Jason Bologna, Esq. Copyright (c) 1998
Introduction
Introduction
AN ABUSE OF POWER:
HOW THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT USES ARTICLE V, SECTION 10(C) OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION TO DOMINATE PROCEDURAL LAWMAKING, AND WHY
PENNSYLVANIA SHOULD AMEND THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
James
Madison once observed that “[t]he essence of government is power; and
power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to
abuse.” [FN1] To alleviate this potential abuse of power, Madison argued
that government should be divided into federal and state systems, and
that those systems should be separated into executive, legislative, and
judicial branches. [FN2] With this arrangement, “a double security
arises to protect the rights of the people. The different governments
will control each other; at the same time each will be controlled by
itself.” [FN3]
Our
nation's history demonstrates that James Madison was correct, for
federalism and the separation of powers have indeed provided a double
security to protect the rights of the people. [FN4] In the course of
providing this protection, federalism and the separation of powers have
also evolved as legal principles. [FN5] This Comment examines the
evolution of the separation of powers in the creation of Pennsylvania's
procedural law. The evolution of government power in this area has
failed to maintain a system of checks and balances, which is an
essential component of the
proper separation of government powers. [FN6] Absent this system of
checks and balances, Pennsylvania is now plagued by a procedural
lawmaking system that allows its supreme court to blatantly abuse power.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's abuse of power threatens the rights
of all Pennsylvania citizens, and thereby highlights the importance of
investigating how the separation of powers should work in
Pennsylvania's procedural lawmaking system.
Traditionally,
the separation of powers was structured so that the executive enforced
the law, the legislature created the law, and the judiciary
interpreted the law. [FN7] Now, however, the government branches often
perform more than a single distinct function. [FN8] For instance,
article V, section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution gives the
state's supreme court and the legislature power to create procedural
law. [FN9] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court creates procedural law by
making procedural rules. [FN10] The court-made rules are the equivalent
of legislation, as they control all cases within their reach. [FN11]
By making these rules, the supreme court extends judicial power far
beyond its traditional limitation of interpreting the law. Moreover,
because article V, section 10(c) allows the supreme court to suspend
laws that are “inconsistent” with court-made rules, [FN12] the
judiciary has greater power than the legislature in creating procedural
law. Finally, while the legislature maintains its traditional role of
creating law, it now shares that power with a coordinate government
branch, and it cannot prevent the suspension of legislation that is
“inconsistent” with court-made rules.
The
procedural rules and procedural legislation ultimately create
Pennsylvania's procedural law. Procedural law defines the ways in which
litigants can assert their substantive rights. [FN13] Because the
assertion of substantive rights in the civil and criminal justice
systems is fundamentally important to our democracy, the content of
procedural law--and the question of who should make procedural law--also
is fundamentally important to our democracy. [FN14] By
giving procedural lawmaking power to the supreme court and the
legislature, article V, section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution
enables both government branches to create procedural law. This
separation of powers seemingly prevents the accumulation of too much
power in one government branch and thereby prevents the potential abuse
of procedural lawmaking power. [FN15] In reality, however, there is no
meaningful separation of procedural lawmaking power in Pennsylvania
because the supreme court now dominates the field to the near exclusion
of the legislature. [FN16]
This
domination is a clear abuse of government power that is wholly
inconsistent with James Madison's vision of a proper separation of
powers. Specifically, after dividing “the several classes of power, as
they may be legislative, executive, or [judicial]; the next and most
difficult task, is to provide some practical security for each against
invasion of the other.” [FN17] Article V, section 10(c) provides no
security for the legislature in relation to the supreme court, and it
has thereby fostered a crisis in Pennsylvania government.
This
Comment examines three aspects of that crisis. First, the lack of an
internal check on the supreme court's rulemaking power allows the court
to be unaccountable to other government branches when it makes
procedural rules. [FN18] Second, because there is no internal check on
the supreme court's rulemaking power, the court is rapidly becoming a
separate, super-branch of government. [FN19] And third, because the
supreme court uses its rulemaking power to suspend legislation and
insert court-made rules, the justices of the supreme court now determine
an inordinate amount of Pennsylvania's public policy. [FN20] These
three aspects contradict basic principles of democratic government,
[FN21] and ultimately threaten the rights of all Pennsylvania citizens.
This
Comment examines the three aspects noted above in the context of
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions. A current and startling example of
the supreme court's rulemaking power is found in its judicial order
suspending the entire Capital Unitary Review Act (“CURA”). [FN22] CURA,
which was passed by an overwhelming majority vote in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate, [FN23] shortened the time in which
death row appellants could file their appeals. [FN24] Although the
supreme court did not have before it an active case challenging CURA's
constitutionality, the court nevertheless used its rulemaking power to
issue a sua sponte judicial order suspending CURA in its entirety.
[FN25] The supreme court then reinstated the pre-existing death penalty
appeals process in CURA's place. [FN26]
Members
of the executive and legislative branches of Pennsylvania government
publicly questioned the constitutional legitimacy of the judicial order
suspending CURA. [FN27] Moreover, despite a petition by the
Pennsylvania Attorney General to the supreme court, and three special
sessions of the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee to discuss
rulemaking in Pennsylvania, the supreme court's judicial order
suspending CURA still stands. [FN28] Finally, and most importantly,
nothing has changed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ability to use its
rulemaking power to suspend other pieces of legislation.
A
second startling example of the supreme court's rulemaking power is
found in its response to the legislature's attempt to create a
comprehensive evidence code in 1995. Jeffrey Piccola, a former member of
the House of Representatives who worked extensively on the code, noted
that as the project neared completion the supreme court became
“interested . . . and appointed a committee to study it. [T]he threat
was held over our head . . . [to] go ahead and pass [the code] but we're
going to simply suspend [the code] because this impinges on the
rule-making authority of the court.” [FN29] Accordingly, the supreme
court has used its rulemaking power to effectively block legislation
both before and after its enactment.
This
Comment argues that a change in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's
rulemaking power is long overdue. The supreme court's use of article V,
section 10(c) to suspend and preempt legislation has negated the
legislature's power to create procedural law. Regardless of the merits
of CURA or the evidence code, the legislature must have the ability to
pass this sort of procedural legislation and, if necessary, to protect
this procedural legislation. To achieve this goal, this Comment
concludes that article V, section 10(c) should be amended to give the
legislature veto power over the supreme court's rulemaking power.
I. Procedural Rulemaking In Pennsylvania
There
are four steps to understanding Pennsylvania's procedural rulemaking
system. First, it is useful to examine some basic rulemaking principles.
Second, it is necessary to investigate the history of rulemaking in
Pennsylvania. Third, it is essential to identify the constitutional
limitations on rulemaking. Fourth and finally, it is important to review
the case law that interprets the meaning of those constitutional
limitations.
A. Basic Rulemaking Principles
Judges
assume a different role when they make procedural rules than when they
adjudicate cases. [FN30] This different role stems from the fact that
“[i]n deciding cases, judges apply preestablished rules of law to a
particular, preexisting fact situation [whereas] . . . in making
procedural rules they survey a variety of different fact situations,
determine policy, and prescribe rules of general proscriptive
application.” [FN31] The procedural rulemaking process is therefore
legislative, [FN32] and the rules function like pieces of legislation.
[FN33] Although the rules are designed to cover procedural matters, they
often have a direct impact on substantive rights. [FN34] Because of
that impact, and because the process of making rules is legislative in
nature, legislatures have consistently asserted a strong interest in
controlling the creation of procedural law. [FN35]
Despite
these legislative assertions, the judiciary's interest in creating
procedural law is generally regarded as a stronger one. [FN36] In the
public eye, the judiciary is seen as the government branch that is most
responsible for an efficient court system. [FN37] The judiciary also
has more expertise than the legislature in identifying and resolving
procedural problems. [FN38] The themes of responsibility and expertise
are therefore repeatedly found in the arguments supporting judicial
control of procedural lawmaking. [FN39]
Historically,
the question of who should control procedural lawmaking spans decades,
[FN40] if not centuries. [FN41] The passage of the Federal Rules
Enabling Act of 1934 (“the Act”) was a key moment in that history.
[FN42] The Act enabled the creation of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which were “important not only in their own right but [also]
for their profound and immediate stimulating influence upon the
procedural revision throughout the states.” [FN43] The procedural
revision in the states examined whether the judiciary should make
procedural rules, and whether the legislature should have any role in
the process. [FN44] Among the states, New Jersey has produced two of the
most noted cases addressing this procedural revision: Winberry v.
Salisbury [FN45] and Busik v. Levine. [FN46] These cases are noteworthy,
and ultimately controversial, because they present clear examples of
the judiciary asserting significant procedural rulemaking power over the
legislature.
Winberry
involved a conflict between a court-made rule and a
subsequently-enacted statute. [FN47] The court-made rule limited the
time to appeal a final judgment of the New Jersey Superior Court to
forty-five days whereas the subsequently-enacted
statute
extended that time to one year. [FN48] The resolution of this conflict
depended on the interpretation of the phrase “subject to law” in the
rulemaking provision of the New Jersey Constitution, which read “[t]he
Supreme Court shall make rules governing the administration of all
courts in the State and, subject to law, the practice and procedure in
all such courts.” [FN49]
If
“subject to law” meant subject to legislation, then the court-made
rule limiting appeals to forty-five days was subject to, and thus
overruled by, the legislation allowing appeals for one year. [FN50]
This interpretation of “subject to law” jeopardized all court-made
rules, for the legislature could immediately suspend the rules with new
legislation. [FN51] The legislature's proposed power to suspend would
drastically reduce the New Jersey Supreme Court's ability to create
enduring procedural rules. [FN52] Chief Justice Vanderbilt, who wrote
the majority opinion in Winberry, resolved this problem by concluding
that:
the
phrase “subject to law' cannot be taken to mean subject to
legislation. . . . The only interpretation of “subject to law' that
will not defeat the objective of the people to establish an integrated
judicial system and which will at the same time give rational
significance to the phrase is to construe it as the equivalent of
substantive law as distinguished from pleading and practice. . . . The
phrase “subject to law' . . . thus serves as a continuous reminder that
the rule-making power as to practice and procedure must not invade the
field of substantive law as such. While the courts necessarily make
new substantive law through the decision of specific cases coming
before them, they are not to make substantive law wholesale through the
exercise of rule-making power. [FN53] In reaching this conclusion, the
New Jersey Supreme Court became the nation's first court to declare
its “absolute independence of the legislature in the realm of
procedure.” [FN54] The New Jersey Supreme Court's declaration of
judicial independence in Winberry prompted immediate scholarly
discussion and disagreement. [FN55] Nevertheless, in the twenty-three
years between Winberry and Busik, the New Jersey Supreme Court never
retreated from its claim that it exclusively controlled New Jersey's
procedural law. [FN56] Busik v. Levine [FN57] presented the question of
whether a court-made rule authorizing prejudgment interest in tort
cases created substantive law. [FN58] If the rule created substantive
law, it was therefore beyond the procedural rulemaking power of the New
Jersey Supreme Court. [FN59] Writing for the Busik majority, Chief
Justice Weintraub answered this question by observing:
[I]t
is simplistic to assume that all law is divided neatly between
“substance' and “procedure.' A rule of procedure may have an impact upon
the substantive result and be no less a rule of procedure on that
account. . . . [ [ [I]t surely cannot be said to have been palpably
inappropriate to think of prejudgment interest as a matter of procedure
in the context of law-making. . . . The sole question is whether the
court may treat the subject [ [ [of prejudgment interest] by a rule
rather than by a judicial decision despite the substantive aspects of
the subject. The issue of exclusivity involves a touchy matter, the
relations among the three branches of government. It will be time enough
to talk about exclusivity when there is an impasse and no way around
it. A coordinate branch should not invite a test of strength by its
proclamation. Our form of government works best when all branches avoid
staking out boundaries that separate their powers. [FN60]
While
the Busik court claimed that it was not “staking out boundaries that
separate” government powers, it did acknowledge that procedural rules
are not entirely procedural. [FN61] The Busik court thereby identified a
middle ground, namely, law that is both substantive and procedural. By
identifying this middle ground and asserting its power to act within
it, the Busik court effectively set a new boundary for its rulemaking
power. Specifically, if it was “not palpably inappropriate” to conceive
of an area as procedural, then it was a legitimate area for the court
to use its rulemaking power. [FN62] Ultimately, then, the Busik court
moved the boundary of rulemaking power into substantive areas. This move
highlighted three aspects of the judicial domination of rulemaking
that have drawn repeated criticism.
First,
rulemaking permits supreme court justices to set public policy while
allowing the justices to avoid public control. [FN63] Second, rulemaking
validates the ability of the judiciary to determine the limits of its
own power, for in areas of law that contain both procedural and
substantive components, the court has the final word on whether an issue
is appropriate for procedural rulemaking. [FN64] Third, when an appeal
challenges a court-made rule, the appeal is often argued before the
same justices who created the rule. [FN65] The court's dual function in
making and later evaluating its own rule raises concerns regarding
that court's impartiality. [FN66]
Notwithstanding the above criticisms, the procedural revision which followed the
enactment of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure resulted in almost
every state supreme court having some form of rulemaking power. [FN67]
The following three sections detail the history, source of, and
limitations on rulemaking for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
B. The History of Rulemaking in Pennsylvania
The
modern history of rulemaking in Pennsylvania begins in 1937, when the
Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law giving the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court power to make rules of civil procedure. [FN68] The Pennsylvania
Legislature extended that power in 1957, when it gave the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court power to make rules of criminal procedure. [FN69] These
laws remained in effect until 1968, when Pennsylvania held its
constitutional convention. [FN70] Prior
to the convention, the convention delegates received a preparatory
manual discussing the status of Pennsylvania law. [FN71] With respect to
rulemaking, the manual warned that because the Pennsylvania
Legislature had given rulemaking power to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court by statute, the Pennsylvania Legislature had the authority to
take that power away. [FN72] The manual therefore suggested a
constitutional grant of rulemaking power for the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. [FN73] The convention delegates ultimately incorporated this
suggestion, [FN74] but even more importantly, the citizens of
Pennsylvania approved this grant of rulemaking power for the supreme
court when they voted to adopt the constitution. [FN75] Exemplifying
this important distinction between delegates and citizens, Chief
Justice Paxon noted long ago:
[W]e
throw out of view the copious citations which have been furnished us
from the debates in the convention. They are of value as showing the
views of individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their
votes; but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority
who did not talk; much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose
votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. [FN76]
While
article V, section 10(c) gives the supreme court rulemaking power,
much of the rulemaking process is carried on by the Judicial
Administration, Appellate Procedure, Civil, and Criminal Rules
committees, as well as a Judicial Council. [FN77] Each of these
committees investigates whether rules need to be made, or amended, to
improve the efficiency of Pennsylvania's judicial system. [FN78] If a
committee proposes a new or amended rule, it must send that rule to the
Pennsylvania Bulletin for publication as well as recording that rule
in the state administrative office. [FN79] When the Pennsylvania
Bulletin publishes the proposed rule, it notes that comments about the
rule should be sent to the committee proposing it. [FN80] The committee
must review these comments before it can send the proposed rule to the
supreme court. [FN81] If the proposed rule is sent to and adopted by
the supreme court, it is then filed in the office of the supreme court
prothonotary, who must distribute the rule to a variety of different
sources. [FN82]
There
are some exceptions to the process noted above. [FN83] The exceptions
are limited to situations where “exigent circumstances require the
immediate adoption of the proposal,” when the “amendment is of a
typographical or perfunctory nature,” or when “in the discretion of the
Supreme Court such action is otherwise required in the interests of
justice or efficient administration.” [FN84] The
committees noted above are staffed with experts in procedural law.
[FN85] While the rules proposed by the committees impact “[public]
policy issues that affect groups outside the bar,” the committee members
are generally judicially-appointed bar members. [FN86] As a result,
the citizens of Pennsylvania are faced with a strange dichotomy: they
can elect legislators to make substantive law, but cannot elect
committee members to make rules of procedure that give meaning to the
substantive law. The significance of this dichotomy is magnified in an
era where “courts are called upon to regulate a growing sphere of life,
[making] the issues of access and accountability . . . more acute to
the administration of the courts.” [FN87]
Pennsylvania
citizens are nevertheless vital to the rulemaking process. Because the
supreme court's rulemaking power comes from the constitution, it comes
from the people. [FN88] By giving constitutional rulemaking power to
the supreme court, the people
eliminated the legislature's ability to control the court's rulemaking
power. Furthermore, by giving the supreme court power to suspend laws
that are “inconsistent” with court-made rules, [FN89] the people gave
the court the ability to control the legislature's procedural
lawmaking. Accordingly, by shifting the source of rulemaking power from
legislation to the constitution, the people dramatically, and perhaps
unknowingly, shifted the balance of procedural lawmaking power from the
legislature to the supreme court.
C. Constitutional Limitations on Rulemaking
Article
V, section 10(c) establishes the supreme court's power to make
procedural rules, while also defining five limits to that power. First,
rules must cover “procedure,” but not substantive law; second, rules
must be “consistent with” the constitution; third, rules cannot
“abridge, enlarge, [or] modify” a litigant's substantive rights; fourth,
rules cannot impact the legislature's right “to determine the
jurisdiction of any court”; fifth and finally, rules cannot suspend or
alter a “statute of limitation.” [FN90]
Of these five limitations, the first three are raised most frequently in the case law interpreting article V, section 10(c).
D. Case Law Interpreting the Constitutional Limits on Rulemaking
Article
V, section 10(c) limits the supreme court to procedural rulemaking.
This limitation makes the “ill-defined and at times indefinable” [FN91]
distinction between substantive and procedural law fundamentally
important to defining the limits of supreme court rulemaking power. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinions in Commonwealth v. Wharton [FN92]
and Commonwealth v. Sorrell [FN93] illustrate the court's difficulty
in clearly drawing this distinction. Wharton presented the supreme
court with a conflict between Rule 1101 of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Criminal Procedure [FN94] and title
42, section 5104(c) of the Pennsylvania Code. [FN95] Rule 1101,
enacted by the supreme court, suspended a law giving defendants the
right to waive a jury trial provided that it was with the consent of
both the court and the prosecution. [FN96] In place of that law, Rule
1101 allowed defendants to waive a jury trial solely with just the
consent of the court. [FN97] The legislature responded to Rule 1101 by
enacting section 5104(c), which gave the prosecution the right to
demand a jury trial. [FN98]
The
issue in Wharton was whether section 5104(c) was a substantive or
procedural law. [FN99] If section 5104(c) was substantive, then the
court did not have power to suspend the law with its procedural
rulemaking authority. [FN100] If section 5104(c) was procedural,
however, the court could use its procedural rulemaking authority to
suspend the law because it was “inconsistent” with Rule 1101. [FN101]
The Wharton court ultimately split 3-3 on this issue, thereby affirming
the lower court's judgment that section 5104(c) was procedural and
“inconsistent” with Rule 1101, and should thus be suspended. [FN102]
Justice
Roberts wrote for the Wharton justices supporting affirmance. [FN103]
He noted that in criminal law, the substantive law defines which
actions are crimes, as well as setting forth the punishment for those
crimes. [FN104] In comparison, Justice Roberts emphasized that
procedural law establishes the manner in which the substantive law is
enforced. [FN105] Justice Roberts then argued that a jury trial is
procedural, and cited myriad federal and state court decisions to
support his argument. [FN106] Interestingly, however, Justice Roberts
also devoted one section of his opinion to arguing the public policy
merits that favored Rule 1101 in relation to section 5104(c). [FN107]
Justice
Nix wrote one of Wharton's two opinions in support of reversal.
[FN108] He disagreed with Justice Roberts's conclusion that the
Commonwealth's right to a jury trial is procedural. [FN109] Rather, he
argued that the legislature's enactment of section 5104(c) created a
substantive right for the Commonwealth to a trial by jury. [FN110]
Justice Nix concluded that Rule 1101 could not ignore this substantive
right and therefore must fall because it abridged the Commonwealth's
right to a jury trial. [FN111]
Justices
Larsen and Kauffman authored Wharton's second opinion in support of
reversal. [FN112] They argued that laws are presumptively constitutional
and that the supreme court's duty--whenever possible--is to interpret
laws in a manner consistent with the constitution. [FN113] Justices
Larsen and Kauffman cited a number of state and federal cases to support
their argument that the Commonwealth's right to a jury trial is
substantive. [FN114] In accordance with their duty to interpret laws in a
manner consistent with the constitution, the justices therefore
concluded that Rule 1101 was a procedural method for defendants to waive
their jury trials whereas section 5104(c) gave the Commonwealth a
substantive right to a jury trial. [FN115]
Because
the constitutionality of Rule 1101 and section 5104(c) had been raised
but not decided in Wharton, the supreme court revisited the conflict
in Commonwealth v. Sorrell. Here, in a 4-3 decision, the state's high
court held that section 5104(c) intruded on the supreme court's
rulemaking authority and was therefore unconstitutional. [FN116] Justice
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Sorrell. [FN117] He reiterated
his argument that the right to a jury trial is procedural, and he again
cited a number of federal and state cases to support his position.
[FN118] Conspicuously, Justice Roberts's Sorrell opinion lacked the
public policy argument he made in Wharton about the merits of Rule 1101.
