Requisites of Judicial ReviewA.
Actual Case or Controversy
PACU vs. Secretary of Education
acts:The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities made a petition that Acts No. 2706otherwise known as the ³Act making the Inspection and Recognition of private schools andcolleges obligatory for the Secretary of Public Instruction´ and was amended by Act No. 3075and Commonwealth Act No. 180 be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that 1) the actdeprives 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 Rightsand duty to rear their children for civic efficiency and 3) its provisions conferred on theSecretary of Education unlimited powers and discretion to prescribe rules and standardsconstitute towards unlawful delegation of Legislative powers.The petitioner also complain that securing a permit to the Secretary of Education before openinga 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 acitizen 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 LegalRepresentative submitted a memorandum contending that 1) the matters presented no justiciablecontroversy 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 isconstitutionally 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?Held:The Petitioner suffered no wrong under the terms of law and needs no relief in the form theyseek to obtain. Moreover, there is no justiciable controversy presented before the court. It is anestablished principle that to entitle a private individual immediately in danger of sustaining adirect injury and it is not sufficient that he has merely invoke the judicial power to determinedthe validity of executive and legislative action he must show that he has sustained commoninterest to all members of the public.
urthermore, the power of the courts to declare a lawunconstitutional arises only when the interest of litigant require the use of judicial authority for their protection against actual interference. As such, Judicial Power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies and the authority to pass on the validity of statutes is incidental tothe decisions of such cases where conflicting claims under the constitution and under thelegislative act assailed as contrary to the constitution but it is legitimate only in the last resort andit must be necessary to determined a real and vital controversy between litigants. Thus, actionslike this are brought for a positive purpose to obtain actual positive relief and the court does notsit to adjudicate a mere academic question to satisfy scholarly interest therein. The courthowever, finds the defendant position to be sufficiently sustained and state that the petitioner remedy is to challenge the regulation not to invalidate the law because it needs no argument toshow that abuse by officials entrusted with the execution of the statute does not per sedemonstrate the unconstitutionality of such statute. On this phase of the litigation the courtconclude that there has been no undue delegation of legislative power even if the petitionersappended a list of circulars and memoranda issued by the Department of Education they fail toindicate which of such official documents was constitutionally objectionable for being capriciousor pain nuisance. Therefore, the court denied the petition for prohibition.