dissenting.
I dissent because once again this Court unconstitutionally denies a citizen the right to sit for the Pennsylvania Bar Examination. It does so for only one reason, because the American Bar Association — a private organization which can not be properly delegated any governmental authority — is blindly followed by this Court. The decision violates both the Pennsylvania and the Federal constitutions. The petitioners should not be required to seek relief in the federal courts — we should grant the relief requested.
In my dissenting opinion to this Court’s recent adoption of new Bar Admission Rules, I pointed out the unconstitutionality of defining “accredited law school” as “[a] law school accredited by the American Bar Association.” In Re: Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rules,-Pa.-, (No.-, Sup. Ct.Rules Docket No._(filed_) (dissenting opinion of Manderino, J.) (slip opinion at pg. 1)). The Court today applies this unconstitutional rule to prevent Edward M. Murphy, II, and Thomas Sylvester Acker from taking the Pennsylvania Bar Examination. I dissent.
To demonstrate the inequity of the Court’s blind adherence to its rule delegating its accrediting authority to the American Bar Association, I will briefly outline the qualifications and experience of one of the petitioners here, Edward M. Murphy, II, who on September 10, 1977, applied to the State Board of Law Examiners (Board) for permission to take the February, 1978, Pennsylvania Bar Examination.
Appellant Murphy studied law at Armstrong College of Law, Berkeley, California from September 1972, until June 1974, at which time he transferred to Western State Univer*54sity College of Law of Orange County, Fullerton, California, from which he graduated. Neither school is “accredited” by the American Bar Association.
Appellant Murphy successfully completed his law school curriculum and took and passed the California Bar Examination in July of 1976. Additionally, appellant has been admitted to the practice of law in the Supreme Court of the State of California, the United States District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Despite these obvious qualifications, appellant Murphy is not even allowed to take the Pennsylvania Bar examination because he graduated from a law school not “accredited” by the American Bar Association.
At the time of Murphy’s graduation from Western State University, it was fully accredited and approved by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State of California (the accrediting agency for the State of California); by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (the national and regional accrediting agency for that area); by the California State Department of Education; by the California Superintendent of Public Instruction; by the Association of Private Law Schools; by the American Association of Law Libraries; by the Southern California Association of Law Libraries; by the United States Veterans Administration; by the California Department of Veterans Affairs; by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare; by the California State Competitive Graduate Fellowship Grants; by the United States Department of Justice; by the United States Army and United States Marine Corps (for both in-service and off duty educational benefits).
As I stated in my dissenting opinion to the adoption of this Rule,
“Article 5, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution vests the power of the Commonwealth in a unified court system, while Section 2 of that Article declares that ‘the Supreme Court shall be the highest court of the Common*55wealth and in this court shall be reposed the supreme judicial power of the Commonwealth.’ Article 5, Section 10(c) states that,
‘[T]he Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules . . . for admission to the bar and to practice law ... if such rules are consistent with this Constitution . ..’
“In Chartiers Valley Jt. Schs. v. Allegheny Co. Bd., 418 Pa. 520, 211 A.2d 487 (1965), this court was called upon to assess the constitutionality of the School Reorganization Act of 1963, Act of August 8, 1963, P.L. 564, § 1 et seq. (24 P.S. § 2-202 et seq.), as against a challenge that it violated the constitutional rule against delegation of the legislative power. As stated in Chartiers Valley,
‘[t]he rule against [sic] nondelegation of legislative power is premised in this case on Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania which vests the legislative power of the Commonwealth in the General Assembly. While not specifically set forth in the Constitution, the nondelegation rule is a natural corollary to Article II, § 1 since it requires that the basic policy choices involved in “legislative power” actually be made by the Legislature as constitutionally mandated.’ (Emphasis in original.)
Id., 418 Pa. 529, 211 A.2d at 492.
“Article 5 confers the supreme judicial power of the Commonwealth upon this court. Like the prohibition against delegation of legislative authority that flows from the grant of legislative power contained in Article 2, Section 1, it follows as a corollary to Article 5 that the basic policy choices involved in the exercise of the judicial authority of the Commonwealth must actually be made by the Supreme Court.
