dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I do not agree with the Majority that the criminal records provision of Sections 501-508 of the Older Adults Protective Services Act (Act) violates Article I, Section I of the Pennsylvania Constitution.1
While Article I, Section I guarantees an individual’s right to engage in any of the common occupations of life, Hunter v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 277 Pa.Super. 4, 419 A.2d 681 (1980), the right to engage in a profession is “subject to the lawful exercise of the state’s police power to protect the health, safety, welfare and morals by promulgating statutes which reasonably regulate occupations.” Pennsylvania Medical Society v. Foster, 147 Pa.Cmwlth. 528, 608 A.2d 633, 637 (1992) (citing Adler v. Montefiore Hospital Association of Western Pennsylvania, 453 Pa. 60, 311 A.2d 634 (1973)).
The state interest sought to be protected in this case is that of older adults who are incapable of safeguarding themselves. Section 102 of the Act, 35 P.S. § 10225.102 states the legislative policy:
It is declared the policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that older adults who lack the capacity to protect themselves and are at imminent risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation or abandonment shall have access to and be provided with services necessary to protect their health, safety and welfare.... It is the intent of the General Assembly to provide for the detection, reduction, correction or elimination of abuse, neglect, exploitation and abandonment, and to establish a program of protective services for older adults in need of them.
(Emphasis added.)
The state interest sought to be protected is vastly superior to that in Secretary of Revenue v. John’s Vending Corp., 453 Pa. 488, 309 A.2d 358 (1973), relied on by the Majority. In John’s Vending the Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax Board (Board) revoked the wholesale cigarette dealer’s license previously issued to John’s Vending upon learning that Raymond Martorano, a 50% shareholder and former president of the company, had been convicted of several crimes occurring sixteen to nineteen years ago, including selling untaxed liquor and selling derivatives of opium. The Pennsylvania Cigarette Tax Act prohibited the issuance of a wholesale license if an officer of the corporation had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. Because Martorano had been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, the Secretary of Revenue revoked the wholesale license. On appeal, this court affirmed.2
The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the license. The Court observed that the purpose of the Cigarette tax Act was to raise revenue by means of an excise tax on cigarettes. To effectuate the tax, *384tax stamping agents and cigarette dealers were licensed to ensure that unstamped cigarettes were not illegally sold, thereby undermining the revenue to be produced by the tax.
The Court concluded that there was no relevance between the past derelictions of Martorano and his present ability to perform the duties required by his position. Moreover, the criminal convictions, having occurred 16 to 19 years in the past, were not relevant to predicting his future behavior. The Court stated:
[W]here the prior convictions do not in any way reflect upon the appellant’s present ability to properly discharge the responsibilities required by the position, we hold that the convictions cannot provide a basis for the revocation of a wholesaler’s license.
John’s Vending, 453 Pa. at 495, 309 A.2d at 362.
Here, Petitioners argue that like John’s Vending, none of their convictions are materially relevant to their present ability to perform the duties required by their positions. In each case, the remoteness of Petitioners’ convictions, coupled with their employment records demonstrate the lack of “material relevance between the past derelictions of [these individuals] and [their] present ability to perform duties required by the[ir] position[s].” Id. at 493, 309 A.2d at 361. We agree with Respondents, however, that the state interest sought to be protected in this case is greater than that in John’s Vending. In John’s Vending, “the legislature sought to ensure that unstamped cigarettes would not be illegally sold, thereby undermining the revenue to be produced by this tax.” Id. Here, the interest sought to be protected is that of older adults, some of our most vulnerable citizens. This class of elderly adults has seen significant growth in numbers due to the advancements made by medical science to such an extent that in their advanced age their physical condition and mental processes no longer protect them sufficiently from abuse, neglect, exploitation or abandonment. The legislature has recognized this need and is attempting to protect this class to the full extent possible. The protection of these individuals, many of whom cannot care for themselves and therefore rely on the assistance of others, is a far greater interest to protect than that of raising revenue through the collection of taxes. Section 102 of the Act, 35 P.S. § 10225.102 declares it to be “the policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that older adults who lack the capacity to protect themselves and are at imminent risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation or abandonment shall have access to and be provided with services necessary to protect their health, safety and welfare.” The Act, concerned with protecting individuals who “lack the capacity to protect themselves” seeks to effectuate this goal by ensuring that those individuals who in the past have demonstrated an inability to abide by the law will not be the protectors of those who are unable to protect themselves.
Moreover, unlike John’s Vending where the Court agreed that “the legislature did not intend to bring his convictions within the purview of [the] statute”, id. at 492, 309 A.2d at 361, the legislature, by amending the Act in 1997 and removing the ten year look back period imposed in 1996, has clearly stated its intention that anyone convicted of any of the enumerated crimes at any time in their life, is precluded from working for facilities covered by the Act.
Generally, older individuals are placed in facilities covered by the Act not by choice, but by need. The legislature in attempting to protect those that cannot protect themselves has made it clear that criminal convictions imposed at any time, disqualify *385an individual from serving as an employee of a facility serving older adults. Although Petitioners attack the constitutionality of the Act’s amendments, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently stated that “[l]egislation will not be invalidated unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution, and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of a finding of constitutionality.” Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158, 175, 507 A.2d 323, 331-32 (1986). “The role of the judiciary is not to question the wisdom of the action of [the] legislative body, but only to see that it passes constitutional muster.” Finucane v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board, 136 Pa. Cmwlth. 272, 582 A.2d 1152, 1154 (1990).
The legislature does not exceed its bounds merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some reasonable basis, it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification is not made with mathematic nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity. Gondelman v. Commonwealth, 520 Pa. 451, 462, 554 A.2d 896, 901 (1989). Although each of the Petitioners has apparently been a rehabilitation success and may be very worthy individuals at the present time, the legislature did not choose to take any risks by making an exception for them and we are not permitted to legislate judicial exeep-tions. The Act’s restriction of prohibiting the employment of individuals who have in the past displayed the inability to make sound judgments, may be inequitable as applied to Petitioners, but it is a reasonable means of achieving the state purpose of protecting the aged and disabled.3
Accordingly, I would sustain petitioner’s preliminary objections and deny Petitioner’s Motion for summary relief.
Judge McGINLEY joins this dissent.. Act of November 6, 1987, P.L. 381, as amended, added by Section 5 of the Act of December 18, 1996, P.L. 1125 (Act 169), 35 P.S. §§ 10225.501-10225.508.
. John’s Vending Corp. v. Secretary of Revenue, 3 Pa.Cmwlth. 658, 284 A.2d 834 (1971), rev'd, 453 Pa. 488, 309 A.2d 358 (1973).
. Nor do I find that the criminal records provisions of the Act violate the due process right of Petitioners by creating an irrebuttable presumption of unfitness for employment in any capacity covered by a health care facility. To be entitled to a due process hearing, one must have suffered by state action the loss of properly or liberly interest. Levine v. Department of Education, 79 Pa.Cmwlth. 357, 468 A.2d 1216 (1984). Petitioners claim that in accordance with Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535, 541, 605 A.2d 1204, 1207 (1992), a citizen’s property right to pursue a lawful occupation is a substantial property right subject to the full protective mechanisms of procedural due process. Although the Supreme Court in Lyness determined that a physician is entitled to due process, that case involved “a license to pursue a livelihood or engage in a profession, which has been held to be a property right protected by Article I, Section I of the Pennsylvania Constitution. ...” Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Marich, 542 Pa. 226, 231, 666 A.2d 253, 256 (1995). The facts in this case reveal, however, that a license or the revocation thereof is not involved.