PACU VS SEC. OF EDUC

2 pages
2,618 views

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
G.R. No. L-5279 October 31, 1955 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC., petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF TEXTBOOKS, respondents. Manuel C. Briones, Vicente G. Sinco, Manuel V. Gallego and Enrique M. Fernando for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Assistant Solicitor General Francisco Carreon for respondents. FACTS: The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities made a petition that Acts No. 2706 otherwise known as th
Tags
Transcript
  G.R. No. L-5279 October 31, 1955 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC ., petitioner,  vs.SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF TEXTBOOKS, respondents. Manuel C. Briones, Vicente G. Sinco, Manuel V. Gallego and Enrique M. Fernando for  petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Assistant Solicitor General FranciscoCarreon for respondents. FACTS:The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities made a petition that ActsNo. 2706 otherwise known as the “Act making the Inspection and Recognition of privateschools and colleges obligatory for the Secretary of Public Instruction” and wasamended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180 be declared unconstitutionalon the grounds that 1) the act deprives the owner of the school and colleges as well asteachers and parents of liberty and property without due process of Law; 2) it will alsodeprive the parents of their Natural Rights and duty to rear their children for civicefficiency and 3) its provisions conferred on the Secretary of Education unlimitedpowers and discretion to prescribe rules and standards constitute towards unlawfuldelegation 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 privateschools and colleges of the Philippines so that the same shall furnish adequate instruction to the public, inaccordance with the class and grade of instruction given in them, and for this purpose said Secretary or his dulyauthorized representative shall have authority to advise, inspect, and regulate said schools and colleges in order todetermine the efficiency of instruction given in the same,” The petitioner also complain that securing a permit to the Secretary of Educationbefore opening a school is not srcinally included in the srcinal Act 2706. And insupport to the first proposition of the petitioners they contended that the Constitutionguaranteed the right of a citizen to own and operate a school and any law requiringprevious governmental approval or permit before such person could exercise the saidright On the other hand, the defendant Legal Representative submitted a memorandumcontending that 1) the matters presented no justiciable controversy exhibitingunavoidable necessity of deciding the constitutional question; 2) Petitioners are inestoppels 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.ISSUE:Whether or not Act No. 2706 as amended by Act no. 3075 and Commonwealth Act no.180 may be declared void and unconstitutional?  RATIO DECIDENTI:The Petitioner suffered no wrong under the terms of law and needs no relief inthe form they seek to obtain. Moreover, there is no justiciable controversy presentedbefore the court. It is an established principle that to entitle a private individualimmediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury and it is not sufficient that he hasmerely invoke the judicial power to determined the validity of executive and legislativeaction he must show that he has sustained common interest to all members of thepublic. Furthermore, the power of the courts to declare a law unconstitutional arises onlywhen the interest of litigant require the use of judicial authority for their protectionagainst actual interference. As such, Judicial Power is limited to the decision of actualcases and controversies and the authority to pass on the validity of statutes is incidentalto the decisions of such cases where conflicting claims under the constitution and under the legislative act assailed as contrary to the constitution but it is legitimate only in thelast resort and it must be necessary to determined a real and vital controversy betweenlitigants. Thus, actions like this are brought for a positive purpose to obtain actualpositive relief and the court does not sit to adjudicate a mere academic question tosatisfy scholarly interest therein. The court however, finds the defendant position to besufficiently sustained and state that the petitioner remedy is to challenge the regulationnot to invalidate the law because it needs no argument to show that abuse by officialsentrusted with the execution of the statute does not per se demonstrate theunconstitutionality of such statute. On this phase of the litigation the court conclude thatthere has been no undue delegation of legislative power even if the petitionersappended a list of circulars and memoranda issued by the Department of Educationthey fail to indicate which of such official documents was constitutionally objectionablefor being capricious or pain nuisance. Therefore, the court denied the petition for prohibition.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks