Court Opinion

ID: 9564514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:02:02.322203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:28.111929
License: Public Domain

OPALA, Justice,
concurring.
The court holds today that the Corporation Commission’s [Commission] decision under review is subject to the mandatory superse-deas provisions of Art. 9, § 21, Okl. Const.1 *1122Concluding that nothing in Art. I of the Administrative Procedures Act [APA]2 contravenes the agency’s constitutional duty to suspend the effectiveness of its rulings, the court directs the Commission to stay its decision now under review upon the utility’s [Southwestern Bell] posting a § 21 suspending bond.
I concur generally in today’s pronouncement, but write separately to emphasize that, in the exercise of its Art. 9, § 35, Okl. Const.,3 power to repeal or amend certain sections of the Constitution, the Legislature must explicitly spell out (a) in the statutory text what is amended or repealed, leaving no doubt as to the identity of provisions that stand replaced or are cast away, and (b) in the title of the act the purpose to be accomplished by the amendatory or repealing language.
I
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER ART. 9, § 35, OKL.CONST., THE LEGISLATURE MAY CHANGE THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION ONLY BY AN EXPLICIT AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF ITS PROVISIONS
A.
The terms of Axt. 9, § 35, Okl. Const.,'4 authorize the Legislature to “alter, amend, revise or repeal” §§18 through 34 of Art. 9, Okl. Const. When the lawmaking body invokes its § 35 authority, it does not craft ordinary legislation. Rather, it changes our fundamental law by either repealing the constitutional provisions or reducing them (in an altered form) to a mere statutory dimension. Unlike a statute, the Constitution cannot be amended or repealed by implication,5 The State’s highest law continues to stand with undiminished force until explicit legislative will is manifested to subordinate some amendable section (§§ 18 through 34), in whole or in part, to a contrary legislative norm.6 Explicit legislation is that which specifically and clearly identifies the portion of each constitutional section intended to be altered or replaced by the enactment and shows the extent of its change. When this process is utilized the text that remains unamended survives all legislative changes to continue in force as a part of our fundamental law.
In the case now before us, the Legislature, using its § 35 powers, declared generally that the APA’S Art. I rulemaking provisions, to the extent they may be vieived as inconsistent with Art. 9, §§ 18 through SJf, would function as an amendment or alteration of some unspecified provisions in the enumerated sections of our fundamental law. 75 O.S.Supp.1988 § 250.1t.(A)(2)f7 This attempt *1123to amend or repeal the Constitution is plainly ineffective. Neither § 250.4(A)(2) nor any other Art I provision (of which it is a part) makes explicit reference to the supersedeas command in Art. 9, § 21. Explicit legislation effectively repealing § 21 would have'to (a) identify the precise constitutional text intended to be displaced (stating unequivocally what § 21 provisions are supplanted by enactment) and (b) either provide textual replacement for the content of the cast-away provisions or expressly declare them extinguished in toto. Until the Legislature so explicitly amends § 21, that section’s force as a constitutional command must stand undiminished.8
Judicial laxity in enforcing compliance with the strictures that govern the legislative process intended to effect constitutional changes would be much too costly for the symmetry of our legal system. In this case, for example, the terms of Art. 9, § 20, Okl. Const., the section that generally governs appeals from the Commission to this court, which ivere not replaced in any Art. I provisions of the APA, would be deemed to have been effectively extinguished by mere implication. Endorsing such a cavalier approach would place an imprimatur on constitutional repeal or amendment by implication — a doctrine expressly repudiated by this court’s extant § 35 jurisprudence.9 This example alone should make it abundantly clear that nothing in the Constitution can safely be cast aside by implication. Legislative amendment or repeal must explicitly and narrowly target the changes intended, leaving nothing to speculation or conjecture.
B.
The terms of Art. 5, § 57, Okl. Const.,10 require that an enactment’s title embrace the subject of the law’s amendment.11 If, when amending § 250.4(A)(2) in 1988, the Legislature did indeed intend to relieve the Commission of its duty to comply with the mandatory supersedeas requirement, it should have explicitly stated this purpose both in the body and the title of its act. This it failed to do.12 Although § 250.4(A)(2) was fatally defective (for a flawed title), the act’s infirmity did nonetheless become cured by the section’s later incorporation into the 1991 decennial compilation.13 Had the body of the act ex-*1124plieitly referred to the § 21 mandatory su-persedeas provisions and declared them either repealed in toto or replaced by a text that clearly identified the content of the surviving provisions, the amendment (or repeal) of § 21 could stand today as an effective legislative alteration of that section’s fundamental-law content.
II
SUMMARY
In the exercise of its § 35 power, the Legislature must, both in the body and in the title of an act, explicitly declare its intent to amend or repeal some identifiable provision in one of the amendable (or repealable) sections of Art. 9 (§§ 18 through 34). Its enactment, to be effective, must specifically refer to the provisions being repealed and leave no doubt as to what, if anything, is being substituted for the extinguished constitutional text.
Because the interposed amendment of Art. I of the APA does not comply with the strictures that govern the legislative process of changing an amendable (or repealable) section in our Constitution, it is ineffective to alter the mandatory supersedeas provisions in Art. 9, § 21, Okl. Const. Since the § 21 command continues in force, it must control today’s action in this cause.
I hence concur in the court’s ruling that gives full obedience to the constitutional text of Art. 9, § 21.

. The pertinent terms of Art. 9, § 21, Okl. Const., are:
"Upon the giving of notice of appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission, the Commission, if requested, shall suspend the effectiveness of the order complained of until the final disposition of the order appealed, and fix the amount of suspending or supersedeas bond....” (Emphasis added.)

. For the Art. I rulemaking process see 75 O.S. 1991 §§ 250.2 et seq.

. The terms of Art. I, § 35, Okl. Const., are:
"After the second Monday in January, nineteen hundred and nine, the Legislature may, by law, from time to time, alter, amend, revise, or repeal sections from eighteen to thirty-four, inclusive, of this article, or any of them, or any amendments thereof: Provided, That no amendment made under the authority of this section shall contravene the provisions of any part of this Constitution other than the said sections last above referred to or any such amendments thereof.” (Emphasis added.)

. For the pertinent terms of Art. 9, § 35, Okl. Const., see supra note 3.

. OG & E v. Corporation Commission, Okl., 543 P.2d 546, 550-551 (1975).

. OG & E, supra note 5 at 550-551. In Oklahoma Cotton Ginners’ Ass’n v. State, 174 Okl. 243, 51 P.2d 327, 332-333 (1935), the court observed: “It would seem that the Legislature if it intended to amend the fundamental instrument on which the government of this state was erected, would have expressed itself in no uncertain terms as to the character of its action." (Emphasis supplied.)

.The terms of 75 O.S.Supp.1988 § 250.4(A)(2) provided:
"Effective July 1, 1988, the Corporation Commission shall be required to comply with the provisions of Article I of the Administrative Procedures Act except for subsections A, B, C and F of Section 303 of this title and Section 306 of this title. To the extent of any conflict or inconsistency with Article I of the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to Section 35 of Article IX of the Oklahoma Constitution, it is expressly declared that Article I of the Administrative Procedures Act is an amendment to and alteration of Sections 18 through 34 of Article IX of the Oklahoma Constitution." (Emphasis added.)
*1123The italicized portions were added by a 1988 amendment. (Okl.Sess.L.1988, Ch. 292, § 2). The 1990 and 1993 amendments make no substantive changes in § 250.4(A)(2).

. OG & E, supra note 5 at 550-551, teaches that no powers will be deemed conferred upon the Commission which are inconsistent with its constitutional duties, unless the Legislature’s compliance with the strictures that govern the § 35 amending (or repealing) process has been shown.

. OG & E, supra note 5 at 550-551.

. The terms of Art. 5, § 57, Okl. Const., state in pertinent part:
"Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title,...." (Emphasis added.)
Allen v. Retirement Sys. For Just. & J., Okl., 769 P.2d 1302, 1305 (1988); OG & E, supra note 5 at 550-551; see also Bernstein v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, Okl., 315 P.2d 232, 233 (1957); Bandy v. R.H. Fulton and Company, Okl., 312 P.2d 875, 879 (1957); Atchley v. Board of Barber Examiners of State, 208 Okl. 453, 257 P.2d 302, 305 (1953); Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. Rose, 196 Okl. 592, 166 P.2d 1011, 1014 (1946).

. The purpose of this fundamental-law provision is to inform the people and the legislators of the enactment’s scope. In Re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, Okl., 813 P.2d 1019, 1027 (1991); John Deere Plow Co. v. Owens, 194 Okl. 96, 147 P.2d 149, 152 (1944); Oklahoma Cotton Ginners', supra note 6, 51 P.2d at 332.

. The title of the 1988 amendment (Okl.Sess.L. 1988, Ch. 292, § 2) provides in pertinent part:
"AN ACT RELATING TO STATUTES AND REPORTS; AMENDING 75 O.S. 1981, ... SECTION 12, CHAPTER 207, O.S.L. 1987, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 125, CHAPTER 236, O.S.L. 1987, ... AND SECTION 22, CHAPTER 207, O.S.L. 1987 (75 O.S.SUPP.1987, SECTIONS ... 250.4 ...), WHICH RELATE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT; MODIFYING TERMS; ADDING TO AND MODIFYING EXEMPTIONS; ... PROVIDING FOR RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN CONFLICTS....”

. By the command of Art. 5, § 43, Okl. Const., the Legislature must update every ten years the body of our statutory law. If the substance of a statute is not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, an act that is infirm because of a defective title will nonetheless stand as effective after it has been carried into a decennial compilation. This is so because an incorporation into the decennial edition operates by relation back to cure proce*1124dural defects, such as title flaws, from the date of the original enactment. Allen, supra note 10 at 1305.