[FN119] In addition, Justice Larsen, who had dissented on the exact
same issue just one year earlier in Wharton, joined Justice Roberts's
opinion in Sorrell. [FN120]
Justice
Nix wrote one of Sorrell's two dissenting opinions. [FN121] Joined by
Justice Hutchinson, Justice Nix again argued that the right to a jury
trial is substantive. [FN122] Justice Nix's opinion in Sorrell was,
nevertheless, somewhat different than his opinion in Wharton. [FN123] In
Sorrell, Justice Nix conceded that a jury trial falls somewhere
between substance and procedure. [FN124] However, because the
legislature gave the Commonwealth the right to a jury trial with
section 5104(c), Justice Nix concluded that the balance tipped “in
favor of finding the right to be substantive.” [FN125] Thus, Rule 1101
could not abridge the Commonwealth's substantive right to a jury trial
conferred by section 5104(c). [FN126]
Justice
McDermott wrote Sorrell's second dissenting opinion, wherein he flatly
rejected the majority's conclusion that the Commonwealth's right to a
jury trial is procedural. [FN127] Justice McDermott also criticized as
“totally unsupported” the majority's argument that Pennsylvania
citizens gave the supreme court the power to decide who has a right to a
jury trial when those citizens voted to adopt article V, section
10(c). [FN128]
In
summary, then, Wharton and Sorrell demonstrate the challenge of
separating substance from procedure. Justice Roberts wrote two opinions
arguing the right was procedural, but his opinions varied in their
content. [FN129] Justice Nix wrote two opinions arguing the right was
substantive, but his opinions varied in their reasoning. [FN130] Justice
Larsen actually changed his opinion; first arguing the right was
substantive, and later concluding it was procedural. [FN131] Wharton and
Sorrell also demonstrate that once a supreme court majority concludes
that an area is procedural, and that a law is “inconsistent” with a
court-made rule, the legislature has no authority to check this
decision. [FN132]
In
addition to permitting only procedural rulemaking, article V, section
10(c) also requires the supreme court to make rules “consistent with”
the constitution. [FN133] The supreme court expressed its view of the
constitutional requirements involved in the rulemaking process with its
ruling in In re Pa. C. S. § 1703. [FN134] This “case” was actually an
open letter the supreme court wrote to the Governor, President of the
Senate, and Speaker of the House. [FN135] In the letter, the supreme
court unanimously declared that it was not required to follow title 42,
section 1703 of the Pennsylvania Code. [FN136] Section 1703 required
the supreme court, while exercising its rulemaking powers, “to give
public notice of its meetings . . . and to keep “open to the public at
all
times' all of its “meetings or hearings . . . at which formal action
is scheduled to be taken.”' [FN137] In announcing that it was not
required to follow section 1703, the supreme court reasoned that
Pennsylvania's Constitution gave the judiciary exclusive control over
procedural rulemaking. [FN138] According to the court, when the
legislature enacted section 1703, it attempted to usurp some control of
rulemaking. [FN139] In the end, the court concluded that the
“arguments justifying that attempt are inadequate in light of the
[separation of powers] doctrines developed in this and other
jurisdictions.” [FN140]
At
a minimum, In re Pa. C. S. § 1703 illustrated the supreme court's view
about three constitutional aspects of the procedural rulemaking
process. First, there is no requirement that an adversarial proceeding
resolve rulemaking disputes. While the supreme court's discussion did
consider arguments that could have been lodged in favor of section
1703, [FN141] it would exalt form over substance to conclude that this
letter actually reflected an adversarial proceeding. The supreme court
merely raised arguments, ex parte, and quickly refuted them. [FN142]
The
second rulemaking aspect illustrated by In re Pa. C. S. § 1703 is that
rulemaking disputes cannot be resolved by advisory opinions. The
supreme court explicitly noted “this direct letter of address in no way
suggests any departure from firm precedent against rendering of
advisory opinions.” [FN143] There is, however, an obvious tension
between this statement and the traditional definition of an advisory
opinion. [FN144]
The
third and final aspect is that rulemaking power is vested exclusively
in the judiciary and the legislature cannot pass laws that usurp that
power. [FN145] Curiously, the first assertion of exclusive power did not
come from a state court decision, but rather from the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals in Garrett v. Bamford. [FN146] Garrett's treatment of
the subject is as follows: “[T]he Pennsylvania Constitution gives the
state's supreme court exclusive power to establish rules of procedure
for state courts; although the legislature makes substantive law, it is
without power to control procedure.” [FN147] In adopting Garrett's
interpretation, the supreme court apparently decided
the last sentence of article V, section 10(c)--that “[a]ll laws shall
be suspended to the extent they are inconsistent with rules prescribed
under these provisions”--means that legislation which is consistent
with court rules, or legislation that exists in the absence of court
rules, also is impermissible.
While
article V, section 10(c) requires the supreme court to make rules
“consistent with” the constitution, it also forbids the supreme court
from abridging, enlarging, or modifying a litigant's substantive rights
with court-made rules. [FN148] The supreme court has acknowledged one
instance where a court-made rule enlarged the rights of one litigant at
the expense of another. This error involved the treatment of Rule 238
of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure [FN149] in Laudenberger v.
Port Authority of Allegheny County [FN150] and Craig v. Magee Mem'l
Rehabilitation Ctr. [FN151]
Rule
238 awarded delay damages to a plaintiff when a defendant made no
settlement offer before trial, or when the jury's verdict exceeded the
defendant's offer by more than 125 percent. [FN152] In Laudenberger,
Rule 238 was challenged on the grounds that it exceeded the supreme
court's procedural rulemaking authority. [FN153] Writing for a six
person majority in Laudenberger, Justice O'Brien conceded that Rule 238
had both substantive and procedural elements. [FN154] He argued,
however, that most procedural rules necessarily affect substantive
rights, [FN155] and that prohibiting rulemaking when the rules”“merely
affect substantive rights or liabilities, however slight such effect may
be, would seriously cripple”' the court's rulemaking authority.
[FN156] The supreme court therefore concluded that Rule 238 was a
proper area for rulemaking. [FN157]
Justice
Roberts wrote Laudenberger's sole dissenting opinion. [FN158] He
concluded that in enacting Rule 238, the supreme court exceeded its
constitutional rulemaking power. [FN159] This conclusion was premised on
Justice Roberts's belief that Rule 238 enlarged the plaintiff's rights
while abridging the defendant's rights. [FN160] Specifically, the
defendant was responsible for making a settlement offer that came within
twenty-six percent of the jury verdict. [FN161] If the defendant
failed in this regard, he or she faced a ten percent penalty that was
awarded to the plaintiff. [FN162] Justice Roberts ultimately noted that
the Laudenberger majority's treatment of Rule 238 “serve[d] well to
demonstrate that it is often more difficult to confess error than to
fall into error in the first place.” [FN163]
In
Craig v. Magee Mem'l Rehabilitation Ctr., the supreme court confessed
that it had made an error in its interpretation of Rule 238 in
Laudenberger. [FN164] Faced with an intriguing set of facts, [FN165] the
Craig court suspended Rule 238 on due process grounds because it had
become “an uncontestable presumption that all fault [in pretrial
negotiations] lies with a defendant.” [FN166] Justice Hutchinson
concurred with the Craig majority, [FN167] but declared that Rule 238
illustrated the need to pay closer attention to the separation of powers
in rulemaking. [FN168] Justice Hutchinson also noted that the supreme
court “above all, ought not to deal cavalierly with the constitutional
authority of a coordinate branch to prospectively determine and
generally define substantive rights.” [FN169]
In
light of the supreme court's decisions since Craig, however, it seems
that many Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices do not share Justice
Hutchinson's view about the proper approach to the separation of
government powers with article V, section 10(c).
II. The Supreme Court's Abuse of Rulemaking Power
The
supreme court has used article V, section 10(c) to dominate the
creation of Pennsylvania procedural law. This domination flows primarily
from the failure of article
V, section 10(c) to place an internal check on the supreme court's
procedural rulemaking power. Absent an internal check, the supreme court
has expanded its power to become a separate, super-branch of
Pennsylvania government that now determines an inordinate amount of
Pennsylvania's public policy. The following three sections analyze the
myriad problems caused by these developments.
A. The Lack of an Internal Check on Supreme Court's Rulemaking Power
The
lack of an internal check to balance the supreme court's procedural
rulemaking power presents four problems for Pennsylvania government. The
first problem presented is that article V, section 10(c) has separated
procedural lawmaking power into two government branches without
imposing a system of checks and balances. This section has therefore
created an inherently flawed procedural lawmaking system. As James
Madison noted, the separation of powers must be accompanied by a system
of checks and balances, for “ambition must be made to counteract
ambition.” [FN170] Presently, however, the legislature cannot
counteract the supreme court's ambition to control Pennsylvania's
procedural law.
Commonwealth
v. Wharton [FN171] and Commonwealth v. Sorrell [FN172] highlight the
legislature's inability in this regard. [FN173] In 1973, the supreme
court created Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1101, which
overturned legislation requiring the consent of the judge and the
prosecutor before a defendant may waive his right to a jury trial.
[FN174] The legislature responded by explicitly giving the prosecution
the right to a jury trial with the enactment of title 42, section
5104(c) of the Pennsylvania Code; nonetheless, the legislature failed to
counteract Rule 1101 because section 5104(c) was suspended by the
supreme court in accordance with article V, section 10(c). [FN175] The
legislature's inability to check the supreme court, and the supreme
court's ability to check the legislature by suspending “inconsistent”
laws, clearly demonstrates a fundamental imbalance of power in
Pennsylvania's procedural lawmaking system.
This
fundamental imbalance creates a second problem; namely, that the
legislative and executive branches cannot respond to the will of the
people in the field of procedural law. The enactment and suspension of
CURA illustrates this point. [FN176] During the 1994 gubernatorial
campaign, Republican candidate Tom Ridge
promised an “orderly process to implement the death penalty” if
elected. [FN177] When Governor Ridge entered office, he immediately
called a special legislative session on crime. [FN178] Fulfilling his
campaign promise, the first subject Governor Ridge listed for
consideration at the special legislative session was “a[n] orderly
process to implement the death penalty.” [FN179] CURA became that
orderly process, passing by a 180-12 vote in the House of
Representatives and a 42-5 vote in the Senate. [FN180] Despite this
overwhelming support, the supreme court simply cited its rulemaking
power under article V, section 10(c), and suspended CURA in its
entirety. [FN181] This suspension demonstrates that while the
legislative and executive branches can respond to the will of the people
by enacting procedural laws on their behalf, neither branch can
protect those laws, or the will of the people, from the supreme court.
The
inability of the executive and legislative branches to check the
supreme court's rulemaking power raises a third problem, which is linked
to the notion of judicial review. Today, it is “firmly established and
universally accepted” that judicial power necessarily includes the
power to review the constitutionality of legislation. [FN182] Although
court-made rules are similar to legislation, they are not subject to
review by a coordinate government branch. [FN183] The absence of review
presents a significant problem, for “if the legislature goes beyond its
powers, the courts are available to enforce the constitutional
restraints. But if [the] Supreme Court exceeds its powers, who shall
impose the check? Therein lies the danger when the court undertakes, not
to construe law, but to make it.” [FN184]
In
examining this point, one commentator recently noted that because
article V, section 10(c) isolates supreme court rulemaking from
legislative review, the judiciary is now an unaccountable government
branch. [FN185] The commentator logically concluded that an
“unaccountable judiciary is . . . not a good thing.” [FN186] The lack of
accountability must reduce the degree of restraint the supreme court
exercises in using rulemaking power. [FN187] And, with less restraint,
the supreme court can use rulemaking power in ways that broadly affect
Pennsylvania's public policy [FN188] and even in ways that violate Pennsylvania's Constitution. [FN189]
A
fourth problem stemming from the lack of an internal check on the
supreme court is found in the requirement that the court make
procedural, but not substantive law. Wharton and Sorrell illustrate the
immense difficulties of dividing substance from procedure. [FN190] A
strong argument can be made that the supreme court may inadvertently
make substantive law when the line between substance and procedure is
not entirely clear. [FN191] In these situations, the supreme court
should defer to the legislature because only the legislature has the
authority to make substantive law. [FN192] The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court apparently rejects this restrained approach to rulemaking, for “in
the area of institutional relations among the branches of
Pennsylvania's government . . . where their powers are greatest, the
justices consistently overstep reasonable boundaries of their powers.”
[FN193]
In
addition to the difficulty of drawing a clear distinction between
substance and procedure, the situation is further compounded by the fact
that procedural legislation is often closely tied to a larger,
substantive area of the law. [FN194] When the supreme court suspends the
procedural piece of legislation, it thereby prevents needed changes in
the larger, substantive area of the law.
For
instance, in 1996 the legislature added section 813-A to the Health
Care Services Malpractice Act. [FN195] Section 813-A was designed to
deter frivolous lawsuits by requiring the plaintiff's attorney to have a
reasonable basis in law and fact before filing a lawsuit. [FN196]
Absent such a basis, “the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative,
shall impose upon the person who signed the document or a represented
party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include a civil
penalty not to exceed $5,000.” [FN197] The supreme court suspended
section 813-A with a judicial order that replaced the “shall impose”
language with a discretionary “may impose” standard. [FN198] By changing
this language, the supreme court reduced the potential of section
813-A to deter frivolous lawsuits. The supreme court's revision of this
and other sections of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act
prompted Lee McCormick, the President of the Pennsylvania Medical
Society, to comment:
We
worked with the Trial Bar this time to come up with tort reform which
would eliminate frivolous cases, reduce transaction costs and speed the
system. The proposals were agreed upon by everyone . . . [and] the
amended bill passed unanimously in both the House and Senate and was
quickly signed by the governor. Then . . . [the] supreme court suspended
certain provisions . . . instead of imposing a mandatory award of
attorneys' fees in frivolous cases, the supreme court left that decision
to the [lower] court's discretion. This change diluted the
effectiveness of this provision. . . . The legislature made the changes
that were agreed upon by all the parties, and some of those changes
were suspended and turned back to the court's own authority. Honestly,
it's frustrating. . . . [FN199] The supreme court's ability to
frustrate legislative intent flows from the court's manipulation of the
separation of powers doctrine. Traditionally, the doctrine allowed
legislation “to affect the judiciary, as long as these acts did not
interfere with the administration of justice.” [FN200] Now, however,
the doctrine is “used to strike down laws that affect the judicial
branch in any way.” [FN201] This use contradicts supreme court
precedent. In Laudenberger, the supreme court reasoned that it had
power to make procedural rules which had collateral effects on
substantive matters. [FN202] If this reasoning is true, then the
opposite should also be true; namely, the legislature should have power
to make substantive law which has a collateral effect on procedural
matters. [FN203] Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher addressed
the supreme court's failure to accept this argument when he noted:
That
a substantive enactment by the General Assembly, when exercising its
legislative power, has a collateral effect on procedural questions
necessary to its implementation cannot prevent the General Assembly from
exercising its constitutional power to make, alter and repeal laws. . .
. Presently, however, the Supreme Court always gets the last word.
Once the Court concludes that a matter is proper for rulemaking, even
if it agrees that a rule has a collateral effect on a substantive
right--and virtually all of them do--the Court has the ability . . . to
upset the policy established by the legislative branch of our
government. [FN204]
The
supreme court's ability to upset legislative policy ultimately
prevents the legislature from protecting the rights of the people. As
Justice Holmes once noted, “legislators are ultimate guardians of the
liberties and welfare of the people in quite as
great a degree as the courts.” [FN205] In Pennsylvania, though, the
absence of an internal check on the supreme court ultimately prevents
the legislature from protecting the liberty and welfare of the people in
the Commonwealth's procedural lawmaking system.
B. The Disintegration of Co-Equal Government Branches
The
supreme court has used article V, section 10(c) to enlarge its power
at the expense of the legislative and executive branches. This use has
disintegrated the co-equality of the government branches. The
disintegration of equality is demonstrated by the breakdown of two
critical democratic processes: the process of creating law, and the
process of resolving disputes through adversarial proceedings.
In
the process of creating law, “the people in a democracy have not only
the right to be heard, but [also] the right to be wrong.” [FN206] The
people of Pennsylvania therefore had the right to vote for a
gubernatorial candidate who promised that he would restructure the death
penalty appeals process. Regardless of whether CURA was the correct
approach, the people had the right to support this approach. By
suspending CURA, the supreme court usurped what the people wanted and
ultimately achieved through the legislative process. [FN207] The
crippling of the legislative process in this manner “cuts to the heart
of our nation's democratic principles.” [FN208] If the legislative and
executive branches cannot account for the will of the people by enacting
laws on their behalf, then our government will no longer be a
representative democracy.
The
supreme court's willingness to suspend procedural laws like CURA
stands in sharp contrast to its deferential attitude toward
non-procedural laws. For instance, in Parker v. Children's Hosp. of
Phila., [FN209] the supreme court stated that “a legislative enactment
enjoys a presumption in favor of its constitutionality and will not be
declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly
violates the Constitution. All doubts are to be resolved in favor of a
finding of constitutionality.” [FN210] This statement from the court in
Parker is manifestly different than the supreme court's approach in In
re Pa. C. S. § 1703, where the court went out of its way to declare
section 1703 unconstitutional. [FN211]
Curiously,
the supreme court relied heavily on the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit's interpretation of article V, section 10(c) in deciding In re
Pa. C. S. § 1703. [FN212] In Garrett v. Bamford, [FN213] the Third
Circuit concluded that Pennsylvania's legislature did not have power to
control procedure. [FN214] Even a cursory reading of article V, section
10(c) suggests, however, that the Garrett court reached the wrong
conclusion. The last sentence of article V, section 10(c) implicitly
retains procedural lawmaking power for the legislature because if a law
is consistent with a court-made rule, or if a law exists in the absence
of a court-made rule, then the supreme court has no authority to
suspend it. [FN215] Not surprisingly, therefore, justices of
Pennsylvania's Supreme [FN216] and Superior Courts, [FN217] and a
number of commentators, [FN218] have questioned the supreme court's
assertion that the Pennsylvania Legislature has no authority to control
procedural law.
Commentators
have also questioned the secretive approach to rulemaking used by the
state supreme court. [FN219] Specifically, “[w]hen courts assume a
legislative role, they should also assume the restraints that accompany
that role. Public deliberations are a basic safeguard to insure a
legislative process that is fair and informed.” [FN220] The decision in
In re Pa. C. S. § 1703 eliminated this basic safeguard by closing the
supreme court rulemaking process to the public. [FN221] This retreat
from the public eye followed criticism, leveled earlier that same year,
that the supreme court was too secretive in its proceedings. [FN222] At
a minimum, then, the supreme court's procedural rulemaking process
uses a different, more secretive standard than the legislature's
process of debating and enacting laws.
The
process of resolving disputes through adversarial proceedings is also
thwarted by the disintegration of co-equal government powers. For
example, In re Pa. C. S. § 1703 was the antithesis of an adversarial
proceeding. Rather than hear litigants' arguments, the justices simply
wrote a letter to Pennsylvania's executive and legislative leaders
declaring section 1703 unconstitutional. [FN223] Although the supreme
court stated that the letter was not a departure from Pennsylvania's
prohibition against advisory opinions, it is patently obvious that In re
Pa. C. S. § 1703 was an advisory opinion. [FN224] Because advisory
opinions go beyond the proper scope of judicial power, [FN225] it seems
that in issuing an advisory opinion in In re Pa. C. S. § 1703, the
supreme court violated article V, section 10(c)'s command that the court
act in a manner “consistent” with the constitution. [FN226]
In
addition to the potential constitutional violation noted above, when
the supreme court notified the legislature that the proposed evidence
code was unconstitutional, it also potentially violated the
constitutional command that it shall not “abridge” the rights of a
litigant. [FN227] Specifically, the Attorney General's right to argue
before a fair and impartial supreme court concerning the
constitutionality of the proposed code is abridged when the supreme
court offers its opinion before a brief has been filed, or a word has
been spoken, on the code's behalf. [FN228]
In
summary, the supreme court's accumulation of power has eroded the
co-equality of the government branches. One commentator has noted that
Pennsylvania's Supreme Court now appears “to have greater power than any
other state supreme court in the country.” [FN229] Without co-equal
powers among the branches of Pennsylvania government, the processes of
creating law and resolving disputes through adversarial proceedings are
threatened.
C. The Supreme Court's Role in Setting Pennsylvania's Public Policy
Each
of the cases analyzed thus far, Commonwealth v. Wharton, Commonwealth
v. Sorrell, In re Pa. C. S. § 1703, Laudenberger v. Port Authority of
Allegheny County, Craig v. Magee Mem'l Rehabilitation Ctr., and the
suspension of CURA, have affected Pennsylvania's public policy. An
argument can be made that these cases are the exception because
court-made rules “rarely involve matters that excite public
controversy.” [FN230] This argument is opposed, however, by two
important points.
First,
the supreme court has allowed the public policy merits of a court-made
rule to explicitly affect at least one of its decisions. In
Commonwealth v. Wharton, Justice Roberts used one section of his
opinion to argue the public policy merits of Rule 1101 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. [FN231] This section was
irrelevant to deciding the legal issue in Wharton, but it nonetheless
suggested that “this policy determination, as well as the
constitutional ideology of Rule-making, underlay [the court's]
decision.” [FN232] If the public policy merits of court-made rules are
even an unspoken factor in additional supreme court opinions, then the
rules should indeed excite public controversy because they diminish the
integrity of the court's decision-making.
The
second point involves the scope of court-made rules; namely, that they
affect all Pennsylvania citizens involved with litigation. [FN233]
Suzanne Eng provides a striking example of this effect.
On
July 12, 1993, Suzanne Eng's sixteen year-old daughter, Trista, was
kidnapped by Hubert Michael (“Michael”) as she walked to her summer job
at Hardee's restaurant. [FN234] Michael drove Trista to the York County
State Game Lands, where he shot her three times and killed her.
[FN235] After his arrest, Michael pled guilty to first degree murder
and kidnapping charges. [FN236] Michael then stipulated to two
aggravating circumstances at his sentencing hearing, which prompted the
court to impose the death penalty on March 20, 1995. [FN237] The
supreme court's decision to suspend CURA prolonged the death penalty
appeals process for individuals like Michael, and thereby prompted
Suzanne Eng to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to express
her disapproval of the court's action:
The
death of a child by murder is not something you “get over.' The affect
[sic] on your life does change as time goes by, as the years pass. You
learn to bear the absence of your child because that is what you have
to do--either that, or lose sight of the needs of your remaining
children . . . .[Hubert Michael] has been in control every step of the
way, with little respect for his victim, my family and [sic]
Pennsylvania[”s] judicial system . . . ..[Defendants sentenced to
death] are entitled to their day in court, to trial by a jury of their
peers, and yes, an appeal, but no more. I was glad for the legislative
action limiting the number of appeals and appreciate the time and
effort it took to enact such a law as the Capital Unitary Review Act. I
am fearful and resentful of a judiciary branch of our state government
that seems to be assuming the power to take carefully thought out
laws--legislation enacted by and for the people of this Commonwealth,
in the body of our elected Legislature--and throw them out without just
cause. [FN238]
Article
V, section 10(c) neither states, nor implies, that the supreme court
should determine public policy with its rulemaking power. [FN239] The
fact that supreme court justices are forbidden from expressing their
public policy views when running for a seat on the state's highest
court, or when sitting on the state's highest court [FN240] strongly
suggests that the justices should not be the ones setting public policy.
Moreover, the fact that supreme court justices are shielded from
public control, in the sense that their terms of office last for ten
years, [FN241] also strongly suggests that the justices should defer to
the legislature in matters of public policy. Finally, when justices
exercise procedural rulemaking authority and thereby set public policy,
there is nothing the legislature or the people can do to change that
policy. [FN242]
D. Amending Article V, Section 10(c) of The Pennsylvania Constitution
If
the problems described in the three sections above are accepted as
accurate, then this question necessarily follows: what should
Pennsylvania do to address the supreme court's unchecked power in making
procedural rules? This Comment suggests that Pennsylvania citizens
should amend article V, section 10(c) to give the legislature a veto
power over the supreme court's procedural rulemaking power. The veto
power would place an internal check on the supreme court, thereby restoring
the co-equality of the government branches, as well as allowing the
legislature to once again establish Pennsylvania's public policy. There
is widespread support for instituting a legislative veto over the
judiciary's rulemaking in Pennsylvania specifically, [FN243] and in
rulemaking generally. [FN244]
The
power of Pennsylvania citizens to amend article V, section 10(c) is
found in two sources. First, article I, section 2 proclaims that “[a]ll
power is inherent in the people, and . . . they have at all times the
inalienable and indefensible right to alter, reform or abolish their
government in such a manner as they think proper.” [FN245] As such, the
people are the final arbiters in the ongoing dispute between the
legislature and the supreme court over who should control procedural
lawmaking. [FN246]
The
second source of power is found in article XI, section 1, which
establishes the means for enacting a constitutional amendment. [FN247]
In determining the content of an amendment giving the legislature a veto
over the supreme court's rulemaking, two sources provide some insight:
the state model and the federal model. With regard to the state model,
there is a wide range of control over the judiciary's rulemaking by
the various state legislators. [FN248] For instance, Idaho, [FN249] New
Jersey, [FN250] and New Mexico, [FN251] provide their respective
legislatures with no veto power over their supreme courts. Conversely,
Maryland [FN252] and Ohio [FN253] both provide their legislatures with a
majority veto power over their supreme courts. Finally, Alaska [FN254]
and Florida [FN255] provide their legislatures with a supermajority
veto power over their supreme courts.
These
state veto powers could work in Pennsylvania in the following manner.
When the supreme court suspended CURA with its rulemaking authority,
the legislature would have had an opportunity to veto the supreme court
with a majority vote (i.e., over one-half) in both Houses, or a
supermajority vote (i.e., over two-thirds) in both Houses. Given the
overwhelming legislative support for CURA, [FN256] it seems likely that
the legislature could have vetoed the supreme court's decision to
suspend CURA.
Turning
to the federal model, the veto power operates somewhat differently.
The United States Supreme Court does not have a constitutional grant of
rulemaking power. [FN257] Rather, it is given rulemaking power by
statutes. [FN258] When the United States Supreme Court adopts a rule, it
sends the rule to Congress, which has the authority to accept or
reject the rule. [FN259] The federal rulemaking system is therefore
described as “judicial rulemaking pursuant to a legislative delegation
and subject to a congressional veto.” [FN260] The ability of Congress
to veto the procedural rules adds legitimacy to the rules that are
adopted. [FN261] The federal veto power could work in Pennsylvania in
the following manner. If the supreme court did not have a
constitutional grant of rulemaking power, but rather had a statutory
grant of rulemaking power, it would have to send proposed rules to the
legislature for approval. As such, when the supreme court proposed Rule
1101 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, the legislature
would have had an opportunity to accept or reject the rule. Because the
legislature did not approve of Rule 1101, [FN262] it could have
rejected the rule. Conversely, if the legislature accepted Rule 1101,
the rule would have enjoyed legislative and judicial support. With the
support of two government branches, Rule 1101 would have been a more
legitimate expression of Pennsylvania's public policy.
The
application of the federal rulemaking model to Pennsylvania is,
ultimately, strained. Unlike the federal model, Pennsylvania has a
constitutional grant of rulemaking power for its supreme court. As such,
the federal model could only be applied if Pennsylvania citizens voted
to repeal article V, section 10(c) in its entirety. [FN263] Moreover,
unlike United States Supreme Court justices, Pennsylvania Supreme Court
justices are elected. [FN264] These state justices can therefore claim
a “high[er] form of [democratic] legitimacy” because, through the
election process, they are directly accountable to Pennsylvania's
citizens. [FN265] Accordingly, the constitutional source of rulemaking
power and the election of supreme court justices suggests that
Pennsylvania is ill-suited for the federal rulemaking model.
The
democratic legitimacy of Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices warrants
further discussion, however. As an initial matter, supreme court
justices face election less frequently than members of the House of
Representatives, [FN266] the Senate, [FN267] or the Governor. [FN268]
Additionally, when campaigning to be a supreme court justice, candidates
are forbidden from sharing their policy views with the electorate.
[FN269] This prohibition stands in sharp contrast to the election
campaigns for legislative and executive offices. Furthermore, former
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Kauffman has noted the “evidence
overwhelmingly suggests that judges are elected in a climate of nearly
total voter ignorance.” [FN270] Because supreme court justices are not
in front of the camera advocating new procedural rules, or answering
their telephones justifying their procedural rulemaking votes, whatever
ignorance that exists during the election most likely continues during
the justice's term on the bench. Finally, in the aftermath of In re Pa.
C. S. § 1703, supreme court justices have isolated themselves from the
public in making procedural rules. [FN271]
Based
on the factors detailed above, it is readily apparent that executive
and legislative members have a greater degree of democratic
accountability than do supreme court justices. Procedural rulemaking
that affects public policy therefore warrants a legislative veto power
because the legislators are more accountable to the people than are
supreme court justices. One member of the supreme court has explicitly
recognized this point, noting that the “[l] egislature, with unique
fact-finding capacities designed not only to correct but also to
anticipate social problems, both broadly declares public policies and
minutely provides for details of their implementation.” [FN272]
Notwithstanding
the above reasoning, supreme court justices do have some
accountability to the people. Specifically, they are elected by the
people to ten-year terms. The supreme court justices also possess an
unrivaled expertise in the field of procedural law. [FN273] As such,
the legislative veto power should be a limited one. If it is unwise to
keep the “legislature from areas which are legitimate subjects of its
concern, it would be unfortunate in equal, if not greater measure, to
stultify the grant of rule-making authority by keeping the court from
utilizing it in areas in which it could be of service.” [FN274] The
ultimate goal, therefore, is to strike a balance that maintains the
supreme court's control over the creation of procedural rules while
also allowing the legislature to override that control when it decides
the peoples' will must govern. [FN275]
Recent
proposals to amend Pennsylvania's rulemaking system have failed to
adequately strike this balance. For instance, Senate Bill 779,
introduced in 1997, removed the supreme court's ability to suspend
“inconsistent” legislation, and declared that “[n]o laws shall be
suspended unless found to be in violation of this Constitution.” [FN276]
The bill also enabled the legislature to “reject any rules prescribed
by the Supreme Court within 90 days of their publication in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin.” [FN277] Senate Bill 779 thereby gave the
legislature two powerful checks on the supreme court.
First,
the legislature would have the authority to reject court-made rules.
This approach mirrors Congress' power under the federal rulemaking
system. [FN278] Nonetheless, this approach fails to account for the
important differences in democratic accountability between justices of
the United States Supreme Court, and justices of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court. In addition, this approach leaves the supreme court at
the mercy of the legislature when making procedural rules. Because the
problems with Pennsylvania's procedural lawmaking system are now caused
by the legislature acting at the supreme court's mercy, it is
counter-intuitive to try and resolve these problems by placing the
supreme court at the legislature's mercy.
The
second powerful check that Senate Bill 779 places on the supreme court
is that court-made rules cannot suspend “inconsistent” legislation.
[FN279] This approach presents an important problem, however, for the
supreme court and its various rules committees. Neither the supreme
court nor its committees could immediately respond to problems in the
judicial system that are caused by ineffective procedural legislation.
This inability prolongs inefficiencies in Pennsylvania's judicial system
because the problems could not be resolved unless and until the
legislature voted to change the ineffective procedural legislation.
A
better approach than Senate Bill 779 would be as follows: maintain the
current procedural rulemaking system, but add a provision to article
V, section 10(c) that allows the legislature, with a two-thirds vote in
both Houses, to override the supreme court when it suspends
“inconsistent” procedural laws. This approach provides a meaningful
check on the supreme court, but it limits the check to situations where
the legislature strongly supports a particular piece of legislation. In
these situations, the legislature must have the power to establish
Pennsylvania's public policy.
Moreover, the advantage of a two-thirds majority vote, as opposed to a
simple majority vote, is that it prevents the legislature from easily
overriding the supreme court in procedural matters. Consequently, the
“place of the legislature in the field of judicial administration and
procedure . . . [[[is] that of a reserved ultimate reviewing power, not
that of a frequently-intervening supervisory force.” [FN280]
Conclusion
Article
V, section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution places no internal
check on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's procedural rulemaking power,
and it thereby allows the court to dominate the creation of procedural
law. This domination of procedural law has made the supreme court a
separate, super-branch of the Pennsylvania government. This domination
of procedural law has also allowed the supreme court to supplant the
executive and legislative branches in setting Pennsylvania's public
policy. At a minimum, these developments are antithetical to basic
principles of democratic government.
Because
“power is of an encroaching nature . . . it ought to be effectually
restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” [FN281] In
Pennsylvania, the legislature has no effective means of restraining the
supreme court's procedural rulemaking power. To protect the
legislature, and ultimately to protect themselves, the citizens of
Pennsylvania should amend article V, section 10(c) to give the
legislature a veto power over the supreme court's procedural rulemaking
power.
[FN1].
James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Constitutional Convention (Dec.
2, 1829), quoted in Respectfully Quoted 271 (Suzy Platt ed., 1992).
[FN2]. The Federalist Nos. 48, 51 (James Madison).
[FN3]. The Federalist No. 51, at 357 (James Madison) (Benjamin Fletcher Wright ed., 1961).
[FN4].
The federal government has protected individual rights through the
selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states. See Gerald
Gunther, Constitutional Law 413-31 (12th ed. 1991) (discussing
selective incorporation). The separation of powers has protected
individual rights by allowing the judiciary to review the actions of
coordinate government branches to determine their constitutionality.
