PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 4th day of January 2002, the majority and dissenting opinions filed on Friday, December 28, 2001, in the above-captioned matter are hereby withdrawn and vacated.
In their stead, the attached majority and dissenting opinions and orders are filed as of this date.
DOYLE, President Judge.1
Before this Court2 in our original jurisdiction are preliminary objections filed by Robert C. Jubelirer, the Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a State Senator elected from Pennsylvania’s 30th Senatorial District, who is as well the President pro tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate (Respondent), to a petition for review in the nature of a request for declaratory judgment filed by State Representative John A. Lawless, Charles A. Pascal Jr., and Joseph H. Wiedemer (collectively Petitioners). Petitioners Lawless, Pascal and Wiedemer are residents of Pennsylvania (Wiedemer in Pennsylvania’s 30th Senatorial District) as well as electors, voters and taxpayers.3
In their petition, Petitioners allege that Respondent has been a member of the Senate since 1974 and has been its President pro tempore for approximately fifteen years.4 They further aver that on October 5, 2001, former Governor Tom Ridge resigned his position to assume the federal post of Director of the Office of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C. On that same date, then Lieutenant Governor Mark Schweiker was sworn in as Governor [825]*825of Pennsylvania, thus vacating the office of Lieutenant Governor. Also on that date, Respondent Jubelirer was sworn in as Lieutenant Governor in accordance with Article IV, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968 (Constitution), which provides as follows:
§ 14. Vacancy in office of Lieutenant Governor
In case of the death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify or resignation of the Lieutenant Governor, or in case he should become Governor under the preceding section, the President pro tempore of the Senate shall become Lieutenant Governor for the remainder of the term. In case of the disability of the Lieutenant Governor, the powers, duties and emoluments of the office shall devolve upon the President pro tempore of the Senate until the disability is removed. Should there be no Lieutenant Governor, the President pro tempore of the Senate shall become Governor if a vacancy shall occur in the office of Governor and in case of the disability of the Governor, the powers, duties and emoluments of the office shall devolve upon the President pro tempore of the Senate until the disability is removed. His seat as Senator shall become vacant whenever he shall become Governor and shall be filled by election as any other vacancy in the Senate.
In count one of the four-count petition, petitioners recognize that Article IV, Section 14 of the Constitution requires the President pro tempore of the Senate to assume the position of Lieutenant Governor at the time the existing Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor. They assert, however, that under Article IV, Section 6 of the Constitution Respondent is prohibited “from maintaining his office in the Senate” while occupying the post of Lieutenant Governor. (Petition for Review ¶ 19). Article IV, Section 6 pertinently states:
No member of Congress or person holding any office ... under the United States or this Commonwealth shall exercise the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor or Attorney General,
(emphasis added). Petitioners argue, succinctly, that Respondent is prohibited from holding the office of Senator while he is at the same time the Lieutenant Governor. Petitioners assert further that, under Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution, Respondent is also prohibited from collecting an increased salary as Lieutenant Governor and that “the Lt. Governor’s annual salary .. .well exceeds his annual salary as Senator and President pro tempore of the Senate combined.” (Petition for Review ¶21). Article II, Section 8 pertinently states:
The members of the General Assembly shall receive such salary and mileage for regular and special sessions as shall be fixed by law, and no other compensation whatever, whether for service upon committee or otherwise. No member of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term.
Finally, Petitioners maintain that the Constitution does not authorize a Lieutenant Governor, who is a member of the Executive branch, to exercise the duties and powers of the President pro tempore of the Senate, who is a member of the Legislative branch. Petitioners contend that the “people of Pennsylvania have a right to a Lt. Governor without loyalties divided between the Executive and Legislative branches.” (Petition for Review ¶ 24).
Petitioners, in a prayer for relief repeated for each count, ask the Court to declare (1) that Respondent may not continue to hold the office of Senator and [826]*826President pro tempore, (2) that the senatorial seat for the 30th Senatorial District is vacant as a matter of law, and (3) that a special election is needed to fill the seat.
