Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PACU vs Secretary of Education, 97 Phil 806 1955

PACU vs Secretary of Education, 97 Phil 806 1955

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,877|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Reginald Dwight Seguerra Florido on Dec 30, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





G.R. No. L-5279 October 31, 1955
., petitioner,
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 othe
rwise known as the “Act making the Inspection and Recognition of private schoolsand 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) theact deprives the owner of the school and colleges as well as teachers and parents of liberty andproperty 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.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 furnishadequate instruction to the public, in accordance with the class and grade of instruction givenin them, and for this purpose said Secretary or his duly authorized representative shall haveauthority 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 beforeopening a school is not originally included in the original Act 2706. And in support to the firstproposition 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 orpermit 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 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 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 maybe declared void and unconstitutional?RATIO DECIDENTI:The Petitioner suffered no wrong under the terms of law and needs no relief in the formthey seek to obtain. Moreover, there is no justiciable controversy presented before the court. Itis 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 todetermined the validity of executive and legislative action he must show that he has sustainedcommon interest to all members of the public. Furthermore, the power of the courts to declarea law unconstitutional arises only when the interest of litigant require the use of judicialauthority for their protection against actual interference. As such, Judicial Power is limited tothe decision of actual cases and controversies and the authority to pass on the validity of statutes is incidental to the decisions of such cases where conflicting claims under theconstitution and under the legislative act assailed as contrary to the constitution but it islegitimate only in the last resort and it must be necessary to determined a real and vitalcontroversy between litigants. Thus, actions like this are brought for a positive purpose toobtain actual positive relief and the court does not sit to adjudicate a mere academic questionto satisfy scholarly interest therein. The court however, finds the defendant position to besufficiently sustained and state that the petitioner remedy is to challenge the regulation not toinvalidate the law because it needs no argument to show that abuse by officials entrusted withthe execution of the statute does not per se demonstrate the unconstitutionality of suchstatute. 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 andmemoranda issued by the Department of Education they fail to indicate which of such officialdocuments was constitutionally objectionable for being capricious or pain nuisance. Therefore,the court denied the petition for prohibition.

Activity (22)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Lara Main liked this
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Rebecca Flores liked this
Layne Isnain liked this
roansalanga liked this
Layne Isnain liked this
Janine Mesina liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->