Opinion ID: 4545689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Exceptions to Presentment

Text: The first exception to presentment is obvious from the plain text of Article III, Section 9. Any concurrent resolution “on the question of adjournment” need not be presented to the Governor. No party avers that H.R. 836 involves adjournment. [J-62-2020] - 7 The second exception to presentment is a concurrent resolution proposing a constitutional amendment. The Constitution itself, specifically Article XI, Section 1, provides the “complete and detailed process for the amendment of that document.” Kremer v. Grant, 606 A.2d 433, 436 (Pa. 1992). We have characterized the process of amending our Constitution as “standing alone and entirely unconnected with any other subject. Nor does it contain any reference to any other provision of the constitution as being needed . . . . It is a system entirely complete in itself; requiring no extraneous aid, either in matters of detail or of general scope, to its effectual execution.” Commonwealth ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Griest, 46 A. 505, 506 (Pa. 1900). Because “submission to the governor is carefully excluded, . . . such submission is not only not required, but cannot be permitted.” Id. at 507; see also Mellow v. Pizzingrilli, 800 A.2d 350, 359 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (“Article XI has vested the power to propose amendments in the General Assembly. Other than the express requirements set forth in Article XI, the procedure to be used in proposing such amendments is exclusively committed to the legislature.”). No party argues that H.R. 836 is a proposed amendment to our Commonwealth’s Constitution. The third exception to presentment is not explicitly delineated, but rather inheres in the structure of our Charter. The presentment requirement in Article III, Section 9 applies only to matters governed by constitutional provisions concerning the legislative power. Griest, 46 A. at 508. In other words, “it is perfectly manifest that the orders, resolutions, and votes which must be so submitted [to the Governor] are, and can only be, such as relate to and are a part of the business of legislation.” Id. Although no provision of the Constitution explicitly withdraws non-legislative resolutions from the requirement of presentment, such resolutions involve only internal affairs of the legislature. “Under the principle of separation of the powers of government, . . . no branch should exercise the functions exclusively committed to another branch.” Sweeney v. [J-62-2020] - 8 Tucker, 375 A.2d 698, 705 (Pa. 1977). The legislature, a co-equal branch of government, has “the sole authority to determine the rules of its proceedings.” Pa. AFL-CIO ex rel. George v. Commonwealth, 757 A.2d 917, 923 (Pa. 2000); see also PA. CONST. art. II, § 11 (“Each House shall have power to determine the rules of its proceedings . . . .”). Similarly, resolutions that are investigatory or ceremonial in nature, although not technically procedural, are solely within the purview of the legislature itself and need not be presented to the Governor, as such resolutions are not “a part of the business of legislation” that affects entities outside the legislative branch. Griest, 46 A. at 508. As the Governor notes, “[i]n Russ v. Commonwealth, 60 A. 169 (Pa. 1905), this Court explained the difference between resolutions that solely involve internal matters within the General Assembly and those that reach beyond the walls of its two chambers.” Governor’s Application at 17. In Russ, the General Assembly passed a resolution that allowed members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to attend a ceremony dedicating a monument to President Ulysses S. Grant and provided for expenses associated with the ceremony. In distinguishing between resolutions that involved only the internal affairs of the General Assembly and those with legal effect that require presentment, we wrote: If both houses had simply resolved to attend the exercises in a body, and to adjourn for a day for that purpose, it would have been no concern of the Governor, and they could have gone with or without his approval; but, if more was embodied in the resolution, amounting practically to an enactment authorizing special committees of the Senate and House to act on behalf of the state in making suitable the recognition which both branches of the Legislature had agreed upon, it was for the Governor to approve or disapprove. Russ, 60 A. at 171. Thus, when the legislature seeks to “act on behalf of the state” by way of a concurrent resolution, that resolution must be presented to the Governor. Id. Summarizing Russ and Griest in 1915, Attorney General Francis Brown opined: [J-62-2020] - 9 [N]ot all joint or concurrent resolutions passed by the legislature must be submitted to the Governor for his approval, but only such as make legislation or have the effect of legislating, i.e., enacting, repealing or amending laws or statutes or which have the effect of committing the State to a certain action or which provide for the expenditure of public money. Resolutions which are passed for any other purpose, such as the appointment of a committee by the legislature to obtain information on legislative matters for its future use or to investigate conditions in order to assist in future legislation, are not required to be presented to the