Count two of the petition is based on the concept of separation of powers. Petitioners aver that under Article II, Section 6 as well as Article IV, Section 6, it is unconstitutional for Respondent to exercise the duties of Senator, President pro tempore and Lieutenant Governor contemporaneously, and that to permit such an action to occur is against the public interest and creates conflicts of interest, divided loyalties, ethical issues and a co-mingling of duties. Article II, Section 6 provides as follows:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under this Commonwealth to which a salary, fee or perquisite is attached. No member of Congress or other person holding any office (except of attorney-at-law or in the national guard or in a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States) under the United States or this Commonwealth to which a salary, fee or perquisite is attached shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
Count three of the petition is based on Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, which vests the supreme executive power in the Governor. In this count Petitioners aver that, as a Senator, Respondent has the duty to advise the Governor on judicial appointments, see Article V, Section 13(b) and Article IV, Section 8(b), and to approve or disapprove the Governor’s choices for various cabinet positions and other like offices. Further, the Lieutenant Governor, who chairs the Board of Pardons, authorizes three gubernatorial appointments to that board subject to Senate approval. Petitioners aver that all of the various duties that Respondent now has give him power that “rivals that of the Governor” and that he “now essentially controls Pennsylvania’s Executive branch.” (Petition for Review ¶ 43, 46).
Finally, in count four of the petition, Petitioners aver that, as Lieutenant Governor, Respondent is responsible for Pennsylvania’s Emergency Management Program and that his senatorial duties, which take time from his duties as the Lieutenant Governor, prevent him from being able to give his maximum time and attention to the emergency management duties.
Respondent has raised three preliminary objections to the petition, which we will address seriatim.
STANDING
Respondent first asserts that the named Petitioners lack standing to bring this action.
In order to meet the standing requirement, those bringing an action generally must demonstrate a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the controversy. William Penn Parking Garage Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269 (1975). An interest is substantial if there is a discernable adverse effect to an interest other than that of the general citizenry. Id. at 195, 346 A.2d at 282. It is direct if the petitioner can show a harm to his interest. Id. It is immediate if it is not a remote consequence of the judgment. Id. at 197, 346 A.2d at 283.
There is, however, a narrow exception to the general requirements of standing where a citizen may challenge an action that would otherwise go unchallenged in the courts. This legal precept is often applied where persons also assert standing on the basis that they are taxpayers and, thus, have an interest in the public fisc. In such a case, to be granted standing, [827]*827petitioners must demonstrate that (1) the governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged, (2) those directly and immediately affected by the governmental action are not inclined to challenge it, (3) judicial relief is appropriate, (4) there is no redress through other channels, and (5) no other persons are better suited to assert the claim. Consumer Party v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158, 507 A.2d 323 (1986). It is under Consumer Party that Petitioners maintain that they have standing.
Examining the five-part test enunciated in Consumer Party, we conclude that Petitioners do have standing. First, we believe that there is a real possibility that the issue called into question might otherwise go unchallenged. Respondent’s colleagues in the Senate may not wish to raise the issue since those of his own party may benefit from his increased responsibilities and those of the other major party will have need to work with him in both of his capacities. For similar reasons, those legislators directly and immediately affected by his concurrent occupation of the three positions may benefit more, both personally and politically, by not challenging his authority.
Next, we believe that judicial relief is appropriate to challenge the constitutionality of this issue of first impression, challenging an individual’s right to occupy the positions of Lieutenant Governor, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Senator simultaneously, and, if warranted, declare that a need for a special election is present. Additionally, redress is not available elsewhere, and no persons who are better situated to commence this lawsuit have even been suggested.
We also conclude that Petitioners Lawless and Pascal have an additional basis to assert standing under our holding in Bergdoll v. Kane, 694 A.2d 1155, (Pa. Cmwlth.1997), aff'd, 557 Pa. 72, 731 A.2d 1261 (1999), wherein we granted standing to individuals who had taken an oath pledging to defend Pennsylvania’s Constitution. Representative Lawless, as a member of the General Assembly, and Mr. Pascal, as a member of the Board of Directors of the Leechberg Area School District, have asserted that they have each taken an oath of office requiring them to do so. Thus, we find an additional reason to conclude that they have standing. Accordingly, the preliminary objection to standing is overruled.5
SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE/THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
Respondent asserts that the central issue before the Court is not justiciable because it is a political question.
The political question doctrine is a discretionary form of judicial abstention derived from the separation of powers doctrine. It should only be invoked by a court when considering matters that are textually committed to a co-equal branch of government and which do not involve another branch of government acting outside its scope of constitutional authority. Sweeney v. Tucker, 473 Pa. 493, 375 A.2d 698 (1977). Most important, the political question doctrine of abstention is a matter of judicial discretion and its use is controlled by the circumstances and facts presented in a particular case. Jubelirer v. Singel, 162 Pa.Cmwlth. 55, 638 A.2d 352 (1994) (particularly relevant to this case was this Court’s prior decision to reject [828]*828the application of the separation of powers doctrine and consider whether or not a Senator-elect was permitted to vote on his own seating — a matter otherwise textually committed to the legislative branch of government).
Our state Supreme Court and this Court have adopted the standards enunciated in the seminal case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), in order to determine whether an issue is justiciable. See, e.g., Jubelirer; Sweeney In Jubelirer, we quoted Baker as follows:
It is apparent that several formulations which vary slightly according to the settings in which the questions arise may describe a political question. ... Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
Jubelirer, 638 A.2d at 358 (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691) (emphasis in original). Further, however, Sweeney recognized that, in situations where there is an allegation that another branch of government is acting beyond the scope of its constitutionally circumscribed authority, judicial review of the matter is especially appropriate.
While the argument of nonjusticiability has a certain appeal, we conclude that it does not apply to this case, which does not contemplate a “garden variety” political question, but rather concerns vital issues with unique constitutional underpinnings. Here, the Court is presented with two issues of basic constitutional law, viz., whether a person who becomes Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section 14 may concurrently hold the position of State Senator, and whether a person who becomes Lieutenant Governor, and therefore is President of the Senate, may also hold the position of President pro tempore of the Senate. Accordingly, we are not asked to decide an issue of the qualifications of an individual member of the Senate under Article II, Section 5, which is clearly within the legislative purview. Instead, we are called upon to confront compelling issues that undoubtedly require a studied and thoughtful interpretation of the relevant Constitutional provisions, and only the Courts may engage in such an exegesis. We so held in Jubelirer, a case of somewhat equal constitutional proportions, and we so hold in this case.6
DEMURRER
Respondent’s final preliminary objection is a demurrer.
A demurrer may only be sustained when on the face of the complaint the law will not permit recovery, Stone & Edwards Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Department of Insurance, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 266, 616 A.2d 1060 (1992), aff'd, 538 Pa. 276, 648 A.2d 304 (1994), and all well-pled allegations must be accepted as true. Id. Regarding the merits, we further note that constitutional provisions relating to the same subject matter must be construed together and because the Constitution is [829]*829an integrated document, we must give effect to all its provisions, if possible. Cavanaugh v. Davis, 497 Pa. 351, 440 A.2d 1380 (1982).
With regard to count one, concerning the possible disqualification from office under Article IV, Section 6 and Article II, Section 8, Respondent relies on the language of Article IV, Section 14 which states the following:
In case ... the Lieutenant Governor ... should become Governor ... the President pro tempore of the Senate shall become Lieutenant Governor for the remainder of the term.Should there be no Lieutenant Governor, the President pro tempore of the Senate shall become Governor if a vacancy shall occur in the office of Governor and in case of the disability of the Governor, the powers, duties and emoluments of the office shall devolve upon the President pro tempore of the Senate until the disability is removed. His seat as Senator shall become vacant whenever he shall become Governor and shall be filled by election as any other vacancy in the Senate.
(emphasis added).
