Petition of Squires & Constables Ass'n of Pa., Inc., Allegheny County Chapter

• Citation: 275 A.2d 657,442 Pa. 502
• Parties: Petition of SQUIRES AND CONSTABLES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., ALLEQHENY COUNTY CHAPTER, a Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation, and Frank R. Bruno, Lawrence Cappelli, Robert Dillon, Jr., Dale L. Hanlin, and Albert C. Pantone, individually and as representatives of all persons similarly situated.
• Decision Date: 25 March 1971
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 657

275 A.2d 657

442 Pa. 502

Petition of SQUIRES AND CONSTABLES ASSOCIATION OF

PENNSYLVANIA, INC., ALLEQHENY COUNTY CHAPTER, a Pennsylvania

Non-Profit Corporation, and Frank R. Bruno, Lawrence

Cappelli, Robert Dillon, Jr., Dale L. Hanlin, and Albert C.

Pantone, individually and as representatives of all persons

similarly situated.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 25, 1971.

Andrew N. Farley, Eric P. Reif, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, for petitioner

Thomas D. Caldwell, Jr., Chairman Minor Court Civil Procedural Rules Committee, Harrisburg, for respondent.

Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BELL, Chief Justice.

On January 6, 1969, our Court appointed the Minor Court Civil Procedural Rules Committee, pursuant to Article V, Sec. 10(a) and 10(c) of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, P.S., adopted in 1968, effective (with some nonrelevant exceptions) January 1, 1969. The Committee drafted and duly recommended to this Court the Pennsylvania Rules of Conduct, Office Standards and Civil Procedure for Justices of the Peace, which we adopted. ¹

The Squires and Constables Association of Pennsylvania, Inc., Allegheny County Chapter, represents the interest of the various justices of the peace, magistrates, aldermen, constables and deputy constables within Allegheny County and is affiliated with other similar Chapters throughout Pennsylvania.

The individual petitioners were all members of the Minor Judiciary System (a) who were elected to a term of office Prior to the General Election on November 4, 1969, and prior to the effective date of the Rules of Conduct, and (b) were duly commissioned by the Governor of Pennsylvania pursuant to his authority under Article V, Section 11, as amended November 2, 1909, of the old Constitution of Pennsylvania of 1874. Petitioners did not choose to stand for reelection in the General Election conducted November 4, 1969, and as authorized by the Constitution of 1968 are therefore 'holdover justices of the peace or aldermen who were elected and commissioned under the old Constitution of 1874.

On May 29, 1970, this Court denied the Petition for Assertion of Original Jurisdiction for Review and Clarification of the Pennsylvania Rules of Conduct, Office Standards and Procedure for Justices of the Peace. On July 2, 1970, upon reconsideration of this matter, we granted Petitioners' Petition for Re-Hearing of Its Original Petition, and the Chairman of the Minor Court Civil Procedural Rules Committee was directed to act as Respondent therein. Oral argument was granted and heard on this matter during the 1970 Fall Session of the Court in Pittsburgh. Petitioners raise several important Constitutional questions (1) respecting their status as 'holdover' justices of the peace under our new Constitution of 1968, and (2) their broad rights under the 1874 Constitution which were not and could not be changed, and (3) the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Justices of the Peace (hereinafter 'Rules'), especially Rules 1 through 7. ² Before we discuss these issues, it is important to first examine the pertinent provisions of Article V of the 1968 Constitution and, secondly, examine the Rules and the far-reaching changes pertaining to our Minor Judiciary which were adopted as authorized thereunder.

We begin with examining Section 8 of the SCHEDULE TO JUDICIARY ARTICLE (V) of our new Constitution. Section 8 provides:

'Justices, judges and justices of the peace

' § 8. Notwithstanding any provision in the article, a present justice, judge or justice of the peace may complete his term of office.'

Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution specifically provides: 'The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Unified judicial system ³ consisting of the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court, courts of common pleas, community courts, municipal and traffic courts in the City of Philadelphia, such other courts as may be provided by law And justices of the peace. All courts and justices of the peace and their jurisdiction shall be in this unified judicial system.'

Article V, Section 10(a) provides that The judicial administration of the unified judicial system shall be vested in the Supreme Court which 'shall exercise general supervisory and administrative authority over all the courts And justices of the peace * * *.'

