AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, Philadelphia Parking Authority, are:
(1) Whether the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law by holding 53 Pa.C.S. § 5707(c) facially unconstitutional?
a. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law by holding that the assessment method set forth in 53 Pa.C.S. § 5707(c) violates Respondents' rights to substantive due process?
b. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law by holding that the assessment method set forth in 53 Pa.C.S. § 5707(c) is arbitrary and unreasonable and lacks any real and substantial relation to the goal of regulating taxicab service in Philadelphia for the benefit of the public?
c. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law by holding that the issuance of certificates of public convenience to Respondents is akin to the issuance of a license to practice a profession, and therefore, Respondents have a protected property interest in the performance of taxicab operations in Philadelphia?
(2) Whether the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law by holding 53 Pa.C.S. § 5707 as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
a. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law by holding that the General Assembly has failed to establish any standards that direct, guide or restrain the Authority's exercise of discretion in formulating its budget and fee schedule or direct the Authority on how costs and expenses should be allocated among utility groups?