it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Rather, as noted, the Commonwealth Court adjudicated the claim on cross-motions for summary judgment and addressed the merits of each constitutional challenge. We further note that the Department makes no argument that the Prisoners lack standing to bring a facial challenge to a provision of the PLRA that was not applied to them. Because the question of standing is not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, we cannot raise it sua sponte. Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 554 Pa. 249, 721 A.2d 43, 46 n. 6 (1998); see also Commonwealth v. Labron, 543 Pa. 86, 669 A.2d 917, 919 (1995), rev’d 518 U.S. 938, 116 S.Ct. 2485, 135 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1996), reaffirmed by 547 Pa. 344, 690 A.2d 228 (1997) (<HOLDING>). We, therefore, proceed to address the merits
holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal holding that our court will not consider an issue of whether a defendant has standing to seek suppression of evidence if the issue was not raised in the lower court holding that as a general rule this court will not consider an issue that was not raised below holding that this court will not consider a theory or issue that was not pleaded or raised in the trial court holding that suppression issue not raised to the district court was waived under rule 12