OFFICIAL OPINION No. 16

OFFICIAL OPINION No. 16 Act No. 95-A, 1957 Session-General Appropriation Act-Appropriation to De- partment of Military Affairs for work of Civil Air Patrol-Fiscal procedures-· Repeal of Act of May 29, 1956, P. L. 1787-Pennsylvania Constitution, Article III, § 15. The provisions of Act No. 95-A of the 1957 Session of the General Assembly which establish procedures for the disbursement of the appropriated funds and repeal the Act of May 29, 1956, P . L. 1787, are unconstitutional, being in violation of Article III, § 15, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and should be disregarded. Harrisburg, Pa., October 3, 1957. Honorable John W. Macfarlane, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Aeronautics Commission, Harrisburg State Airport, New Cumber- land, Pennsylvania. Sir: House Bill No. 1700, Printer's No. 1002, Act No. 95-A of the 1957 session of the General Assembly contains the following pro- vision: "The payment for services in connection with the function of and by authority of the Pennsylvania Aeronautics Com- mission provided for under contract with the Pennsylvania Wing Civil Air Patrol ........................... $30,000 "Vouchers covering all expenditures of such funds author- ized and appropriated hereby shall be issued by the command- ing officer of the Pennsylvania Wing Civil Air Patrol and approved by the Department of Military Affairs. "All payments and expenditures hereunder shall be made on the basis of a contract or contracts entered into between the Pennsylvania Aeronautics Commission and the Pennsyl- vania Wing Civil Air Patrol for the furnishing of rescue and other aviation services. "The act of May 29, 1956 (P. L. 1787), entitled 'An act authorizing the Department of Military Affairs to expend State funds for civil air patrol aviation education training aids and maintenance of civil air patrol aircraft and making an appropriation,' is repealed." You have asked several specific questions in regard to this pro- vision: (1) What are the form and content of the contracts required? (2) What form of vouchers will be acceptable or required? (3) What is the meaning of "other aviation services?" The act of May 29, 1956, P. L. (1955) 1787, 2 P. S. §§ 1448 to 1450, referred to in the last sentence of the above provision, author- OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 91 ized the expenditure of state funds for civil air patrol purposes by the Department of Military Affairs. It also set forth procedural re- quirements which were to be followed in making and authorizing expenditures. The basic question concerning the provision quoted above is whether, in view of Article III, § 15, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is constitutional. This section, designed to prevent "riders" being placed in an appropriation bill1, reads: "The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the Commonwealth, interest on the public debt and for public schools; all other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject." The first paragraph in the quoted provision is clearly valid since it does no more than make an appropriation for an ordinary expense of the Department of Military Affairs. However, the remainder of the provision both establishes fiscal procedures and repeals an exist- ing law. In our opinion it is precisely this type of material which Article III, § 15, was designed to exclude from an appropriation act. These added matters are not "appropriations for the ordinary ex- penses ... of the Commonwealth . . . "; they are regulations govern- ing expenditure of funds and a repealer. If the legislature wants to impose special requirements on the Department of Military Affairs and the Pennsylvania Aeronautics Commission in the handling of these funds, it must do so by a bill apart from the general appropria- tion bill. Therefore, you are advised that the second, third and fourth para- graphs of page 36 of House Bill No. 1700, Printer's No. 1002, shall be disregarded in expending the appropriated funds and that the relevant provisions of the act of May 29, 1956, P. L. (1955) 1787, are to be followed in making such expenditures. In view of this conclusion it is not necessary to discuss or answer the specific questions you have asked. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HARRY J . RUBIN' Deputy Attorney General. THOMAS D. McBRIDE, Attorney General. 1 Commonwealth v. Gregg, 161 Pa. 582, 29 Atl. 297 (1894) . 92 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL