Macalinao, Romielyn P.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Actual Case or Controversy
Title: PACU vs SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
Reference: 97 PHIL 816

October 31, 1995

FACTS

The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities made

a petition that Acts No. 2706 otherwise known as the Act making
the Inspection and Recognition of private schools and colleges
obligatory for the Secretary of Public Instruction and was amended
by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180 be declared
unconstitutional on the grounds that 1) the act deprives the owner
of the school and colleges as well as teachers and parents of liberty
and property without due process of Law; 2) it will also deprive the
parents of their Natural Rights and duty to rear their children for
civic efficiency and 3) its provisions conferred on the Secretary of
Education

unlimited powers and discretion to prescribe rules and

standards constitute towards unlawful delegation of Legislative

powers.
Section 1 of Act No. 2706:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Public Instruction to
maintain a general standard of efficiency in all private schools and
colleges of the Philippines so that the same shall furnish adequate
instruction to the public, in accordance with the class and grade of
instruction given in them, and for this purpose said Secretary or his
duly authorized representative shall have authority to advise,
inspect, and regulate said schools and colleges in order to
determine the efficiency of instruction given in the same,

The petitioner also complain that securing a permit to the

Secretary of Education before opening a school is not originally
included in the original Act 2706. And in support to the first
proposition of the petitioners they contended that the Constitution
guaranteed the right of a citizen to own and operate a school and
any law requiring previous governmental approval or permit before
such person could exercise the said right On the other hand, the
defendant

Legal

Representative

submitted

memorandum

contending that 1) the matters presented no justiciable controversy

exhibiting unavoidable necessity of deciding the constitutional
question; 2) Petitioners are in estoppels to challenge the validity of
the said act and 3) the Act is constitutionally valid. Thus, the
petition for prohibition was dismissed by the court.
ISSUES
Whether or not Act No. 2706 as amended by Act no. 3075 and
Commonwealth Act no. 180 may be declared void and unconstitutional? Or is
there an actual controversy?
RULINGS
No, there is no justiciable controversy presented before the court.
It is an established principle that to entitle a private
individual immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury and it
is not sufficient that he has merely invoke the judicial power to
determined the validity of executive and legislative action he must
show that he has sustained common interest to all members of the
public.
Furthermore, the power of the courts to declare a law
unconstitutional arises only when the interest of litigant require the

use

of

judicial

authority

for

their

protection

against

actual

interference.
In the case at bar, petitioners raise that first, the act deprives
the owner of the school and colleges as well as teachers and
parents of liberty and property without due process of Law. It needs
to be pointed out that none of the petitioners has cause to present
this issue, because all of them have permits to operate and
are actually operating by virtue of their permits. And they do not
assert that the respondent Secretary of Education has threatened to
revoke their permits. They have suffered no wrong under the terms
of lawand, naturally need no relief in the form they now seek to
obtain. Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a law upon
the complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its
operation.
Moreover, petitioner insist that there was unlawful delegation
of Legislative powers upon the Secretary of Education. This attack is
specifically aimed at section 1 of Act No. 2706 which, as amended,
provides:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Public Instruction to
maintain a general standard of efficiency in all private schools and
colleges of the Philippines so that the same shall furnish adequate
instruction to the public, in accordance with the class and grade of
instruction given in them, and for this purpose said Secretary or his
duly authorized representative shall have authority to advise,
inspect, and regulate said schools and colleges in order to
determine the efficiency of instruction given in the same.
This is void of merit because to confer, by statute, upon the
Secretary of Education power and discretion to prescribe rules fixing

minimum standards of adequate and efficient instruction to be

observed by all private schools and colleges, is not to unduly
delegate legislative powers. Abuse, if any, by the officials entrusted
with the execution of a statute does not per se demonstrate the
unconstitutionality of such statute.
The Secretary of Education has fixed standards to ensure
adequate and efficient instruction, as shown by the memoranda
fixing or revising curricula, the school calendars, entrance and final
examinations, admission and accreditation of students etc.; and the
system of private education has, in general, been satisfactorily in
operation for 37 years. Which only shows that the Legislature did
and could, validly rely upon the educational experience and training
of those in charge of the Department of Education to ascertain and
formulate minimum requirements of adequate instruction as the
basis of government recognition of any private school.
It should be noted that if any of the Department circulars or
memoranda issued by the Secretary go beyond the bounds of
regulation and seek to establish complete control of the various
activities of private schools, it would surely be invalid. In order that
a circular or memorandum issued by the Department of Education
may be constitutionally assailed, the circular or memorandum must
be indicated, the wrong inflicted or threatened must be alleged and
proved, and the constitutional point raised and argued specifically.
There has been no undue delegation of legislative power even if the
petitioners appended a list of circulars and memoranda issued by
the Department of Education since they fail to indicate which of
such official documents was constitutionally objectionable for being
capricious or pain nuisance.