, 272 A.2d 478, 481 (1971), we recently delineated the bounds of legislative power in light of the non-delegation principle: “While not specifically set forth in the Constitution, the non-delegation rule is a natural corollary to Article II, §1 since it requires that the basic policy choices involved in ‘legislative power’ actually be made by the Legislature as constitutionally mandated. It is generally agreed that the non-delegation principle does not require that all details of administration be precisely or separately enumerated in the statute. ‘While the legislature cannot delegate power to make a law, it may, where necessary, confer authority and discretion in connection with the execution of the law; it may establish primary standards and impose upon others the duty to carry out the declared legislative policy in accordance with the general provisions of the act.’ ... However, legislation must contain adequate standards which will guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative functions.” Chartiers Valley Joint Schools v. Allegheny County Board
The legislative purpose underlying enactment of the contested provisions of the Act is clearly to benefit agriculture throughout the Commonwealth and the public interest therein through public funding of agricultural research projects. While the standard of action in the public interest is not explicitly set forth in the statute, the directive to fund only those projects most beneficial to the public interest is so implicit in the tenor of the statutory provisions of Section 16(e) that it would strain this Court‘s interpretative powers to construe otherwise. The legislative designation “agricultural research projects” is a sufficiently adequate standard to guide and restrain the exercise of this particular committee‘s delegated administrative function—implementation of the legislative policy determination that a fixed amount of excess proceeds from harness racing should support agricultural research—in approving and overseeing the expenditure of public funds. The General Assembly has not, in my estimation, delegated legislative power to the Committee. Indeed, in imposing upon the seventeen individuals the duty to carry out the declared legislative policy, the General Assembly has chosen administrators broadly representative of agricultural interests within the Commonwealth whose expertise could well be expected.1
This Court has never declared that in making a law to delegate the power to determine the existence of a state of facts or circumstances upon which operation of the law will commence, the General Assembly may not constitutionally allow informed private citizens to participate in the fact-finding process. In its promulgation of the amended provisions of the Harness Racing Act, the General Assembly has declared as a matter of legislative policy that public funds are to be expended to benefit agriculture throughout the Commonwealth. We should not hold that it would be illogical or unreasonable to have represented on the committee charged with implementation of that policy the Pennsylvania Council of Farm Organizations, which itself represents over 63,000 Pennsylvania farmers and forty-three individual farm organizations, and, although not parties to this suit, the Pennsylvania Canners and Fruit Processors Association and the Pennsylvania Association of County Fairs. The compre-
The declared legislative policy of Act No. 212 is to promote agriculture throughout the Commonwealth. It is difficult to perceive how the public funding of agricultural research projects, whether or not chosen by a committee of whose seventeen members eight represent private agricultural groups, will not inure in the short and long run to the benefit of all Pennsylvanians. These organizations represent the views of a very high percentage of Pennsylvania farmers and agricultural processors upon whose progress the state of agriculture in this Commonwealth depends.
The majority‘s refrain calling for elected, responsive representation in government tends to unduly romanticize the issue. Certainly no framer of a democratic
Indeed, in a society of ever-growing complexity and perplexity, our elected officials must have at their disposal a generous admixture of experts to advise them on governmental problems. The majority‘s decision today closes one avenue by which the specialists may advise our elected leaders.
A relevant consideration is that nine members of this seventeen-member committee are from the “politically responsive” category. The appellees do not constitute a “controlling number” of a Commonwealth committee, as the majority would have us believe. The minority status of appellees as members of the committee charged with implementation of declared legislative policy does not invalidate the otherwise constitutional statutory provision. I agree with the decision of the Commonwealth Court that the inherent presumption of constitutionality has not been overcome.
Mr. Justice O‘BRIEN and Mr. Justice POMEROY join in this dissenting opinion.
Bearoff, Appellant, v. Bearoff Bros., Inc.