Court Opinion

ID: 9757039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:15:40.599502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:34.337284
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority orders appellant Alexander Barbieri, Court Administrator, to authorize payment to appellee Robert Reed of more than $31,000 in judicial salary for a period prior to taking his oath of office in which appellee performed no judicial duties because of a lawful election challenge, and during which he maintained a private practice of law. The payment of this unearned salary to appellee is contrary to the Constitution of Pennsylvania and represents in my view impermissible expenditure of public funds. Moreover, the illogical and inequitable result of the majority’s decision is that appellee, for the period in which he maintained his private practice and performed no judicial duties, will receive substantially greater compensation than did those judges who actively performed their judicial duties and were therefore required to forego any compensation from the private practice of law. I dissent.
I
In November, 1973, H. Beryl Klein, Joseph S. Walko, and appellee were candidates for two seats on the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County. Of the three, only H. Beryl Klein emerged as a clear winner. On the first count, Klein received 41,753 votes; Walko, 30,569; and appellee, 30,355.
In January, 1974, Klein filled one of the two seats on the bench. The other seat was not filled until October, 1974, *579when, after eleven months of litigation, appellee was declared to have received more votes than Walko.1 Appellee took his oath of office and began his judicial duties more than nine months later than did Judge Klein.
Appellee continued to practice law throughout the period the election was in dispute, earning from his practice a net income of more than $18,000. Nonetheless, appellee commenced an action in mandamus in the Commonwealth Court against Grace Sloan, Treasurer of the Commonwealth, and appellant Alexander Barbieri, Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, seeking the sum of $81,000 as salary for the nine months between January and October, 1974, when he did not perform judicial duties.
The majority, relying on what it terms the “general proposition” that an elected official assuming office after a contested election is entitled to compensation for the time when he did not serve as a judge, affirms the order of the Commonwealth Court. The majority concludes that, in addition to the $18,000 appellee was able to earn in private practice, he is entitled to the $31,000 he would have earned had he taken his oath of office and begun serving on the bench in January, 1974.
II
The majority’s decision accords appellee a constitutional right contrary to the language of the Constitution.
*580Section 16(a) of the judiciary article, Pa.Const., art. V, § 16(a) provides:

