Dpacu Vs Sec of Educ.

PACU VS SEC.
OF EDUC
The petitioner also complain that securing a permit to the Secretary
G.R. No. L-5279 of Education before opening a school is not originally included in
October 31, 1955 the original Act 2706. And in support to the first proposition of the
petitioners they contended that the Constitution guaranteed the
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND right of a citizen to own and operate a school and any law
UNIVERSITIES, ETC., petitioner, requiring previous governmental approval or permit before such
vs. person could exercise the said right On the other hand, the
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF defendant Legal Representative submitted a memorandum
TEXTBOOKS,respondents. contending that 1) the matters presented no justiciable controversy

exhibiting unavoidable necessity of deciding the constitutional
Manuel C. Briones, Vicente G. Sinco, Manuel V. Gallego and question; 2) Petitioners are in estoppels to challenge the validity of
Enrique M. Fernando for the said act and 3) the Act is constitutionally valid. Thus, the
petitioner. petition for prohibition was dismissed by the court.
Office of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Assistant

ISSUE:
Solicitor General Francisco
Whether or not Act No. 2706 as amended by Act no. 3075 and
Carreon for respondents.
Commonwealth Act no. 180 may be declared void and
unconstitutional?
FACTS:
RATIO DECIDENTI:
The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities made a

The Petitioner suffered no wrong under the terms of law and needs
petition that Acts No. 2706 otherwise known as the “Act making
no relief in the form they seek to obtain. Moreover, there is no
the Inspection and Recognition of private schools and colleges
justiciable controversy presented before the court. It is an
obligatory for the Secretary of Public Instruction” and was
established principle that to entitle a private individual
amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180 be
immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury and it is not
declared unconstitutional on the grounds that 1) the act deprives
sufficient that he has merely invoke the judicial power to
the owner of the school and colleges as well as teachers and
determined the validity of executive and legislative action he must
parents of liberty and property without due process of Law; 2) it
show that he has sustained common interest to all members of the
will also deprive the parents of their Natural Rights and duty to
public. Furthermore, the power of the courts to declare a law
rear their children for civic efficiency and 3) its provisions
unconstitutional arises only when the interest of litigant require the
conferred on the Secretary of Education unlimited powers and
use of judicial authority for their protection against actual
discretion to prescribe rules and standards constitute towards
interference. As such, Judicial Power is limited to the decision of
unlawful delegation of Legislative powers.
actual cases and controversies and the authority to pass on the
Section 1 of Act No. 2706 validity of statutes is incidental to the decisions of such cases
where conflicting claims under the constitution and under the
“It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Public Instruction to legislative act assailed as contrary to the constitution but it is
maintain a general standard of efficiency in all private legitimate only in the last resort and it must be necessary to
schools and colleges of the Philippines so that the same shall determined a real and vital controversy between litigants. Thus,
furnish adequate instruction to the public, in actions like this are brought for a positive purpose to obtain actual
accordance with the class and grade of instruction given in them, positive relief and the court does not sit to adjudicate a mere
and for this purpose said Secretary or his duly academic question to satisfy scholarly interest therein. The court
authorized representative shall have authority to advise, inspect, however, finds the defendant position to be sufficiently sustained
and regulate said schools and colleges in order to and state that the petitioner remedy is to challenge the regulation
determine the efficiency of instruction given in the same,” not to invalidate the law because it needs no argument to show that
abuse by officials entrusted with the execution of the statute does
not per se demonstrate the unconstitutionality of such statute. On
this phase of the litigation the court conclude that 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 they fail to indicate which of such
official documents was constitutionally objectionable for being
capricious or pain nuisance. Therefore, the court denied the
petition for prohibition

Dpacu Vs Sec of Educ.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dpacu Vs Sec of Educ.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dpacu Vs Sec of Educ.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PACU VS SEC.

TEXTBOOKS,respondents. contending that 1) the matters presented no justiciable controversy

petitioner. petition for prohibition was dismissed by the court.

Office of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Assistant

The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities made a

You might also like