See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (discussing separation
of powers).
[FN5].
The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts have modified the
accessibility of a federal forum to protect individual rights by
changing federal courts' jurisdictional requirements. See Erwin
Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 1.5, at 34-36 (1994) (discussing
changes in jurisdiction of federal courts). Separation of powers
principles have been modified in allowing the judiciary to explicitly
create procedural law in making procedural rules. See infra notes 7-12
and accompanying text for a brief discussion of the evolution of the
separation of powers.
[FN6].
See Kenneth S. Gallant, Judicial Rule-Making Absent Legislative
Review: The Limits of Separation of Powers, 38 Okla. L. Rev. 447, 481
(1985) (noting separation of powers useful institutional arrangement
only with system of checks and balances).
[FN7]. See Robert Woodside, Pennsylvania Constitutional Law 6 (1985) (noting traditional division of powers within government).
[FN8].
See, e.g., Winberry v. Salisbury, 74 A.2d 406, 412 (N.J. 1950) (noting
legislative and executive branches assume many judicial functions).
[FN9].
The power to make procedural rules is given explicitly to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the power to create procedural law is
given implicitly to the Pennsylvania General Assembly (“the
legislature”), by article V, section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania
Constitution, which reads:
The
Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules
governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices
of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders,
judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including
the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of
actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of
justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice
law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all
officers of the judicial branch, if such rules are consistent with this
Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive
rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to
determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor
suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall
be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules
prescribed under these provisions.
Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c).
[FN10]. Jack B. Weinstein, Reform of Court Rule-making Procedures 3-4 (1977).
[FN11]. Id.
[FN12]. See supra note 9 for text of article V, section 10(c).
[FN13]. Charles W. Grau, Who Rules the Courts? The Issue of Access to the Rulemaking Process, 62 Judicature 428, 428 (1979).
[FN14].
See Richard S. Kay, The Rulemaking Authority and Separation of Powers
in Connecticut, 8 Conn. L. Rev. 1, 1 (1975) (noting questions of
procedure will determine matters of “grave importance”).
[FN15].
See id. at 40 (recognizing James Madison's view that separation of
powers designed to prevent tyranny resulting from too much power being
accumulated in “one set of hands”).
[FN16].
See infra notes 170-242 and accompanying text for a discussion of how
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dominates procedural lawmaking.
[FN17]. The Federalist No. 48, at 343 (James Madison) (Benjamin Fletcher Wright ed., 1961).
[FN18].
See infra notes 170-205 and accompanying text for a discussion of the
lack of an internal check on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
[FN19].
See infra notes 206-29 and accompanying text for a discussion of the
growing power of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in relation to the
executive and judicial branches.
[FN20].
See infra notes 230-42 and accompanying text for a discussion of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court's role in setting public policy.
[FN21].
The lack of an internal check to balance government powers contradicts
the system of checks and balances that James Madison advocated. The
Federalist No. 48 (James Madison). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's
accumulation of power erases the co-equality of the government branches,
which contradicts James Madison's vision about the proper balance of
government power. Id. Finally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's
suspension of legislation and institution of court-made rules ignores
the traditional role of the legislature in setting the state's public
policy. Weinstein, supra note 10, at 6-7.
[FN22].
Suspension of the Capital Unitary Review Act and Related Sections of
Act No. 1995-32 (SS1); and Amendment of Chapter 1500 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, 548 Pa. CCXXXV (1997).
[FN23].
On October 30, 1995, the House of Representatives voted 180-12 to pass
the Capital Unitary Review Act. H.R. 66, 179th Leg., 1st Spec. Sess.
519 (Pa. 1995) (the “Act”). On October 31, 1995, the Senate voted 42-5
to pass the act. S. 179-59, 1st Spec. Sess. 330-31 (Pa. 1995). Governor
Tom Ridge signed the Act into law on November 17, 1995. See 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9570 (West 1997) (suspended permanently in 1997 by
order of Pennsylvania Supreme Court)).
[FN24]. The Act's sponsor, Senator Stewart Greenleaf, noted that CURA:
would
address the lengthy and protracted appeals in death penalty cases. We
all know how many years an appeal such as that takes, sometimes as many
as 8 or 10 years, a decade. Part of the reason is that there are two
parts to an appeal. One of them is called a direct appeal, which is
handled after the imposition of the death sentence on a defendant and
then he has an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. After the
supreme court handles that case, and the whole process could take years,
then after the supreme court denies the appeal, the defendant may then
take what is known as a collateral appeal and raise matters that have
not been raised on direct appeal. And that, again, could take years. So
the purpose of the bill is to consolidate and expedite the death
penalty appeals so that both the direct and collateral appeals are
taken at the same time so that it is not as long and it is done in a
more expeditious manner.
S. 38, 179th Leg. 1st Spec. Sess. 214 (Pa. 1995).
[FN25]. 548 Pa. CCXXXV (1997).
[FN26]. Id.
[FN27].
“State Attorney General Mike Fisher... said the court overstepped its
constitutional authority in suspending the law....” Peter Jackson,
Supreme Court Asked to Reconsider Death-Row Appeals Law, Phila.
Inquirer, Oct. 2, 1997, at B3. Senator Stewart Greenleaf commented “[m]y
hope is that the court will reevaluate its order and restore the law
as enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people.” Id.
[FN28].
Petition to Reconsider Sua Sponte Per Curiam Order Suspending the
Capital Unitary Review Act and Portions of the Post Conviction Relief
Act (on file with Attorney General, Mike Fisher). See also, The Supreme
Court's Suspension of The Acts of The General Assembly: Hearings Before
the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary Comm., 181st Leg., 1st
Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997). The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
(Subcommittee on Courts) conducted hearings on October 16, 1997, in
York, Pennsylvania; on October 23, 1997, in Altoona, Pennsylvania; and
on October 30, 1997, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
[FN29].
Judicial Reform House Bills 10 and 838: Hearing on H. 10 and H. 838
Before the House Judiciary Comm., 179th Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. at 33, 34
(Pa. 1995) (statement of Jeffrey Piccola, Majority Chairman, House
Judiciary Comm.).
[FN30]. See Gallant, supra note 6, at 475 (noting differences between adjudicating and rulemaking).
[FN31]. Grau, supra note 13, at 428.
[FN32]. Id.
[FN33]. Weinstein, supra note 10, at 3-4.
[FN34]. See Gallant, supra note 6, at 449 (noting procedural rules concern liberties and other rights of citizens).
[FN35].
See generally A. Leo Levin & Anthony G. Amsterdam, Legislative
Control Over Judicial Rule-Making: A Problem in Constitutional
Revision, 107 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (1958) (detailing legislative and
judicial interests in creating procedural law).
[FN36]. Grau, supra note 13, at 428-29.
[FN37]. Levin & Amsterdam, supra note 35, at 10.
[FN38]. Id.
[FN39]. Id.
[FN40]. See Gallant, supra note 6, at 447 (noting history of debate).
[FN41]. Id. at 447 n.2.
[FN42]. Levin & Amsterdam, supra note 35, at 3 n.8.
[FN43]. Id.
[FN44]. Gallant, supra note 6, at 447.
[FN45]. 74 A.2d 406 (N.J. 1950).
[FN46]. 307 A.2d 571 (N.J. 1973).
[FN47]. Winberry, 74 A.2d at 408.
[FN48]. Id.
[FN49]. Id. (quoting N.J. Const. art. IV, § 2, para. 3).
[FN50]. Id. at 408.
[FN51]. Id.
[FN52]. Id.
[FN53]. Id. at 409-10.
[FN54]. Levin & Amsterdam, supra note 35, at 8 n.36.
[FN55].
Compare Kaplan & Greene, The Legislature's Relation to
Judicial Rule-Making: An Appraisal of Winberry v. Salisbury, 65 Harv.
L. Rev. 234 (1951-52) (criticizing decision) with Roscoe Pound,
Procedure Under Rules of Court in New Jersey, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 29
(1952) (praising decision).
[FN56]. Busik v. Levine, 307 A.2d 571, 585 n.2 (N.J. 1973).
[FN57]. 307 A.2d 571 (N.J. 1973).
[FN58]. Id. at 573.
[FN59].
See supra note 53 and accompanying text for statement that New Jersey
Supreme Court could not make substantive law with its rulemaking
authority.
[FN60]. Busik, 307 A.2d at 578-83.
[FN61]. Id. at 583.
[FN62]. Id. at 581.
[FN63]. Gallant, supra note 6, at 474.
[FN64].
See infra note 204 and accompanying text for an explanation of how the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court uses rulemaking power in this manner.
[FN65]. Weinstein, supra note 10, at 8.
[FN66]. Id.
[FN67].
See generally Donna J. Pugh, et al., Judicial Rulemaking: a compendium
(1984) (providing state-by-state overview of rulemaking powers of
state high courts).
[FN68]. Act of June 21, 1937, P.L. 1982, 17 P.S. § 61 (current version at 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1722 (West 1981)).
[FN69]. Act of July 11, 1957, P.L. 819, 17 P.S. § 2084 (current version at 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1722(a)(1) (West 1981)).
[FN70]. Woodside, supra note 7, at 420.
[FN71].
The Preparatory Committee for the Constitutional Convention of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, The Judiciary: Reference Manual No. 5
(1967-68).
[FN72]. Id. at 52-53.
[FN73]. Id. at 53.
[FN74].
This suggestion was incorporated in article V, section 10(c) of the
Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968. See supra note 9 for the text of this
provision.
[FN75].
In Pennsylvania, all constitutional amendments after 1790 “were
submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority of those voting
before they became effective.” Woodside, supra note 7, at 9. The 1968
convention recommendations were submitted to the electorate in separate
parts. Id. at 579-82. The “Constitution of 1968” was actually amended
by referenda in 1966, 1967, and 1968. 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 906
(West 1985).
[FN76]. Commonwealth v. Balph, 3 A. 220, 229 (Pa. 1886).
[FN77].
See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 435 A.2d 158, 162 n.2 (Pa. 1981)
(acknowledging assistance of rules committees and judicial council).
[FN78]. See Pugh, et al., supra note 67, at 195 (providing overview of rulemaking process in Pennsylvania).
[FN79]. Pa. R.J.A. 103(a)(1) (West 1998).
[FN80]. Id.
[FN81]. Id. at 103(a)(2).
[FN82]. Id. at 103(b)(1)-(2).
[FN83]. Id. at 103(a)(3).
[FN84]. Id.
[FN85]. Grau, supra note 13, at 434-35.
[FN86]. Id. at 435.
[FN87]. Id.
[FN88]. The power of the people is specifically addressed in article I, section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution:
All
power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded
on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and
happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an
inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their
government in such a manner as they may think proper.
Pa. Const. art. I, § 2.
[FN89]. See supra note 9 for text of article V, section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
[FN90]. See supra note 9 for text of article V, section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
[FN91]. Levin & Amsterdam, supra note 35, at 20.
[FN92].
435 A.2d 158 (Pa. 1981). The court, being equally divided, affirmed an
earlier holding that a statute granting the state the right to a jury
trial upon demand was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the
authority of the trial court to approve a defendant's motion to waive
trial by jury. Id. at 168.