Turning now to Article V, Section 17(a) and (b), which specifically deals with prohibited activities of members of the Judiciary, we find complete authority for the Rules herein challenged. Sections 17(a) and (b) provides:

'Prohibited activities

' § 17. (a) Justices and judges shall devote full time to their judicial duties, and shall not engage in the practice of law, hold office in a political party or political organization, or hold an office or position of profit in the government of the United States, the Commonwealth or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof, except in the armed service of the United States or the Commonwealth.

'(b) Justices and judges shall not engage in any activity prohibited by law and shall not violate any canon of legal or judicial ethics prescribed by the Supreme Court. Justices of the peace shall be governed by rules or canons which shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court.'

Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 10(a) and Section 17(b), this Court promulgated the Rules which petitioners now seek to have held Unconstitutional or invalid under provisions of the 1968 Constitution. The main thrust of their attack is directed at our Rules 2 and 7, which provide:

'Rule 2. Public Office and Political Activity

'A. A justice of the peace shall not hold office in a political party or political organization, Or hold an office or position of profit in the government of the United States, the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, except in the armed services of the United States or the Commonwealth.

'B. A justice of the peace shall not engage in partisan political activity. He shall not deliver political speeches, make or solicit political contributions, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in party conventions; but nothing herein shall prevent the justice of the peace from making a political contribution to his own campaign or to a campaign of a member of his immediate family, or from attending of speaking at political gatherings in behalf of his own candidacy.

'Rule 7. Definition

As used in the above rules, 'justice of the peace' means Any justice of the peace, alderman or magistrate.

'Note: This definition of 'justice of the peace' includes all justices of the peace, whether elected or appointed to a term of office commencing before, on or after January 1, 1970, and all aldermen and magistrates, including police magistrates of the City of Pittsburgh. Mayors and like officers (see § 12(d) of the Schedule to Art. V Pa.Const.1968) are not included in this definition.'

Broadly stated, petitioners contend that while our new Constitution of 1968 and the Rules promulgated by this Court pursuant thereto can restrict or prohibit certain conduct or activity of a justice of the peace elected After January 1, 1970, these provisions and Supreme Court Rules cannot apply to them because they were elected Prior to the effective date of the new Constitution and of the challenged Rules.

The various petitioners hold political offices or have concurrent employment, such as Deputy Sheriff of Allegheny County, Investigator and Appraiser of the Inheritance Tax Division of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, employee of the Commission for the Selection of Jurors of Allegheny County, Field Auditor in the Department of the Auditor General, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Indiana Township, and Democratic Committeeman. In essence, notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and the aforesaid Rules, they seek to continue their political activities or hold political office or have concurrent employment, as above set forth, together with their office of justice of the peace. This they can, not do.

Petitioners first contend that Rule 2 violates Article, VI, Section 2, of the 1968 Pennsylvania Constitution. Article VI, Section 2, provides:

'Incompatible offices

' § 2. No member of Congress from this State, nor any person holding or exercising any office or appointment of trust or profit under the United States, shall at the same time hold or exercise any office in this State to which a salary, fees or perquisites shall be attached. The General Assembly may by law declare what offices are incompatible.' This is neither applicable nor controlling.

Petitioners point to Commonwealth ex rel. Fox v. Swing, 409 Pa. 241, 186 A.2d 24, and Commonwealth ex rel. Schermer v. Franek, 311 Pa. 341, 166 A. 878, in support of their position that only the Legislature can declare that the office of justice of the peace is incompatible with another position. We disagree. In Commonwealth ex rel. Schermer v. Franek, the Court held that only the Legislature could declare the offices of justice of the peace and mayor of a third-class city to be incompatible with Article XII, Section 2, of the Constitution of 1874. While there is broad language in Franek, the case is distinguishable from the instant case for the obvious reason that A justice of the peace under the Constitution of 1874 was not part of the Unified Judicial System in which the Supreme Court was specifically granted the general supervisory and administrative authority over all the Courts and justices of the peace. There is nothing in Franek which limits or precludes the inherent power of our Court or our Constitutionally-granted power from deciding which office or what conduct of behavior is incompatible with being a member of the Judiciary.

Commonwealth ex rel. Fox v. Swing, 409 Pa. 241, 186 A.2d 24, supra, involved a quo warranto action...