Court Opinion

ID: 9700342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:22:47.513434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:07.606961
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
President Judge Bowman:
Article V, Section 9 of the 1968 Constitution of Pennsylvania mandates “. . . a right of appeal in all eases to a court of record from a court not of record . . and that “. . . there shall also be a right of appeal from a court of record or from an administrative agency to a court of record or to an appellate court, the selection of such court to be as provided by law. . . .”
Section 4 of this same article created the Commonwealth Court as a State-wide court with . . such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.”
Following the adoption of these constitutional provisions under the generally revised Article V restructuring the Judicial branch of the government, The Commonwealth Court Act1 and the Appellate Court jurisdiction Act2 were enacted by the legislature pursuant to this constitutional mandate.
The creation of a constitutional “right of appeal” to such court as shall be provided by law and the restructuring of the courts comprising the judicial branch of our government with such jurisdiction as provided by law would suggest careful consideration and clear resolution of issues by the courts as they arise under this constitutionally mandated right of appeal and its implementation by legislative enactment.
While I concur with the result reached by the majority on the merits of the case, I cannot agree that *595implementation of the constitutional right of appeal or the scope of review is or can be found within the provisions of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970 except as to the selection of the particular court to which an appeal will lie.
On the issue of the scope of review I agree with and join in the concurring opinion of Judge Crtjmlish. To merely state, as does the majority, that the constitutional right of appeal and the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970 “envision” of themselves a broad scope of review is to see something that is not there. Neither one touches upon the subject directly or inferentially.
On the issue of implementation of the constitutional right of appeal I am at a loss to comprehend why the majority chooses to ignore the very statute enacted to implement the right to appellate review of a lower court decision.
The Act of December 2, 1968, P. L. (Act No. 351), as amended, 12 P.S. 1111.1-1111.2 provides:
Section 1.
“Except as provided in section 2 there shall be a right of appeal under this act from a final order, decision, judgment, or sentence of a court of record to an appellate court as provided by section 9 of Article Y of the Constitution.”
Section 2.
“The provisions of this act shall not apply to any order, decision, judgment or sentence of a court of record which under any act of assembly heretofore enacted may be appealed to an appellate court.”
Except for the selection of the particular appellate court to which an appeal will lie, we need not and should not look for implementation of the constitutional right of appeal beyond this legislative enactment. To seek it elsewhere obscures rather than clarifies and ignores recent pronouncements of our Supreme Court on the subject. See Smethport Area School Dis*596trict v. Bowers, 440 Pa. 310, 269 A. 2d 712 (1970); Conestoga, National Bank of Lancaster v. Patterson, 442 Pa. 289, 275 A. 2d 6 (1971).
Only in deciding that the Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction over the subject mattér of this appeal under Section 402 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970 is the majority correct, as it is the court selected by legislative enactment to hear such an appeal.
Judge Mencer concurs in this opinion.

 Act of January 6, 1970, P. L. (Act No. 185-1969), 17 P.S. 211.3.

 Act of July 31, 1970, P. L. 211.101. (Act No. 223-1970), 17 P.S.