“As we recognized in Chartiers Valley, supra, ‘. the nondelegation principle does not require that all details of administration need be precisely or separately enumerated in the statute.’ Id., 418 Pa. at 529, 211 A.2d at 492. The Legislature, however, must prescribe general rules and reasonably definite standards.
*56‘While the legislature cannot delegate the power to make a law, it may, where necessary, confer authority and discretion in connection with the execution of the law; it may establish primary standards and impose upon others the duty to carry out the declared legislative policy in accordance with the general provision of the Act.’ Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority, 357 Pa. 329, 342, 54 A.2d 277, 284 (1947); (quoted in Chartiers Valley, supra, 418 Pa. at 529, 211 A.2d at 492.).
“In State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Life Fellowship of Pa., 441 Pa. 293, 272 A.2d 478 (1971), (Opinion of Roberts, J., joined by O’Brien, J., with two Justices concurring in the result), Section 15 of the Chiropractic Registration Act (requiring that to be eligible for renewal of their annual registration and license, chiropractors had to demonstrate that they had attended a two-day educational conference held by the Pennsylvania Chiropractic Society, or an equivalent education conference) was declared to be an unlawful delegation of legislative authority in violation of Article 2, Section 1. Relying on Chartiers Valley, supra, the opinion concluded that:
‘. . .a statute stating attendance at a conference of a particular chiropractic society will satisfy license and registration standards, without providing any guide or criterion, is an unlawful delegation to that society of the power to determine the requirements, quality and nature of chiropractic continuing education, and is an abrogation by the General Assembly of its constitutional legislative duties.’ Id., 441 Pa. at 298, 272 A.2d at 481.
“As in the legislative delegation of authority condemned in State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, supra, the delegation to the ABA of the authority to determine the ‘requirement, quality, and nature’ of the legal education required of attorneys of this Commonwealth contains no guides or criteria within which the ABA must act when carrying out this judicial function.
*57“As in the attempted delegations of legislative authority discussed in State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, supra, Chartiers Valley, supra, and Belovsky, supra, any attempt to confer the judicial power upon a body other than those courts granted such authority by Article 5 of the Constitution must be accompanied with ‘. . . adequate standards which will guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative functions.’ Chartiers Valley, supra, 418 Pa. at 529, 211 A.2d at 493. But where are the standards which will guide the American Bar Association in the exercise of its delegated function of accrediting law schools? The answer is simple, and obvious: there are none. The ABA is given unlimited discretion to devise standards of accreditation as it alone sees fit. The interests of the ABA may or may not be the proper interests of a governmental body.
“In the past, Pennsylvania has permitted graduates of law schools other than those approved by the ABA, to take the bar examination and be admitted to the bar. This was done because the rules permitted a school to seek the approval of the Supreme Court even if it were not approved by the ABA. This alternate approval method was at some time in the past deleted from the rules. I realize that it would be very impractical for Pennsylvania to set up its own independent accrediting agency. This is no reason, however, to unconstitutionally delegate to a private organization our responsibilities. I see no problem with allowing graduates of an accredited ABA school to take the bar examination if the door is also open for graduates of other schools to seek approval from the Supreme Court either individually or by their schools. This was permitted in the past, and should be permitted now. The unrestrained grant of the judicial authority to the ABA violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and I, therefore, dissent.”
The inequity of the Rule is made glaringly apparent in this case, and I refuse to join in its application. The Rule’s inequity is equally apparent in the case of appellant Thomas *58Sylvester Acker; however, it would serve no useful purpose for me to now examine in detail the nature of his qualifications.
Additionally, there is no distinction between appellants in this case and Thomas M. Sulk, whose appeal from the Board’s denial of permission to take the Pennsylvania Bar Examination (for the reason that he graduated from a non-ABA accredited Law School) we granted on June 6, 1977. (See 376 Misc. Docket No. 21.) To deny a law school graduate’s1 request to sit for the Pennsylvania Bar Examination, solely on the basis that the American Bar Association has not seen fit to accredit the school, violates both the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions. I therefore dissent.
LARSEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.