Arguing the principle of expressio uni-us, exclusio alterius, Respondent asserts that because the specific constitutional language states only that the President pro tempore must give up his seat as a Senator upon becoming Governor, he need not do so upon becoming Lieutenant Governor, and that if such a result had been intended, the Constitution would have explicitly so stated.
Petitioners counter that Respondent has failed to distinguish between the concept of filling the role of Lieutenant Governor temporarily and permanently. They maintain that, if the office of Lieutenant Governor were only temporarily vacant because of the disability of the Lieutenant Governor, or if the Lieutenant Governor needed to assume the role of Governor temporarily due to the Governor’s temporary disability, there would be no constitutional violation in Respondent Jubelirer keeping his Senate seat, since Article II, Section 9, Article IV, Section 13 (dealing with the temporary disability of the Governor) and Article IV, Section 14 (second sentence) recognize the concept of a temporary vacancy; Article IV, Section 14 (first sentence), on the other hand, recognizes the concept of a permanent vacancy. They assert, correctly, that the vacancies at issue here were not temporary inasmuch as former Governor Ridge permanently resigned from his office as Governor as did former Lieutenant Governor Schweiker.
Nonetheless, we agree with Respondent that the constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous and compels the President pro tempore to resign his senatorial seat only if he becomes Governor. In so holding, we are cognizant not only of the rule that the mention of a specific matter in a statute or constitutional provision implies the exclusion of other matters not mentioned, but also of the fact that the last sentence in Section 14 was also contained in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1874, and that the inclusion or exclusion of the words “Lieutenant Governor” were the subject of specific debate.
During the debates concerning Article IV, Section 14 (then numbered as Article IV, Section 15), the then-draft language provided the following: “[President pro tempore’s ] Office of Senator shall become vacant when he becomes Lieutenant Governor, and shall be filled by election as any other vacancy in the Senate.” VII Debates of the Constitutional Convention (1873) at 445 (Singerly, 1873). Delegate Buekalew raised the following question as to the draft language.
[830]*830Now, the question is whether it is necessary to vacate his office as a member of the Senate when he is placed in the Chair as Presiding Officer. Observe, he will always have a vote when his vote is of any account, when the Senate is equally divided, and the question will be whether we had not better omit the word “lieutenant” before “Governor,” so that it shall simply provide that his office shall be vacated in case he shall be called upon to exercise the duties of the gubernatorial office.
Id. Delegate Buckalew then moved to strike the word “lieutenant” before “Governor,” id., to which Delegate Patterson then
ask[ed] unanimous consent to make that change. Then a Senator will not vacate his office if he is acting as Lieutenant Governor merely, but in case both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor should die or resign, and he assumes the gubernatorial functions, then, only, will his office of Senator become vacated.
Id. (emphasis added). The President of the Convention asked for unanimous consent to make the amendment. The Convention responded: “Aye!” “Aye!” Then, the President stated: “It is agreed to.” Id.
Thus it is historically relevant that the framers of Section 14 expressly and unanimously made their intent clear by deleting language that would have required the President pro tempore to vacate his seat in the Senate once he assumed the Office of Lieutenant Governor. Instead, they adopted the language still in use today, which specifically provides that the President pro tempore of the Senate vacates his seat only upon assuming the Governor’s Office.
Petitioners’ interpretation of Article IV, Sections 6 and 14, on the other hand, is directly contrary to the specific language of the Constitution and ignores the historical circumstances surrounding the formation of the operative language.7 That his[831]*831tory and intent is entirely consistent with the application of established principles of constitutional construction to the text discussed above.
While we acknowledge that Petitioners are correct in recognizing that a distinction is made in various constitutional provisions between a temporary vacancy and a permanent vacancy, this dichotomy is not relevant to the precise issue before the Court because the language in Article IV, Section 14 is absolutely clear that the President pro tempore must vacate his seat only upon becoming Governor.
There are also reasons why the provisions of Article IV, Section 6 and Article II, Section 8 are not violated. The operative question regarding Article IV, Section 6 is whether the position of Senator is an “office” for purposes of this Section’s provisions, thereby prohibiting any Senator, in “office,” from becoming or acting as the Lieutenant Governor. We hold that it is not. First, to hold that it is, would place this constitutional provision in direct conflict with Article II, Section 9 (authorizing the President pro tempore to assume the role of Lieutenant Governor when that office “shall be vacant”) and Article IV, Section 14 (directing that the President pro tempore vacate his seat only if he shall become Governor
because the office of Lieutenant Governor is vacant). Second, while, at first blush, there may be a tendency to equate a member of the General Assembly with an “officer” for purposes of Article IV, Section 6, one distinction is that members of the General Assembly generally may not be removed, save by members of their own body. Additionally, the various constitutional provisions themselves draw a distinction between being a member of the General Assembly and holding office. See, e.g., Article II, Section 7 (“[n]o person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime, shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth”); Article VI, Section 3 (“Senators, Representatives and all judicial, State and county officers shall, before entering on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation ....”) Repeatedly, where there are references to holding office, members of the General Assembly are listed separately in matters where other officials are not separately identified.
We turn now to an examination of Article II, Section 8.8 That Section [832]*832must be read in pari materia with Article II, Section 9 and Article IV, Section 14, both of which recognize the constitutional obligation on the President pro tempore to assume the role of Lieutenant Governor when that office is vacated and neither of which states, suggests, implies, or even hints at the notion that he should give up his Senate seat when fulfilling that constitutional obligation. Additionally, any increase in salary Respondent may receive now that he is Lieutenant Governor, is not due to the passage of any law, but to the vacancy of the position of Lieutenant Governor by operation of the Constitution itself.
Next, Respondent demurs to the claim that by holding both offices he violates the principle of separation of powers. The separation of powers doctrine recognizes that each branch of our tripartite system of government has duties upon which the others may not intrude. Sweeney. However, some degree of interdependence will exist. Id. Succinctly, the purpose of the doctrine is to prohibit tyranny. Lloyd v. Fishinger, 529 Pa. 513, 605 A.2d 1193 (1992). To this end, it serves to prevent the concentration of absolute power in a single branch of government, as well as to preclude one branch from usurping another’s power. Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he crucial function of the separation of powers principle ... is not separation per se, but the ‘checking’ power each branch has over the others.” Beckert v. Warren, 497 Pa. 137, 145, 439 A.2d 638, 642 (1981).
Having concluded that Article II, Section 6 and Article IV, Section 6, when read in tandem with Article IV, Section 14, produce no constitutional infirmity, and it being clear that Respondent merely assumed the duties he was constitutionally obligated to assume, we conclude that there is no loss of the “checks and balances” envisioned by our Constitution’s framers and, hence, no separation of powers problem.9 [833]*833In so holding, we do not discount the genuine concerns raised in Petitioners’ brief. Nonetheless, we believe that such arguments, in a situation where the constitutional provision is clear, are not for the courts, but rather are properly addressed to the General Assembly and the citizens of Pennsylvania if a constitutional amendment is deemed appropriate.
Finally, Respondent demurs to the count that he cannot competently fulfill his role as a member of the Commonwealth’s Emergency Management Program, see what is commonly referred to as the Emergency Management Services Code, 35 Pa.C.S. §§ 7701-7707, if he continues to occupy a seat in the Senate. This last allegation of Petitioners has no constitutional or other legal basis and merely reflects Petitioners’ own personal concerns that Respondent may be “too busy” to perform the job functions of the position. Such questions are clearly not within our purview to decide and, again, should be directed to the legislative and executive branches, not the courts. It is, simply stated, not the proper predicate for a cause of action to challenge the provisions of Pennsylvania’s Constitution.
Accordingly, we conclude, based upon the foregoing explanation, that the demurrer must be sustained as to all counts.
Judge KELLEY concurs in the result only.
ORDER
NOW, January 4, 2002, Respondent’s preliminary objections to standing and jus-ticiability are overruled. Respondent’s demurrer is sustained as to all counts and the petition for review is dismissed.