Court Opinion

ID: 9712497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:55:09.113049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:12.535726
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
Prior to the enactment of Act 140 there was no legal vehicle in this Commonwealth for the forfeiture of retirement benefits of public employees. Miller v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Employees’ Retirement Board, 498 Pa. 103, 445 A.2d 88 (1981) (Nix, J., Opinion in Support of Affirmance). The retroactive application of Act 140 to the instant appellees is constitutionally forbidden and therefore cannot serve as a basis for the forfeiture of appellees’ pension benefits. Miller v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Employees’ Retirement Board, supra.
The passionate plea of the dissent, although containing platitudes which all law abiding citizens unquestionably accept, fails to offer a constitutionally accepted basis for the result it urges. The enactment of Act 140 assures in the future that public officials who violate their oath of office will not receive pension benefits. Thus, the complaint of the dissent has been prospectively addressed in a manner consistent with constitutional mandates.
For these reasons, I join in the result reached by the majority today.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in this opinion.