“Compensation of justices, judges and justices of the peace

(a) Justices, judges, and justices of the peace shall be compensated by the Commonwealth as provided by law. Their compensation shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by law applying generally to all salaried officers of the Commonwealth.”
It is fundamental that a court must interpret the Constitution to give effect to the intent of its framers. E. g., Moers v. City of Reading, 21 Pa. 188 (1853). In ascertaining this intent, we should not give the language of the Constitution a strained or technical construction; rather, “the words should be interpreted in their popular, natural and ordinary meaning.” Commonwealth v. Harmon, 469 Pa. 490, 366 A.2d 896 (1976). We must not interpret provisions of the Constitution in such a way that unreasonable or absurd consequences result. Commonwealth v. Darcy, 362 Pa. 259, 66 A.2d 663 (1949).
Thus, when the common and popularly understood meaning of compensation is payment for services rendered, the provision of the Constitution directing that judges be “compensated” does not grant appellee a right to a judicial salary for the time when prior to taking the oath of office he did not perform judicial services because he was not entitled to office due to a lawful election dispute.
In Firing v. Kephart, 466 Pa. 560, 353 A.2d 833 (1976), we held that a justice of the peace who retired mandatorily at the age of 70 was not entitled to receive the salary which would have been earned in the remaining years of his term of office. Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Eagen, speaking for a unanimous Court, stated:
“We consider it far more likely that the voters would have assumed that appellant’s mandatory retirement would not only cut short his active service as justice of the peace but his salary based on such active service as well.”
*581466 Pa. at 569, 353 A.2d at 838.
The principle established in Firing is clear: when judicial services cannot be lawfully performed there is no constitutional right to the payment of salary. I can see no material difference between Firing and this case.
If there is no constitutional right to payment for judicial services not performed because of operation of law at the end of a term of office, Firing v. Kephart, supra, there is no constitutional right to payment for judicial services not performed because of operation of law at the beginning of a term of office. In each situation, the claimant lacks such a right because the judiciary article of the Constitution contemplates de jure capacity to perform the duties of office. Cf. Leedom v. Thomas, 473 Pa. 193, 373 A.2d 1329 (1977) (right to office of appointed judge ends before expiration of term when elected judge takes oath for same office); Berardocco v. Colden, 469 Pa. 452, 366 A.2d 574 (1976) (same); Simmons v. Tucker, 444 Pa. 160, 281 A.2d 902 (1971) (term of office of federal judge begins not at time of appointment or of receiving commission but at time nominee takes oath of office).2
For the proposition that an elected official who assumes office following a contested election is entitled to compensation for the time when he cannot lawfully serve as a judge, the majority relies on Rink v. Philadelphia, 15 W.N.C. 345 (Pa.1884), aff’d, 17 W.N.C. 136, 1 Sadler 390, 2 A. 505 *582(Pa.1886), and several other cases following Rink. In Rink, the Court explicitly justified its holding through the legal fiction that the inability by operation of law to perform a duty is the equivalent of performance. 15 W.N.C. at 347. Firing v. Kephart, supra, abandoned that fiction, holding that a judge who by operation of law was unable to perform his judicial duties was not entitled under the Constitution of 1968 to payment for that part of his term in which he could not lawfully sit as a judge. The fiction adopted in Rink permitted two individuals simultaneously to fill the office sought by Rink. Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Eagen stated in Firing v. Kephart:
“It plainly would be anomalous to construe the Constitution ... as permitting two persons filling two separate terms to occupy the same office at the same time.”
466 Pa. at 567, 353 A.2d at 836-37. Consequently, the dated authorities relied upon by the majority are unpersuasive and I would overrule Rink.3
This position is fully consistent with the diminishment clause of Section 16(a) of the judiciary article. That clause, Pa.Const., art. V, § 16(a), states in part:
“[T]he compensation [of justices, judges, and justices of the peace] shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by law applying generally to all salaried officers of the Commonwealth.”
This Court stated in Firing v. Kephart, supra:
“though the ‘regular’ term of office of a justice of the peace is six years, the Constitution clearly indicates that the term of a justice of the peace does not have to be a regular one.”
*583466 Pa. at 569, 353 A.2d at 838. Where there is an election dispute, there can be no regular ten year term of office. A contrary expectation ignores the realities of political life. See generally Sweeney v. Tucker, 473 Pa. 493, 375 A.2d 698 (1977). We recognized in Sweeney that:
“[An elected official] holds office for the benefit of his constituents and cannot justifiably rely on a private need or expectation in holding office. . . . [He] is subject to the conditions imposed by the terms and nature of the political system in which he operates.”
473 Pa. at 524, 375 A.2d at 713. Thus, though the regular term of office of a judge of the court of common pleas is ten years, Pa.Const., art. V, § 15(a), there is no absolute right to a ten year term of office.
The majority’s decision creates an obvious inequity among members of the courts of common pleas. Of all of the common pleas court judges in the Commonwealth, only appellee will receive both a judicial salary and income from the private practice of law for the period during which his election was in dispute. The anomalous result is that appellee will receive substantially greater income from this period than did any of his brethren, even though, unlike the other common pleas court judges, he performed no judicial services. Such a result is not only illogical, but holds considerable potential for impairing the orderly administration of judicial services.
Public confidence in the judicial system is fundamental to the proper administration of justice. Respect for a judicial system often called upon to make controversial and unpopular decisions is more easily maintained if there is public confidence in the impartiality of the decisionmaking process. It is unlikely that this public confidence will be advanced by a decision awarding a judicial officer a sum of money from public funds which admittedly has not been earned.
The majority finds in the Constitution a right which the Constitution does not grant. I dissent.
PACKEL, J., joins in this Dissenting Opinion.

. Within five days of the election, representatives of Walko and appellee filed petitions in the court of common pleas requesting that 112 election district ballot boxes be opened and recounted pursuant to Sections 1701 and 1703 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, 25 P.S. §§ 3261 and 3263 (1963). The court appointed three recount boards to recount these boxes.
The recount boards’ tally was as follows: Klein, 41,501; appellee, 30,598; and Walko, 30,591. Appellee and Walko appealed.
This Court heard their appeals. In July, 1974, we held that the record showed appellee to have received 30,615 votes, and that the trial court was to count certain additional ballots. In re Recount of Ballots, 457 Pa. 279, 325 A.2d 303 (1974).
After these additional ballots were counted, appellee was declared the winner of the second of the two seats. No appeal from this finding was taken and appellee took his oath of office and commenced the performance of his judicial duties on October 21, 1974.

. The majority’s reliance on Simmons v. Tucker, 444 Pa. 160, 281 A.2d 902 (1971), is unjustified. In Simmons, the issue was whether a judge of the court of common pleas held incompatible positions when he accepted a commission on the federal bench. If anything, Simmons undercuts the majority’s position, for there this Court held that the term of office of a federal judge began only when he took the oath of office, not when he received his commission or his appointment.
Similarly, Kelly v. Herb, 147 Pa. 563, 23 A. 889 (1892), lends no support to the majority. Kelly holds that the right to continue private legal practice ends only upon taking the oath of judicial office. Whatever appellee’s right to practice law until he assumed judicial office by taking the prescribed oath, the issue here, on which Kelly sheds no light, is whether appellee is entitled to judicial salary for the time following election when he could not lawfully perform judicial duties.

. I express no opinion as to whether this Court should overrule those cases cited by the majority which followed Rink, for none of them involved a judge. Vega v. Burgettstown Boro., 394 Pa. 406, 147 A.2d 620 (1958) (police official); Tarner v. Chambersburg Borough School District, 338 Pa. 417, 12 A.2d 106 (1939) (school official); Marshall v. Uniontown Borough School Dist., 262 Pa. 224, 105 A. 78 (1918) (same); Jones v. Dusman, 246 Pa. 513, 92 A. 707 (1914) (county treasurer).