PACU V SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

representative shall have authority to advise, inspect, and

ISSUE
FACTS
1)

regulate said schools and colleges in order to determine the

The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities
7)

made a petition that Acts No. 2706 otherwise known as the

Act making the Inspection and Recognition of private

Secretary of Education before opening a school is not

schools and colleges obligatory for the Secretary of Public

originally included in the original Act 2706. And in support

Instruction and was amended by Act No. 3075 and

to the first proposition of the petitioners they contended that

Commonwealth Act No. 180 be declared unconstitutional on

the Constitution guaranteed the right of a citizen to own and

the grounds that

a)
the act deprives the owner of the school and

operate

b)

c)

requiring

previous

Law;
it will also deprive the parents of their

that 1) the matters presented no justiciable controversy

Natural Rights and duty to rear

constitutional question; 2) Petitioners are in estoppels to

exhibiting

their

children for civic efficiency

its provisions conferred on the Secretary of

powers.
On the other hand, the defendants, through their legal
presented

no

of deciding the constitutional question

that petitioners are in estoppel to challenge

deciding

the

DECISION
NO
-

Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might

under the law withdraw the permit of one of petitioners
does not constitute a justiciable controversy. (Cf. Com. ex rel

Watkins vs. Winchester Waterworks (Ky.) 197 S. W. 2d. 771.)

Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to
satisfy scholarly interest therein, however intellectually solid
the problem may be. This is specially true where the issues
"reach constitutional dimensions, for then there comes into
play regard for the court's duty to avoid decision of

constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion."

The above notwithstanding, in view of the several decisions
of the United States Supreme Court quoted by petitioners,
apparently outlawing censorship of the kind objected to by

of the general public and the parties concerned.

It should be understandable, then, that this Court should be

them, we have decided to look into the matter, lest they may
allege we refuse to act even in the face of clear violation of

doubly reluctant to consider petitioner's demand for

respondents assert, petitioners suffered no wrongnor

of

dismissed by the court.

without audible protest, nay, with the general acquiescence

avoidance of the law aforesaid, specially where, as

necessity

constitutionally valid. Thus, the petition for prohibition was

the validity of the Act

c) that the Act is valid and constitutional
Under its provisions (Act No. 2706), the Department of
regulated all private schools in this country apparently

unavoidable

challenge the validity of the said act and 3) the Act is

justiciable

Education has, for the past 37 years, supervised and

fundamental personal rights of liberty and property.

It is an established principle that to entitle a private
individual immediately in danger of sustaining a direct

allege anyfrom the enforcement of the criticized statute.

Petitioners obviously refer to section 3 of Act No. 2706 as

injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that

he has merely a general to invoke the judicial power to

amended which provides that before a private school may be

6)

law

Legal Representative submitted a memorandum contending

controversy exhibiting unavoidable necessity

5)

any

exercise the said right On the other hand, the defendant

counsel contended that

a) the matters

4)

and

liberty and property without due process of

towards unlawful delegation of Legislative

3)

school

colleges as well as teachers and parents of

to prescribe rules and standards constitute

b)

governmental approval or permit before such person could

Education unlimited powers and discretion

2)

efficiency of instruction given in the same,

The petitioner also complain that securing a permit to the

opened to the public it must first obtain a permit from the

determine the validity of executive or legislative action he

Secretary of Education.
The Solicitor General on the other hand points out that none

members of the public. (Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633 82 L.

of the petitioners has cause to present this issue, because all

of them have permits to operate and are actually operating

must show that he has sustained or is interest common to all

the complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by

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

judicial authority for their protection against actual

seek to obtain.
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Public Instruction to
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

its operation.
The power of courts to declare a law unconstitutional arises
only when the interests of litigant require the use of that

of lawand, naturally need no relief in the form they now

maintain a general standard of efficiency in all private

Ed. 493.)
Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a law upon

interference, a hypothetical threat being insufficient. (United

-

Public Works vs. Mitchell, 330 U .S. 75; 91 L. Ed. 754.)

Bona fide suit.Judicial power is limited to the decision of
actual cases and controversies. The authority to pass on the
validity of statutes is incidental to the decision of such cases
where conflicting claims under the Constitution and under a

PACU V SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

legislative act assailed as contrary to the Constitution are

schools and colleges of the Philippines so that the same shall

raised. It is legitimate only in the last resort, and as necessity

furnish adequate instruction to the public, in accordance

in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy

with the class and grade of instruction given in them, and for

between litigants. (Taada and Fernando, Constitution of the

this purpose said Secretary or his duly authorized

Philippines, p. 1138.)
Of course it is necessary to assure herein petitioners, that

representative shall have authority to advise, inspect, and

when and if, the dangers they apprehend materialize and

efficiency of instruction given in the same

judicial

intervention

is

suitably

invoked,

after

all

administrative remedies are exhausted, the courts will not

shrink from their duty to delimit constitutional boundaries
-

regulate said schools and colleges in order to determine the

description, either general or specific, of what constitutes a

and protect individual liberties.

For all the foregoing considerations, reserving to the

'general standard of efficiency.' Nowhere in this Act is there

any indication of any basis or condition to ascertain what is

petitioners the right to institute in the proper court, and at

'adequate instruction to the public.' Nowhere in this Act is

the proper time, such actions as may call for decision of the

there any statement of conditions, acts, or factors, which the

issue herein presented by them, this petition for prohibition

Secretary of Education must take into account to determine

will be denied.

the 'efficiency of instruction.'"

NOTES

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

"Nowhere in this Act" petitioners argue "can one find any

petitioners do not show how these standards have injured

any of them or interfered with their operation. Wherefore, no
reason exists for them to assail the validity of the power nor
the exercise of the power by the Secretary of Education.