[FN93].
456 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1982). The court held that the legislature exceeded
its constitutional authority in enacting a statute inconsistent with
an existing rule of criminal procedure promulgated by the supreme
court. Id. at 1329.
[FN94]. Rule 1101 of the Pennsylvania rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
In
all cases, the defendant may waive a jury trial with approval by a
judge of the court in which the case is pending, and elect to be tried
by a judge without a jury. The judge shall ascertain from the defendant
whether this is a knowing and intelligent waiver and such colloquy
shall appear on the record. The waiver shall be in writing, made a part
of the record, signed by the defendant, the judge, and the defendant's
attorney as a witness.
Pa. R. Crim. P. 1101.
[FN95].
Section 5104(c) of the Pennsylvania Code provides: “[i]n criminal
cases the Commonwealth shall have the same right to trial by jury as
does the accused.” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5104(c) (West 1981).
[FN96]. Gallant, supra note 6, at 463.
[FN97]. Id. & nn. 104-05.
[FN98]. Id. & n.106.
[FN99]. Commonwealth v. Wharton, 435 A.2d 158, 160 (Pa. 1981).
[FN100]. Id.
[FN101]. Id. at 162-63.
[FN102]. Id. at 168.
[FN103]. Id. at 158.
[FN104]. Id. at 160.
[FN105]. Id.
[FN106]. Id. at 160-62.
[FN107].
Id. at 163-64. The public policy arguments supporting Rule 1101
included: (1) section 5104(c) would allow the prosecutor to overrule the
court; (2) section 5104(c) unnecessarily burdened the court system
with too many jury trials and would be too costly; (3) the court-made
rule encouraged bench trials, thereby saving places like Philadelphia
from a tremendous backlog of cases. Id.
[FN108]. Id. at 168.
[FN109]. Id. at 169.
[FN110]. Id.
[FN111]. Id.
[FN112]. Id.
[FN113]. Id. at 170.
[FN114]. Id. at 172.
[FN115]. Id. at 173.
[FN116]. Commonwealth v. Sorrell, 456 A.2d 1326, 1327 (Pa. 1987).
[FN117]. Id. at 1327-29.
[FN118]. Id. at 1329.
[FN119].
Compare Wharton, 435 A.2d at 163-64 (making public policy arguments)
with Sorrell, 456 A.2d at 1327-29 (omitting public policy arguments).
[FN120].
Compare Wharton, 435 A.2d at 604 (joining opinion in support of
reversal) with Sorrell, 456 A.2d at 1326 (joining majority opinion).
[FN121]. Sorrell, 456 A.2d at 1330 (Nix, J., dissenting).
[FN122]. Id. at 1330-31 (Nix, J., dissenting).
[FN123].
Compare Wharton, 435 A.2d at 169 (concluding section 5104(c) as
substantive) with Sorrell, 456 A.2d at 1330-31 (concluding section
5104(c) as between substantive and procedural).
[FN124]. Sorrell, 456 A.2d at 1330-31 (Nix, J., dissenting).
[FN125]. Id. at 1331 (Nix, J., dissenting).
[FN126]. Id. (Nix, J., dissenting).
[FN127]. Id. at 1331-33 (McDermott, J., dissenting).
[FN128]. Id. at 1332 (McDermott, J., dissenting).
[FN129]. See supra notes 103-07, 117-20, and accompanying text for a discussion of Justice Roberts' opinions.
[FN130]. See supra notes 108-11, 121-26, and accompanying text for a discussion of Justice Nix's opinions.
[FN131]. See supra notes 112-15, 120, and accompanying text for a discussion of Justice Larsen's opinions.
[FN132]. See supra notes 94-128, and accompanying text for a discussion of these cases.
[FN133]. Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c). See supra note 9 for text of article V, section 10(c).
[FN134]. 394 A.2d 444 (Pa. 1978).
[FN135]. Id. at 445.
[FN136]. Id. at 447.
[FN137]. Id. at 446.
[FN138]. Id. at 451.
[FN139]. Id.
[FN140]. Id.
[FN141]. Id. at 448-50.
[FN142]. Id.
[FN143]. Id. at 446.
[FN144].
An advisory opinion is “an interpretation of the law without binding
effect.” Black's Law Dictionary 35-36 (6th ed. 1991). To avoid issuing
an advisory opinion, the court must be satisfied that two factors are
present: (1) there are adverse litigants; and (2) there is a substantial
likelihood a decision in favor of one litigant will have some effect
on the litigants. Chemerinsky, supra note 5, at 48-50. Because In re
Pa. C. S. § 1703 lacked any litigants whatsoever, it is readily
apparent that the “case” is an advisory opinion.
[FN145]. See In re Pa. C. S. § 1703, 394 A.2d 444, 450 (stating Rule 1703 would compromise independence of judiciary).
[FN146]. 582 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1978).
[FN147]. Id. at 814 (citing Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c)).
[FN148]. Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c). See supra note 9 for text of article V, section 10(c).
[FN149]. The relevant portions of Rule 238 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure stated:
(a)
Except as provided in subdivision (e), in an action seeking monetary
relief for bodily injury, death or property damage, or any combination
thereof, the court... shall
(1)
Add to the amount of compensatory damages in the award of the
arbitrators, in the verdict of a jury, or the court's decision in a
nonjury trial, damages for delay at ten (10) percent per annum, not
compounded, which shall become part of the award, verdict, or decision;
(e)
If a defendant at any time prior to trial makes a written offer of
settlement in a specified sum with prompt cash payment to the plaintiff
and continues that offer until the commencement of trial, but the offer
is not accepted and the plaintiff does not recover by award, verdict,
or decision, exclusive of the damages for delay, more than 125 percent
of the offer, the court or arbitrators shall not award damages for
delay for the period after the date the offer was made.
Pa. R. Civ. P. 238.
[FN150]. 436 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1981).
[FN151]. 515 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1986).
[FN152]. Pa. R. Civ. P. 238. See supra note 149 for relevant portions of Rule 238.
[FN153]. Laudenberger, 436 A.2d at 149. Rule 238 was also challenged on due process and equal protection grounds. Id.
[FN154]. Id. at 155.
[FN155]. Id.
[FN156]. Id. (quoting State v. Leonardis, 375 A.2d 607, 614 (N.J. 1977)).
[FN157].
Id. at 155-56. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also found that Rule 238
did not violate the due process or equal protection clauses. Id.
[FN158]. Id. at 157 (Roberts, J., dissenting).
[FN159]. Id. at 161 (Roberts, J., dissenting).
[FN160]. Id. at 158 (Roberts, J., dissenting).
[FN161]. Id. at 160 (Roberts, J., dissenting).
[FN162]. Id. (Roberts, J., dissenting).
[FN163]. Id. at 157 (Roberts, J., dissenting).
[FN164]. Craig v. Magee Mem'l Rehabilitation Ctr., 515 A.2d 1350, 1353 (Pa. 1981).
[FN165].
Plaintiff was injured while being treated in the Magee Memorial
Rehabilitation Center (“Magee Memorial”) in May of 1974. Id. at 1352. In
April of 1976, plaintiff filed her suit against Magee Memorial. Id.
After a mistrial in 1980, the suit was tried to conclusion in January of
1983, and the jury found Magee Memorial liable for plaintiff's
injuries. Id. The jury's verdict exceeded Magee Memorial's last
settlement offer by more than twenty-five percent; hence, $16,450 in
delay damages were imposed against Magee Memorial pursuant to Rule 238.
Id. The pre-trial record showed, however, that many of the frequent and
lengthy postponements, delays and requests for continuances were
attributable to the plaintiff. Id.
[FN166]. Id. at 1353.
[FN167]. Id. at 1354 (Hutchinson, J., concurring).
[FN168]. Id. (Hutchinson, J., concurring).
[FN169]. Id. at 1355 (Hutchinson, J., concurring).
[FN170]. The Federalist No. 51, at 356 (James Madison) (Benjamin Fletcher Wright, ed., 1961).
[FN171]. 435 A.2d 158 (Pa. 1981). See supra notes 99-116 and accompanying text for a discussion of Wharton.
[FN172]. 456 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1982). See supra notes 117-28 and accompanying text for a discussion of Sorrell.
[FN173]. See supra notes 94-102 and accompanying text for a discussion of the conflict between Rule 1101 and section 5104(c).
[FN174]. See supra notes 94-97 and accompanying text for a discussion of the effect of Rule 1101.
[FN175].
See supra notes 98-102 and accompanying text for a discussion of the
legislature's enactment and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's suspension
of section 5104 (c).
[FN176]. See supra notes 22-28 for a discussion of the Capital Unitary Review Act.
[FN177].
Megan O'Matz, Session Results in 24 New Laws So Far, The Morning Call,
Nov. 1, 1995, at A1, available in LEXIS, Newslibrary, Arcnws File.
[FN178].
Attorney General's Petition to Reconsider Sua Sponte Per Curiam Order
Suspending the Capital Unitary Review Act and Portions of the Post
Conviction Relief Act, at 1.
[FN179]. Id.
[FN180]. See supra note 23 for additional information on the voting for CURA.
[FN181].
Suspension of the Capital Unitary Review Act and Related Sections of
Act No. 1995-32 (SS1); and Amendment of Chapter 1500 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, 548 Pa. CCXXXV (1997).
[FN182]. Woodside, supra note 7, at 49.
[FN183].
See Charles G. Geyh, Highlighting a Low Point on a High Court: Some
Thoughts on the Removal of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Rolf
Larsen and the Limits of Judicial Self-Regulation, 68 Temp. L. Rev.
1041, 1076 (1995) (stating Pennsylvania Constitution renders judiciary
operations “immune to legislative oversight”).
[FN184]. Winberry v. Salisbury, 74 A.2d 406, 419 (N.J. 1950) (Case, J., concurring).
[FN185]. Geyh, supra note 183, at 1076.
[FN186]. Id.
[FN187]. See Kay, supra note 14, at 41 (discussing lack of review of supreme court rulemaking).
[FN188].
See infra notes 230-42 and accompanying text for a discussion of how
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court uses rulemaking power to establish public
policy.
[FN189].
See infra notes 223-28 and accompanying text for a discussion of how
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has potentially violated the Pennsylvania
Constitution.
[FN190]. See supra notes 94-132 and accompanying text for a discussion of Commonwealth v. Wharton and Commonwealth v. Sorrell.
[FN191].
See, e.g., Busik v. Levine, 307 A.2d 571, 591 (N.J. 1973) (Mountain,
J., dissenting) (discussing areas where court judgments impact
substantive law).
[FN192]. See id. at 591-92 (discussing legislative supremacy in making substantive law).
[FN193]. Bruce Ledewitz, What's Really Wrong with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 32 Duq. L. Rev. 409, 409 (1994).
[FN194]. See infra notes 195-99 and accompanying text for a discussion of this problem.
[FN195]. Act of Nov. 26, 1996, Pub. L. No. 135-76, § 10, 1996 Pa. Laws.
[FN196].
See 40 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1301.813-A(a) (West Supp. 1998) (listing
items attorney certifies to when filing papers in action).
