Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Appeals, 677 A.2d 350 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996); City of Lancaster v. Lancaster County, 143 Pa.Cmwlth. 476, 599 A.2d 289 (1991). 33 . Although two appellee briefs were filed, one on behalf of the Pierce plaintiffs and one on behalf of the Clifton plaintiffs, we will present their arguments collectively. 34 . Although not directly addressing the contours of a facial challenge, we have addressed the differences between facial and as-applied challenges in a number of scenarios, often for procedural purposes. See, e.g., Phila. Entm't & Dev. Partners v. City of Philadelphia, 594 Pa. 468, 937 A.2d 385, 392 n. 7 (2007) ("[A]s-applied challenges require application of the ordinance to be ripe, facial challenges are different, and ripe upon mere enactment of the ordinance.”); Beattie, 907 A.2d at 527-29 ; Lehman v. Pa. State Police, 576 Pa. 365, 839
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court can exercise equity jurisdiction over taxpayers challenge that property assessment system is unconstitutional facially or asapplied
B. holding in the context of an asapplied challenge that when a defendant admits guilt of a substantive crime he cannot reverse course on appeal and claim the criminal statute is unconstitutional
C. recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal
D. holding that declaring statute facially unconstitutional deprives trial court of subjectmatter jurisdiction
E. holding section 61132b2c facially unconstitutional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.