Governor for action thereupon. Joint or Concurrent Resolutions, 24 Pa. D. 721, 723 (Pa. Att’y Gen. 1915); see also Concurrent Resolutions, 7 Pa. D. & C. (Pa. Att’y Gen. 1926) (embracing Attorney General Brown’s opinion). We find that Attorney General Brown’s formulation accurately relates the requirements of our Constitution and precedent. Specifically, we agree that whether a concurrent resolution requires presentment depends upon whether the resolution comprises legislation or has the effect of legislating. Attorney General Brown correctly discerned that, when a court has to determine whether a concurrent resolution is an act of legislating, the court must look to the substance of that resolution, rather than adhering to a formulaic approach that confines the court to the title or label of the resolution. As the Governor’s amici note, when the federal Constitutional Convention added a provision to the federal Constitution analogous to Article III, Section 9, see U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 3, James Madison told the Convention that, “if the negative of the President was confined to bills, it would be evaded by acts under the form and name of resolutions, votes, [etc.].”9 The next day, Edmund Randolph moved to insert what is now Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 into the draft of the federal Constitution for the purpose of “putting votes, resolutions, [etc.], on a footing with 9 Brief of Amici Curiae, Members of the Democratic Caucuses of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and the Senate of Pennsylvania, at 12 (quoting Statement of James Madison (Aug. 15, 1787), in 5 THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 431 (Jonathan Elliot, ed., 1827)). [J-62-2020] - 10 bills.” The Convention adopted the proposal.10 That Pennsylvania’s 1790 Convention occurred just after the adoption of the federal Constitution, and that the language in the two Constitutions is nearly identical lends support to the proposition that the substance of the resolution, rather the formal title or procedure used for passage, should govern whether the resolution has “the effect of legislating” and therefore must be presented to the Governor. The Senators do not dispute that resolutions with legal effect should be subject to presentment. See Senators’ Brief at 23 (“In the practice of the Pennsylvania Legislature, bills and joint resolutions intended to have the effect of laws have been transmitted to the Governor for his approval.”) (quoting CHARLES B. BUCKALEW , AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA 94 (1883)). Rather, the Senators contend that neither the Governor’s Proclamation nor H.R. 836 had legal effect, and, thus, H.R. 836 should not be subject to presentment. Looking first to the Governor’s Proclamation, it is obvious that this order had legal effect. The Proclamation transferred funds, suspended certain statutory and regulatory provisions, and activated the Pennsylvania National Guard. See Governor’s Application at 26-27 (listing actions taken by various state agencies pursuant to the Proclamation). As we stated in Friends of Danny DeVito, “[t]he Emergency Code specifically recognizes that under its auspices, the Governor has the authority to issue executive orders and proclamations which shall have the full force of law.” Friends of Danny DeVito, 227 A.3d at 892. The Proclamation had “the full force of law.” Id. The Senators claim that the Proclamation was merely “a declaration of fact” and “did not (and could not) prescribe the rules of civil conduct and, instead, established the 10 See Statement of Edmund Randolph (Aug. 16, 1787), in 5 THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 431-32 (Jonathan Elliot, ed., 1827). [J-62-2020] - 11 factual predicate necessary for other executive agencies to use certain powers granted to them by statute.” Senators’ Brief at 27; see also id. at 28 (“[E]mergency proclamations [a]re not laws, but rather formal announcements that create[] the circumstances necessary for the exercise of certain statutory powers.”). Setting aside the Proclamation’s direct legal effects, to distinguish between the Governor authorizing other agencies to act and those other agencies taking actions pursuant to the Proclamation would be to elevate form over substance. But for the Proclamation authorizing other agencies to act, those other agencies could not have issued orders with the force of law, such as requiring the closure of certain businesses. If nothing else, the legal effect of the Proclamation was to allow the Governor to exercise powers granted to him by the General Assembly upon the declaration of a disaster emergency. Turning to H.R. 836, the Senators argue that this resolution “does not provide for expenditure of public funds and does not commit the state to an affirmative act.” Id. at 30. With regard to the expenditure of public funds, we have ruled that a concurrent resolution which spends public money requires presentment. For example, in Russ, we decided that, had the General Assembly simply adjourned to attend the ceremony in question, the resolution would not have required presentment. Yet, when the legislature committed public money to the ceremony, the Governor’s approval (or a vote overriding a veto) became necessary. Russ, 60 A. at 171. Similarly, in Scudder v. Smith, 200 A. 601 (Pa. 1938), we determined that a joint resolution