[FN197]. 40 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1301.813-A(c) (West Supp. 1998).
[FN198]. Pa. Order 97-43 (1997).
[FN199].
The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General Assembly:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of House Judiciary Committee,
181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (statement of Lee McCormick,
President of the Pennsylvania Medical Society).
[FN200].
John Mulcahey, Comment, Separation of Powers in Pennsylvania: The
Judiciary's Prevention of Legislative Encroachment, 32 Duq. L. Rev. 539,
549 (1994).
[FN201]. Id.
[FN202]. See supra notes 152-63 and accompanying text for a discussion of Laudenberger v. Port Authority of Allegheny County.
[FN203].
The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General Assembly:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary Comm.,
181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (statement of Attorney General
Mike Fisher).
[FN204]. Id.
[FN205]. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 270 (1904) (Holmes, J.).
[FN206]. Woodside, supra note 7, at 613.
[FN207].
The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General Assembly:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary Comm.,
181st Legis., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (statement of Northampton
County District Attorney John Morganelli).
[FN208].
The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General Assembly:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary Comm.,
181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (statement of York County
District Attorney H. Stanley Reber).
[FN209]. 394 A.2d 932 (Pa. 1978).
[FN210]. Id. at 937.
[FN211].
In re Pa. C. S. § 1703, 394 A.2d 444, 451 (Pa 1978). See supra notes
134-45 for a discussion of In re Pa. C. S. sec. 1703.
[FN212]. Id. at 448.
[FN213]. 582 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1978).
[FN214]. Id. at 814. See supra notes 146-47 and accompanying text for a discussion of Garrett v. Bamford.
[FN215]. Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c). See supra note 9 for text of article V, section 10(c).
[FN216].
See, e.g., Heller v. Frankston, 475 A.2d 1291, 1297 n.2 (Pa. 1984)
(Hutchinson, J., dissenting) (noting exclusive power appears nowhere in
text of Article V, section 10(c)).
[FN217].
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Presley, 686 A.2d 1321, 1325 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 1996) (noting article V, section 10(c) does not prevent legislature
from enacting procedural laws).
[FN218]. One commentator noted:
[T]he
text of section 10(c) does not support an exclusive [judicial] power.
If the text were interpreted as meaning that all procedural legislation
is invalid, why would the text mandate that only “inconsistent'
legislation be suspended?
Ledewitz, supra note 193, at 414.This conclusion was joined by another commentator, who proclaimed:
The
last clause of article V, section 10(c) clearly implies that the
General Assembly retains law-making power over court practice,
procedure, and conduct. If “all laws shall be suspended to the extent
that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these
provisions,' the unavoidable corollary is that legislation consistent
with such rules is valid and proper.
Geyh,
supra note 183, at 1055 (quoting Bruce Ledewitz, What's Really Wrong
with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 32 Duq. L. Rev. 409, 413-14
(1994)).
[FN219]. Weinstein, supra note 10, at 6-7.
[FN220]. Id. at 87.
[FN221]. See supra notes 134-45 and accompanying text for a discussion of In re Pa. C. S. §1703.
[FN222]. A newspaper editorial observed that:
The
court is now a quasi-legislative body as well as a judicial one.
Nevertheless, in virtually every task it undertakes, it operates in
secrecy. Take, for example, the Court's autonomous power to promulgate
rules of criminal procedure. It is done behind closed doors, without any
public participation, without any prior public notice of proposed
changes, nor any requirement to obtain comments from interested
parties.... The failure to provide prior notice of proposed rules
deprives the public and officials... adequate opportunity to inform the
court of the practical consequences of a proposed change. Moreover, the
court, without prior notice or debate, can and does overturn laws
enacted by the legislature on the premise that the lawmakers have
intruded on the procedural rulemaking authority of the court.
The Supreme disgrace: Secret and unaccountable, Phila. Inquirer, Mar. 3, 1978 at 6-A.
[FN223]. In re Pa. C. S. § 1703, 394 A.2d 444, 445 (Pa. 1978).
[FN224]. See supra note 144 for a discussion of advisory opinions.
[FN225]. See Chemerinsky, supra note 5, at 49 (discussing advisory opinions).
[FN226]. Pa. Const. art. V, § 10(c). See supra note 9 for the text of article V, section 10(c).
[FN227]. See supra note 29 and accompanying text for a discussion of the proposed evidence code.
[FN228].
Under Rule 235 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Attorney General has the right to intervene in a lawsuit to defend the
constitutionality of a legislative enactment. The pertinent portion of
Rule 235 provides that:
In
any proceeding in a court subject to these rules in which an Act of
Assembly is alleged to be unconstitutional and the Commonwealth is not a
party, the party raising the question of constitutionality shall
promptly give notice thereof by registered mail to the Attorney General
of Pennsylvania together with a copy of the pleading or other portion
of the record raising the issue and shall file proof of the giving of
the notice. The Attorney General may intervene as a party or may be
heard without the necessity of intervention.
Pa. R. Civ. P. 235.
[FN229]. Mulcahey, supra note 200, at 552.
[FN230]. Weinstein, supra note 10, at 6.
[FN231].
Commonwealth v. Wharton, 435 A.2d 158, 163 (Pa. 1981). See supra notes
99-116 and accompanying text for a discussion of Commonwealth v.
Wharton.
[FN232]. Gallant, supra note 6, at 464.
[FN233].
The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General Assembly:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary Comm.,
181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (statement of York County
District Attorney H. Stanley Reber).
[FN234]. Commonwealth v. Michael, 674 A.2d 1044, 1047 (Pa. 1996).
[FN235]. Id.
[FN236]. Id. at 1045-47.
[FN237]. Id. at 1046.
[FN238].
The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General Assembly:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary Comm.,
181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (comments of Suzanne Eng, mother
of murdered child).
[FN239].
See Ledewitz, supra note 193, at 415-18 (discussing misuse of Article
V, section 10(c) as basis for constitutional interpretation).
[FN240].
See Code of Judicial Conduct, 207 Pa. Code Canon 7 (1995) (proscribing
political activity inappropriate to judicial office).
[FN241].
Pa. Const. art. V, § 15(2); see also The Supreme Court's Suspension of
the Acts of the General Assembly: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Courts of the House Judiciary Comm., 181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa.
1997) (statement of Senator Jeffrey Piccola) (noting unaccountability
since retention vote only required every ten years).
[FN242]. Kay, supra note 14, at 41.
[FN243].
See The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General
Assembly: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary
Comm., 181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (statement of Attorney
General Mike Fisher) (arguing article V, section 10(c) should be
amended to allow legislative oversight); Id. (statement of Senator
Jeffrey Piccola) (concluding article V, section 10(c) must be amended);
Id. (statement of Northampton County District Attorney John
Morganelli) (commenting constitutional legitimacy can only be restored
with amendment of article V, section 10(c)); Id. (statement of York
County District Attorney H. Stanley Reber) (noting State District
Attorney's Association supports amendment of article V, section 10(c));
Geyh, supra note 183, at 1076 (noting Article V, section 10(c) must be
amended to restore balance of legislative and judicial power);
Ledewitz, supra note 193, at 417 (concluding Pennsylvania should
subject rulemaking to legislative oversight).
[FN244].
See Weinstein, supra note 10, at 20 (noting rulemaking system should
give legislature power to make changes); Gallant, supra note 6, at 448
(concluding legislative review of rulemaking appropriate on theoretical
and practical grounds); Levin & Amsterdam, supra note 35, at 14
(stating power of legislature to assess and evaluate rules best way to
develop effective rulemaking system).
[FN245]. Pa. Const. art. I, § 2.
[FN246].
The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General Assembly:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary Comm.,
181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (statement of Pennsylvania State
University Assistant Professor of Political Science Daniel DiLeo).
[FN247]. Pa. Const. art. XI, § 1.
[FN248]. See generally Pugh, et al., supra note 67 (surveying state and federal judicial rulemaking).
[FN249]. Idaho Const. art. V, § 13.
[FN250]. N.J. Const. art. VI, § 2.
[FN251]. N.M. Const. art. III, § 1.
[FN252]. Md. Const. art. IV, § 18.
[FN253]. Ohio Const. art. V, § 5(b).
[FN254]. Alaska Const. art IV, § 15.
[FN255]. Fla. Const. art. V, § 2(a).
[FN256]. See supra note 23 for a record of the votes for and against CURA.
[FN257]. U.S. Const. art. III.
[FN258]. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-2072 (giving United States Supreme Court power to make rules of civil and criminal procedure).
[FN259]. Pugh, et al., supra note 67, at 260-61.
[FN260]. 4 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1101 (2d ed. 1987).
[FN261]. Gallant, supra note 6, at 477.
[FN262]. See supra notes 94-98 and accompanying text for a discussion of the legislature's response to Rule 1101.
[FN263].
Because article V, section 10(c) gives the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
constitutional authority to make procedural rules, the authority must
be eliminated in order to require the court to send its proposed rules
to the legislature. See supra note 9 for text of article V, section
10(c).
[FN264]. Compare U.S. Const. art. III with Pa. Const. art. V, § 13(a).
[FN265].
Harry L. Witte, Judicial Selection in the People's Democratic Republic
of Pennsylvania: Here the People Rule?, 68 Temp. L. Rev. 1079, 1148-49
(1995).
[FN266]. House members are elected to two-year terms. Pa. Const. art. II, § 3.
[FN267]. Senators are elected to four-year terms. Pa. Const. art. II, § 3.
[FN268]. Governors are elected to four-year terms. Pa. Const. art. IV, § 3.
[FN269].
The Supreme Court's Suspension of the Acts of the General Assembly:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts of the House Judiciary Comm.,
181st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Pa. 1997) (statement of Senator Jeffrey
Piccola) (noting same).
[FN270].
Geyh, supra note 183, at 1064 (quoting Bruce Kauffman, Judicial
Selection in Pennsylvania: A Proposal, 27 Vill. L. Rev. 1163, 1166-67
(1982)).
[FN271]. See supra notes 134-45 and accompanying text for a discussion of In re Pa. C. S. § 1703.
[FN272]. Laudenberger v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 436 A.2d 147, 158 (Pa. 1981) (Roberts, J., dissenting).
[FN273].
See supra notes 37-39 and accompanying text for a discussion of the
reasons why the judiciary was given authority to make procedural rules.
[FN274]. Levin & Amsterdam, supra note 35, at 24.
[FN275]. Weinstein, supra note 10, at 20.
[FN276]. S. Res. 779, 181st Leg. (Pa. 1997).
[FN277]. Id.
[FN278]. See supra notes 257-61 for a discussion of the federal rulemaking system.
[FN279]. See supra notes 276-77 and accompanying text for discussion of Senate Bill 779.
[FN280]. Levin & Amsterdam, supra note 35, at 39.
[FN281]. The Federalist No. 48, at 343 (James Madison) (Benjamin Fletcher Wright ed., 1961).
END OF DOCUMENT
71 Temp. L. Rev. 711 Temple Law Review Fall, 1998
Emerging Issues in State Constitutional Law
Comment
(c) 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.