Opinion ID: 2192923
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Arguments in Support of Act 72's Constitutionality

Text: All appellees maintain that Act 72's repeal of Act 44's adoption of the formula governing judicial compensation did not violate Article V, Section 16(a). In addition, appellees are in basic agreement that Section 1(b) of Act 72 merely reflects the General Assembly's express intention not to contravene Section 16(a)'s primary purpose of preserving the independence of the Judiciary; and that the definition of salaried officers of the Commonwealth found in Section 1(c) is proper and controlling. Each appellee, however, offers slightly divergent reasons in support of these general arguments. Attorney General Corbett contends that the Judges have not overcome the strong presumption of constitutionality that is accorded legislative enactments. The Attorney General does not dispute that Act 72 reduced judicial compensation, but, he argues, it did so in a fashion that comported with the exception delineated in Section 16(a). Addressing the exception, the Attorney General argues that neither the Constitution, nor the cases cited by the Judges for the definition of officer or public officer, specifically define salaried officers of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the Attorney General posits, the General Assembly properly filled that void and adopted what he views as a rational and legitimate definition of that constitutional term for purposes of Act 72. The Attorney General also contends that even if other Commonwealth employees not explicitly mentioned by either Act 44 or Act 72 may be considered salaried officers of the Commonwealth, there still is no violation of Section 16(a) because Act 72 applies generally, if only in the sense that it uniformly repeals all the salary increases that resulted from the Act 44 formulas. Treasurer Casey's primary argument focuses on Act 44, rather than Act 72. The Treasurer argues that Act 44 was unconstitutional in its entirety at its inception; the salary increases it provided therefore were unlawful ab initio; and Act 72 cannot be deemed to have impermissibly reduced judicial compensation where that compensation was never legally increased. [21] Alternatively, Treasurer Casey argues that even if Act 44 was constitutionally enacted, Act 72 did not violate Section 16(a) because the repeal applies to all of the officers who possess the characteristics attributed to public officers as found in this Court's jurisprudence interpreting that term. See, e.g., Richie, supra. Moreover, the Treasurer maintains that Act 72 is egalitarian and applies generally as each affected officer's salary is reduced by the very same amount as it was increased by operation of the Act 44 formulas. Concerning the policy declarations, the Treasurer argues that Sections 1(b) and (c) of Act 72 do not establish the constitutionality of Act 72; rather, these Sections merely acknowledge that the General Assembly understood its constitutional limitations under Section 16(a). In his Herron brief, Speaker Perzel initially and briefly indicates his agreement with Treasurer Casey that, if Act 44 were deemed to be unconstitutional, it would be void ab initio and, thus, Act 72 would have to be deemed to have had no unconstitutional effect upon judicial compensation. Unlike the Treasurer, however, the Speaker insists that Act 44 in fact was constitutional and, therefore, the Judges' challenge to Act 72 must be resolved. The Speaker asserts that the values that the Section 16(a) prohibition protects are: (1) preventing the retributive act of singling out judicial compensation for reduction; and (2) preserving the Judiciary as a coequal branch of government. The Speaker asserts that neither of these two values must be deemed to have been implicated by Act 72's general repeal of all salary increases established by Act 44, because the General Assembly's policy declaration in Section 1(b) said as much. The Speaker further maintains that the General Assembly's definition of salaried officers of the Commonwealth in Section 1(c) is proper because, where a position or officership is constitutionally-created but not constitutionally-defined, the General Assembly has historically defined that constitutional provision by statute. Speaker Perzel's Brief at 37. For example, the Speaker asserts, the General Assembly has previously defined the duties of the constitutional offices of State Treasurer and Auditor General. See PA. CONST. art. IV, ง 1; Commonwealth ex rel. Woodruff v. Lewis, 282 Pa. 306, 127 A. 828, 829 (1925) (noting that although the offices of State Treasurer and Auditor General are named in the Pennsylvania Constitution, their duties were defined by the Legislature). Speaker Perzel also argues that the scope of the Judges' challenge is overbroad. He contends that, even if mid-term compensation increases for the Judiciary may not be reduced under Section 