required presentment because the resolution both created a commission and appropriated $5,000 for that commission. Id. at 602-04. But while the expenditure of funds is a sufficient condition for requiring presentment, it is not a necessary one. See Joint or Concurrent Resolutions, 24 Pa. D. at 721 (opining that resolutions “which have the effect of committing the State to a certain action or which provide for the expenditure of public money” require presentment) [J-62-2020] - 12 (emphasis added). The General Assembly can pass a bill or resolution that has legal effect even if the bill or resolution does not commit the Commonwealth to spending any money. Each time the General Assembly adds a new crime to our Criminal Code, certain conduct becomes illegal. One could not argue that the General Assembly could amend the Criminal Code through a bill or concurrent resolution without presentment simply because that bill or resolution did not appropriate funds. Cf. Commonwealth v. Kuphal, 500 A.2d 1205, 1216-17 (Pa. Super. 1985) (Spaeth, P.J., dissenting) (declaring that “[t]he conclusion is therefore inescapable that” a concurrent resolution that rejected sentencing guidelines was an “exercise of legislative power” that required presentment). Effectively acknowledging a non-expenditure-based category of legislative resolution, the Senators aver that, because H.R. 836 “does not authorize any action on behalf of the state,” Senators’ Brief at 31, the resolution was not a legislative action. Although in Russ we noted that a resolution authorizing the General Assembly “to act on behalf of the state” would require presentment, Russ, 60 A.at 171,11 the purported distinction between requiring the government affirmatively to act and prohibiting the government from taking an action is no distinction at all. In West Shore, we considered whether the General Assembly could use a concurrent resolution, without presentment, to reestablish the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (“PLRB”) after the agency was slated to be disbanded. We ruled that “[m]erely the passage of a resolution by both chambers . . . reestablish[ing] an agency set for termination . . . violates Article 3, Section 9 of our State Constitution.” West Shore, 626 A.2d at 1136. By way of further example, imagine that an executive branch agency promulgates a new regulation that requires all businesses to purchase a fire extinguisher. 11 Cf. Joint or Concurrent Resolutions, 24 Pa. D. at 723 (writing that a concurrent resolution “which ha[s] the effect of committing the State to a certain action” would require presentment). [J-62-2020] - 13 The General Assembly, disagreeing with this regulation, passes a concurrent resolution overturning the regulation. That concurrent resolution does not require the executive branch to take any affirmative steps. To the contrary, the resolution forbids the executive branch from acting to enforce the regulation. But one could not characterize the General Assembly’s resolution, in this scenario, as intending no legal effect and thereby functioning differently than any other prohibitory legislation. Just as a business’s legal obligations would be affected by promulgation of the regulation, those same legal obligations would be affected by its repeal.12 H.R. 836 acts in the same manner as the resolutions in West Shore and the above hypothetical. Even if the Senators are correct that H.R. 836 does not require any affirmative act on behalf of the Governor, the same was true in West Shore. There, the concurrent resolution did not require the executive branch to act; it simply mandated that the executive branch not allow the PLRB to terminate. Prohibiting the termination of the PLRB had legal effect, just as prohibiting an agency from enforcing a regulation would have legal effect. Related to the Senators’ argument, the Dissenting Opinion (“Dissent”) asserts that Section 7301(c)’s language regarding a concurrent resolution “does not bear on the 12 The Senators also cite Fabrizio v. Kopriver, 73 Dauph. 345 (Dauphin Cty. C.C.P. 1959). See Senators’ Brief, Exhibit 2. In that case, the court of common pleas stated that, “if the resolution . . . does not commit the State to any affirmative action, then such a resolution should not be within the purview of” Article III, Section 9. Fabrizio, 73 Dauph. at 348. The Fabrizio Court was comparing a concurrent resolution setting up a legislative investigating committee, but appropriating no funds, to the resolution in Scudder, where the resolution both set up a committee and appropriated funds. Id. at 348-49. Thus, while the action in Scudder involved the appropriation of funds, an affirmative act, it does not appear that the court of common pleas considered a scenario involving a resolution that forbid the executive branch from enforcing legal obligations. In any event, the decision of a court of common pleas, even if that particular court was the predecessor to the Commonwealth Court, see Senators’ Brief at 25 n. 15, is not binding upon this Court and does not carry with it the weight of stare decisis. [J-62-2020] - 14 essential relationship to conventional legislation.” Dissent at 3. As noted above, the inclusion of Article III, Section 9 in our Constitution is not simply to require presentment for “conventional legislation,” but rather to require presentment for all bills, “resolutions, votes, [etc.],” Statement of James Madison (Aug. 15, 1787), supra, that have the effect of legislating. Any resolution passed by the General Assembly pursuant to Section 7301(c), including H.R. 836, has the effect of legislating. The resolution intends to prevent the Governor from carrying out powers delegated to him under the Emergency Services Management Code, powers which are enforceable with “the force and effect of law.” 35 Pa.C.S. § 7301(b); see also Friends of Danny DeVito, 227 A.3d at 872. As amici observe, H.R. 836 “would drastically alter the enforcement and suspension of certain state laws and regulations, economic activity across a wide variety of sectors, medical and healthcare practices, public health operations, National Guard deployment and other aspects of everyday life for millions of Pennsylvanians.” 13 Enforcement of H.R. 836, which requires the Governor to end the state of disaster emergency, would have far-reaching legal consequences beyond the Governor simply signing and publishing a new proclamation. It would prohibit the Governor from taking legal actions, and that prohibition itself has legal effect. To distinguish between a resolution that requires the Governor to take affirmative action and a resolution that forbids him from enforcing the law would be to elevate form over substance and allow “the negative of the” Governor to be “evaded by acts under the form of resolutions,” Statement of James Madison (Aug. 15, 1787), supra. Article III, Section 9 protects against such a result. Thus, H.R. 836 does not fit into the third exception to presentment. 13 Brief of Amici Curiae, Members of the Democratic Caucuses of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and the Senate of Pennsylvania, at 9-10; see also Governor’s Application at 22 (describing the same). [J-62-2020] - 15 The Dissent offers a novel view of both the text of our Constitution and our precedent regarding the constitutionality of the legislative veto. The Dissent posits that this Court should use a functionalist approach in determining whether a legislative veto passes constitutional muster. See Dissent at 5-6 (“I believe that the present context presents a compelling case that legislative vetoes should not be regarded as being per se violative of separation-of-powers principles.”). Relative to this case, the Dissent suggests that “the breadth of the essential delegation of emergency powers to the executive in light of future and unforeseen circumstances justifies an equally extraordinary veto power in the Legislature.” Id. at 3-4 n.2 (citing Commc’n Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Florio, 617 A.2d 223 (N.J. 1992)); cf. id. at 4 (“In this respect, it is my considered judgment that the emergency-powers paradigm is essentially sui generis.”). To support its proposed exception to the requirement of presentment, the Dissent offers two points. First, the Dissent does “not regard [Sessoms] as binding precedent in the present -- and very different -- context.” Id. at 5; cf. id. at 4-5 n.3 (calling Sessoms “incompletely reasoned” because it “failed to recognize the exception to presentment requirement, deriving from the Griest decision, for matters that do not concern the business of legislating”). While we evaluated a different statute in Sessoms, our opinion there was clear: “[E]xcept as it relates to the power of each House to determine its own rules of proceedings, under our Constitution the legislative power, even when exercised by concurrent resolution, must be subject to gubernatorial review.” Sessoms, 532 A.2d at 782. Sessoms repeatedly noted our adoption of the approach of the Supreme Court of the United States. See id. at 779-80 (“[O]nce [the legislature] makes its choice enacting legislation, its participation ends. [It] can thereafter control the execution of its enactment only indirectly—by passing new legislation.”) (quoting Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 733-34 (1986)) (emphasis omitted); id. at 780 (relying upon the reasoning of the Chadha [J-62-2020] - 16 Court that “the legislative branch” cannot “directly or indirectly . . . retain some power over the execution of the laws”). We reiterated this interpretation of Article III, Section 9 in West Shore, see West Shore, 626 A.2d at 1135-36, and our lower courts also have reasoned that Sessoms provides no exception to presentment, other than those discussed above. See, e.g., MCT Transp. Inc. v. Phila. Parking Auth., 60 A.3d 899, 915 n.17 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)14 (“In short, the General Assembly cannot exercise a legislative veto over an administrative agency’s budget. The power of the veto belongs only to the executive.”); Dep't of Envtl. Res. v. Jubelirer, 567 A.2d 741, 749 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989)15 (“Nothing less than legislation may suffice to override the rule-making power of the [Environmental Quality Board] or any other executive agency.”). That Sessoms did not discuss the Griest exception to presentment hardly renders Sessoms “incompletely reasoned,” Dissent at 5 n.3, especially inasmuch as we endorsed the same exception in West Shore, see West Shore, 626 A.2d at 1135 (noting that the resolution in question “had the effect of law”). The Dissent stands alone in deriving an exception to presentment from the type of legislation at issue. Related to this first point, the Dissent cites only decisions from the New Jersey