Appeals from orders of Commonwealth Court, No. 1231 C.D. 1972, No. 1232 C.D. 1972, and No. 730 C.D. 1973, reversing orders of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 310 Misc. Docket 1971, and No. 163 Misc. Docket 1972, in cases of Middle Paxton Township v. Borough of Dauphin; Derry Township Supervisors v. Borough of Hummelstown; Supervisors and Planning Commission of the Township of Londonderry v. Borough of Royalton.
David B. Disney, with him McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for appellant, Borough of Dauphin.
Herbert A. Schaffner, with him Reynolds, Bihl and Schaffner, for appellant, Borough of Hummelstown.
James B. Pannebaker, with him Pannebaker and Yost, for appellant, Borough of Royalton.
Jeffrey A. Ernico, with him Norman M. Yoffe, for appellee, Middle Paxton Township.
Kent H. Patterson, with him Cleckner and Fearen, for appellees, Derry Township Supervisors.
Christian S. Erb, Jr., with him Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, for appellees, Supervisors and Planning Commission of Londonderry Township.
J. Scott Calkins, Robert J. Demer and Shaffer, Calkins & Balaban, for amici curiae, Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, Pennsylvania Builders Association, Pennsylvania League of Cities, Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs.
Jones, C. J., Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice O'Brien. Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts. Mr. Chief Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Pomeroy join in this dissenting opinion.
Subsequent to April 23, 1970, the Boroughs of Hummelstown, Dauphin and Royalton instituted annexation proceedings against the Townships of Derry, Middle Paxton and Londonderry, respectively. All proceedings were instituted under the provisions of the Borough Code. Each of the townships filed complaints in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, alleging that the annexation procedures of the Borough Code had been repealed by § 8 of Article IX of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County dismissed each of the townships' complaints, but on appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed.*fn1 We granted allocatur in order to resolve the conflict between the ruling of the Commonwealth Court and dicta contained in a footnote in the opinion of the Superior Court in its decision in Baldwin Borough Appeal, 217 Pa. Superior Ct. 346, 350, 272 A.2d 731 (1970).
Article IX, § 8, of the Constitution, adopted April 23, 1968, reads as follows:
"8. Consolidation, merger or boundary change. Uniform Legislation. The ...