The opinion
KELLEY, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the Majority Opinion in this case. In particular, I agree with the Majority’s disposition of the Commonwealth’s preliminary objections to Counts I, VI, VII, VIII, and IX in the Harrisburg School District’s petition for review. I write separately, however, to express my strong disagreement with the Majority’s determination that the claims asserted in Counts II, III, IV, and V in the petition for review are non-justiciable based on the Enrolled Bill Doctrine and the Political Question Doctrine.
In support of its conclusion that these claims are non-justiciable, the Majority relies upon the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, — Pa.-, 757 A.2d 917 (2000). However, the Majority’s reliance upon Pennsylvania AFL-CIO is misplaced as the Supreme Court’s opinion absolutely does not support the conclusion that these claims are non-justiciable. In fact, in its opinion the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated the following, in pertinent part:
As a threshold issue, Appellees, as cross-Appellants, assert that the Commonwealth Court erred in overruling their preliminary objections with respect to the justiciability of Appellants’ constitutional claims. They argue that, contrary to the Commonwealth Court’s finding, judicial inquiry into Appellants’ claims is barred by the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, the Political Question Doctrine and the Speech and Debate Clause. We disagree. Instead, we conclude that the Commonwealth Court properly disposed of these issues pursuant to well-developed case law and, therefore, affirm the overruling of Appellees’ preliminary objections as to the justiciability of Appellants’ constitutional claims on the basis of the Commonwealth Court’s opinion. See Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Com *418 monwealth, 691 A.2d 1023, 1030-1034 (Pa.Commw.1997).
Id. at 920.
In support of its determination that these claims are non-justiciable, the Majority also cites the opinion of this Court in Fumo v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 719 A.2d 10 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998). However, it must be noted that a majority of the members of the panel of this Court which considered the Fumo case did not join in the reasoning of the opinion disposing of the appeal; two members concurred in the result only and two members dissented. As a result, the opinion in Fumo is a non-precedential plurality decision. See, e.g., McDermott v. Biddle, 436 Pa.Super. 94 , 115 n. 8, 647 A.2d 514 , 524 n. 8 (1994), rev’d on other grounds, 544 Pa. 21 , 674 A.2d 665 (1996) (“[I]n order for any principle of law expressed in the majority opinion to be considered precedent it must command a majority of judges voting both as to the disposition and the principle of law expressed.”); Askew v. Zeller, 361 Pa.Super. 35, 39-41 , 521 A.2d 459, 462 (1987) (“[Ujnless an issue in a panel decision commands a majority both as to the result and as to rationale, the principle embodied in the issue is not prece-dential. ..”).
In this case, the Harrisburg School District has alleged that the enactment of Act 16 violated a number of provisions of Article 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. As this Court has previously determined, the Enrolled Bill Doctrine and the Political Question Doctrine do not preclude our review of such important constitutional claims. See Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 118 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff' d, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, 691 A.2d at 1033 . However, upon review, I would conclude that the enactment of Act 16 did not violate the substantive provisions of Article III, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as alleged by the Harrisburg School District. See L.J.W. Realty Corp. v. Philadelphia, 390 Pa. 197, 205 , 134 A.2d 878, 882 (1957); Common Cause/Pennsylvania, 710 A.2d at 119-121 ; Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, at 1034-1037. As a result, I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that the Commonwealth’s preliminary objections to Counts I, VI and VIII of the Harrisburg School District’s petition for review should be denied, and that the preliminary objections to Counts II, III, IV, V, VII and IX should be granted.