# Marrero by Tabales v. Com.

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 2, 1998 · 709 A.2d 956

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710460

## Case

- **Full name:** 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 Tem-Pore 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:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 2, 1998
- **Citations:** 709 A.2d 956; 1998 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 144
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pellegrini
- **Judges:** Colins, Doyle, McGinley, Pellegrini, Friedman, Kelley, Smith, Leadbetter
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710460

## Opinion text

PELLEGRINI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision that the allegations raised by the School District are non-justiciable. The School District alleges that the Commonwealth has failed to provide for a “thorough and efficient system” of education as required by Article 3, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. One of the duties of the judiciary is to ensure that the government functions within the bounds of the Constitution. See Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, 691 A.2d 1023 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). Because this case involves questions as to whether the General Assembly carried out its constitutional mandates, I believe it is justiciable. Accordingly, I would dismiss the Commonwealth’s preliminary objections.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710460. Public record. Not legal advice.