16(a), Act 72 was constitutional to the extent it operated to eliminate future judicial salary increases which have not yet vested. Thus, the Speaker maintains, if this Court were to find Act 72 unconstitutional as to judicial salaries, we may only reinstate the higher salaries initially provided by Act 44 and not those provisions in Act 44 which might lead to future increases in judicial compensation. Cf. Will, 449 U.S. at 229, 101 S.Ct. at 487 ([A] salary increase `vests' for purposes of the [Federal] Compensation Clause only when it takes effect as part of the compensation due and payable to Article III judges.). In addition, the Speaker asserts that, even if Act 72 were deemed unconstitutional to the extent it reduced the compensation judges were receiving in November 2005, the Judiciary should be deemed entitled to that Act 44 salary only until their current terms of office expire, at which point Act 72 would lawfully take effect and operate to reduce new-term judicial compensation to pre-Act 44 levels. Thus, in the Speaker's view, any new judge who began a term of office after November 2005, or any sitting judge retained for a new term of office after November 2005, lawfully would be subject to the Act 72 repeal and would receive only the compensation contemplated by Act 39. We note that this particular argument was not suggested in this Court's briefing order. But, in any event, we will summarily reject it. For one thing, Section 16(a) speaks of terms of office. Moreover, the Speaker's argument would require this Court to re-write Act 44 to include the distinction he would draw, even though the legislation itself does not so provide. This we decline to do. Since the legislation does not include the Speaker's distinction, we do not pass upon the Speaker's rather remarkable assertion that Section 16(a) permits the General Assembly to enact legislation that would directly reduce judicial compensation, so long as the reduction is made effective at the beginning of new elective terms of office. Senator Jubelirer, as President pro tempore of the Senate, initially argues that Act 72 did not in fact reduce the compensation of any judge during his or her term of office. [22] The Senator notes that, on January 1, July 6, November 17, and December 31, 2005, the annual salaries for judges were the same, and that none of the judges challenging Act 72 assumed office between July 7, 2005 and November 16, 2005. In the alternative, Senator Jubelirer argues that, assuming that Act 72 reduced judicial compensation, the reduction does not violate Section 16(a) for several reasons. First, the Senator maintains that the Act did not single out the Judiciary exclusively for salary diminution, but rather treated all officials whose salary was affected by the Act 44 formulas the same. Second, the Senator argues that the Judges' contention that the exception in Section 16(a) requires that the compensation of every salaried officer of the Commonwealth be reduced at the same time is in direct conflict with Article III, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which prohibits the reduction of the salary of a public officer after his election or appointment. [23] The Senator maintains that, under the Judges' interpretation, the limited exception provided in Section 16(a) could never be exercised without conflicting with Article III, Section 27. Third, the Senator disputes the Judges' contention that case law provides a clear definition of officer or public officer which can be utilized to define salaried officers of the Commonwealth. In the Senator's view, the definitions of officer or public officer in the cases relied upon by the Judges varied widely, depending upon the specific constitutional provision at issue. Concerning the policy declarations provided in Act 72, Senator Jubelirer contends that Section 1(b) merely reflects that the intention of the General Assembly in enacting Act 72 was not to violate Section 16(a). As for the definition of salaried officers of the Commonwealth found in Section 1(c), the Senator maintains that such a definition was necessary because of the absence of any decision by this Court interpreting that phrase, and the previously stated need not to create a conflict with Article III, Section 27. The Senator notes that it is not uncommon for the executive or legislative branch to interpret constitutional provisions in exercising their constitutional duties, albeit he concedes that it is ultimately the responsibility of the Judiciary to determine the proper interpretation. The Senator further argues that the General Assembly's Act 72-specific definition of salaried officers of the Commonwealth is reasonable and provides certainty and predictability as it encompasses all members of the Legislature and Judiciary, and identifies some of the highest executive officers as the class to which any diminution of compensation must be applied in order to satisfy Section 16(a).