Marrero by Tabales v. Com.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1998
• Citation: 709 A.2d 956
• Parties: 125 Ed. Law Rep. 1270 Yesenia MARRERO, Arlene Marrero, Richard Mojica and Christian Mojica, minors, by their parent and guardian Yollie TABALES; Yollie Tabales; Kathryn, Christine, William and Stephen Nolan, minors, by their parent and guardian William H. Nolan; William H. Nolan; Jeanene and Larry Little, minors, by their parent and guardian Karen H. Little; Karen H. Little; David and Zachary Maas, minor, by their parents and guardians Peter Maas and Lesley Carson; Peter Maas and Lesley Carson; Aspira, Inc. of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia Branch NAACP; City of Philadelphia, and School District of Philadelphia, Petitioners, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania; General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; President Pro Tempore of the Senate Mark S. Schweiker, in his official capacity; Speaker of the House of Representatives Matthew J. Ryan, in his official capacity; Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Thomas J. Ridge, in his official capacity; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Board of Education; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education; Secretary of Education Eugene Hickok, in his official capacity, Respondents.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 956

709 A.2d 956

125 Ed. Law Rep. 1270

Yesenia MARRERO, Arlene Marrero, Richard Mojica and Christian Mojica, minors, by their parent and guardian Yollie TABALES; Yollie Tabales; Kathryn, Christine William and Stephen Nolan, minors, by their parent and guardian William H. Nolan; William H. Nolan; Jeanene and Larry Little, minors, by their parent and guardian Karen H Little; Karen H. Little; David and Zachary Maas, minor, by their parents and guardians Peter Maas and Lesley Carson Peter Maas and Lesley Carson; Aspira, Inc. of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Branch NAACP; City of Philadelphia, and School District of Philadelphia, Petitioners, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania; General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; President Pro Tempore of the Senate Mark S. Schweiker, in his official capacity; Speaker of the House of Representatives Matthew J. Ryan, in his official capacity; Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Thomas J. Ridge, in his official capacity; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Board of Education; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education; Secretary of Education Eugene Hickok, in his official capacity, Respondents.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 10, 1997.

Decided March 2, 1998.

Sheryl L. Auerbach, Philadelphia, for petitioner, School Dist. of Philadelphia.

Michael Churchill, Philadelphia, for petitioners.

Richard Feder, Philadelphia, for petitioner, City of Philadelphia.

Edward F. Mannino, Philadelphia, for respondents, Gov. Ridge, State Bd. of Education, Dept. of Education and Secretary of Education, Eugene Hickok.

John P. Krill, Jr., Harrisburg, for respondent, General Assembly.

Before COLINS, President Judge, and DOYLE, McGINLEY, PELLEGRINI, FRIEDMAN and KELLEY, JJ.

KELLEY, Judge.

Presently before this court for disposition are the preliminary objections of the Executive Branch Respondents ¹ and the preliminary objections of the Legislative Branch Respondents ² to a petition for review in the nature of an action for declaratory judgment ³ filed in our original jurisdiction by the City of Philadelphia, the School District of Philadelphia (School District), ASPIRA, Inc. of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Branch of the NAACP, and students and the parents of students in the School District ⁴ (collectively Petitioners ⁵).

On February 24, 1997, Petitioners filed the instant petition for review seeking declaratory relief. Petitioners argue, in essence, that because the School District operates in an urban environment, it is required to educate a disproportionate number of the state's students who live in poverty, and its students have unique educational needs, which require the expenditure of greater financial resources. Because the School District operates in the financially over-burdened urban area with a disproportionately high tax burden, Petitioners claim that the School District is unable to rely on the local tax base to generate the necessary funding to meet the needs of its students. As a result, Petitioners allege that the Pennsylvania General Assembly should be compelled to appropriate more funds to the School District pursuant to the mandate contained in Article 3, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ⁶.

In sum, Petitioners allege that: under the present statutory funding system, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not provide the School District with adequate funding to support the educational programs necessary to meet the unique educational needs of its students; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not provide the School District with the resources necessary to build and maintain the facilities and equipment to provide an adequate education or meet the needs of its students; and its students are thereby deprived of an adequate education in contravention of Article 3, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, in the petition for review Petitioners ask this court to:

1. Declare that all school children in the City of Philadelphia have a right, pursuant to Article 3, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and other statutes governing education in Pennsylvania, to a thorough and efficient system of public education;

2. Declare that the Pennsylvania Constitution and other statutes governing education in Pennsylvania require the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to provide for an adequate system of public schools in the School District;

3. Declare that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has failed to fulfill its obligations to provide for an adequate system of public schools in the School District;

4. Declare that the present statutory scheme used to fund public education in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as applied to the School District violates Article 3, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;

5. Declare that the Pennsylvania General Assembly must amend the present statutory scheme, or enact new legislation, so as to ensure that funding for the School District is adequate to meet the greater and distinct educational needs of its students;

6. Declare that, in amending the present statutory scheme or enacting new legislation, the Pennsylvania General Assembly must take into consideration the effect of unfunded and underfunded state mandates as applied to the School District;

7. Declare that, in amending the present statutory scheme or enacting new legislation, the Pennsylvania General Assembly must take into consideration the inability of the local tax base to generate sufficient revenue to compensate for inadequate state funding;

8. Declare that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is required to take all steps necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 3, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which require it to provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education which serves the needs of the Commonwealth, including the students of the School District;

9. Award to Petitioners attorneys' fees and all reasonable costs to the extent permitted by law; and

10. Grant such other relief as this court may deem proper.

In response to the petition for review, the Executive Branch Respondents and the Legislative Branch Respondents filed the instant preliminary objections on March 27, 1997. In the preliminary objections, the Executive Branch Respondents assert: ⁷ (1) the claims raised by Petitioners are non-justiciable under the doctrine of separation of powers and the political question doctrine; (2) the Petitioners' claims are barred by sovereign immunity; (3) the Governor and the State Board of Education are unnecessary and improper Respondents in this action; (4) the City of Philadelphia and the School District lack the capacity to institute this action; (5) the claims of the City of Philadelphia fail to state a legally cognizable cause of action; (6) ASPIRA, Inc. of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Branch of the NAACP lack standing to institute this action; (7) the instant action should be stayed pending the resolution of Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools et al. v. Ridge, Docket No. 11 M.D.1991, which is now pending before this court and raises the same legal issues as are raised in this action; (8) the instant petition for review is improperly styled as a complaint rather than a petition for review as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1501, 1502 and 1511; and (9) the scandalous and impertinent material and the evidence pleaded in the petition for review should be stricken pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. No. 1028.

Likewise, in the instant preliminary objections the Legislative Branch Respondents contend: ⁸ (1) this action is non-justiciable based on the separation of powers doctrine and the political question doctrine; (2) the Petitioners' claims are barred by sovereign immunity; (3) ASPIRA, Inc. of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Branch of the NAACP and the School District lack standing to institute the instant action; (4) the petition for review fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted; and (5) the petition for review fails to plead with sufficient specificity the basis of its claims and fails to adequately specify the individual Legislative Branch Respondents named in this action.

Initially, we note that in ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as true all well pleaded material allegations in the petition for review, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. Envirotest Partners v. Department of Transportation, 664 A.2d 208 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995). This court need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. Id. In order to sustain preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain them. Id. With these standards in mind, we consider the Respondents' preliminary objections.

As noted above, in the petition for review Petitioners allege that the present statutory scheme for funding education enacted by the General Assembly, as applied to the School District, violates Article 3, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In the first preliminary objection, Respondents allege that the claims raised by Petitioners are non-justiciable under the doctrine of separation of powers and the political question doctrine. As a result, Respondents submit that Petitioners may not obtain the requested declaratory relief.

The provisions of the Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531--7541, govern petitions for declaratory judgments. Ronald H. Clark, Inc. v. Township of Hamilton, 128 Pa.Cmwlth. 31, 562 A.2d 965 (1989). Declaratory judgments are not obtainable as a matter of right. Id. Rather, whether a court should exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment proceeding is a matter of sound judicial discretion. Id. Thus, the granting of a petition for a declaratory judgment is a matter lying within the sound discretion of a court of...