This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
OF DECS Facts: On February 21, 1987, the Task Force on Private Higher Education created by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports submitted a report entitled "Report and Recommendations on a Policy for Tuition and Other School Fees." DECS, through the respondent Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, issued an Order authorizing, inter alia, the 15% to 20% increase in school fees as recommended by the Task Force. The petitioner sought a reconsideration of the said Order, apparently on the ground that the increases were too high. Thereafter, the DECS issued Department Order No. 37 dated April 10, 1987 modifying its previous Order and reducing the increases to a lower ceiling of 10% to 15%, accordingly. Despite this reduction, the petitioner still opposed the increases. The petitioner sent a telegram to the President of the Philippines urging the suspension of the implementation of Department Order No. 37. No response appears to have been obtained from the Office of the President. The petitioner, allegedly on the basis of the public interest, went to this Court and filed the instant Petition for prohibition. Issue: WON the DECS is authorized by law to regulate school fees in educational institutions Ruling: Affirmative. Section 57 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, otherwise known as The Education Act of 1982, vests the DECS with the power to regulate the educational system in the country. Sec 70 of the same Act vests the Secretary the power to promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. In the absence of a statute stating otherwise, this power includes the power to prescribe school fees. No other government agency has been vested with the authority to fix school fees and as such, the power should be considered lodged with the DECS if it is to properly and effectively discharge its functions and duties under the law. Issue: WON the Order is against the due process clause of the Constitution against arbitrariness which requires notice and hearing on the parties before it should be issued. Ruling: Negative. The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative or an adjudicative function. If it were a legislative function, the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. When the rules and/or rates laid down by an administrative agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislative character. Where the rules and the rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then its function is quasijudicial in character.
LINA. April 23. 30 as null and void in its entirety. 6139. 30 prescribing guidelines concerning increases in tuition and other school fees.A. Intervenor Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines ("CEAP") relies on the ruling of the Court in Cebu Institute of Technology v. 30 only with respect to Paragraph 1 (a) which it perceives does not conform with the consultation requirement. Under the said order. monitoring and evaluation of new and existing programs. Entering Freshmen. Petitioner here relies on Section 14 of R. explicitly authorized the DECS Secretary not only "to . 30.500 per year for the elementary and secondary schools.A. that is. 30 allows private schools to increase tuition and other school fees. the enactment of B.00 per unit for the tertiary schools and to not more than P1. Ruling: DECS Order No. must be sustained. 30. However. ISIDRO D. No.JOSE D. 1993. Culture & Sports shall be responsible for the day to day administration and program implementation. CARINO G. subject to consultation. and For Other Purposes" which introduced the changes and chart directions in the educational system. JR. — The tuition fee rates for entering freshmen in all levels may be determined by the school itself. whether respondent DECS Secretary has the legal authority to issue DECS Order No." DECS Order No.D. Repealing R. CEAP therefore urges the Court to strike down DECS Order No.P. Blg. schools may increase their tuition fees as approved by the State Assistance Council (SAC). hence. In that. No.R. No. 100127. considering that authority to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the imposition of school fees had been transferred to the State Assistance Council ("SAC") by Republic Act No. 232. while the Department of Education. It is the contention of petitioner that respondent Secretary at the time of issuing DECS Order No. Intervenor Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU) questions DECS Order No. Issue: Whether DECS Order No. no longer possessed legal authority to do so. Facts: Petitioner disputes the legal authority of respondent Cariño to issue DECS Order No. 30 is valid. 6728 stating that State Assistance Council shall be responsible for policy guidance and direction. the respondent Secretary does not have the legal authority to issue that Order. and the promulgation of rules and regulations. P. 6728. Petitioner basically denies the legal authority of respondent Secretary to issue DECS Order No. 30. No. vs. 30 entitled "Guidelines on Tuition and/or other School Fees in Private Schools. it is stated: a. Colleges and Universities for School Year 1991-1992. Ople which ruled that neither the DECS Secretary nor the SAC may fix maximum tuition and other school fees which private schools may lawfully charge wherein the fixing of such fees is the exclusive prerogative of the private schools themselves. subject to the guidelines there set out. enacted early 1974 entitled "Authorizing the Secretary of Education and Culture to Regulate the Imposition of Tuition and Other School Fees. no consultation is required when the amount of increase will raise the tuition fee level to not more than P80. 1 (a). 451. Under Par.
the Minister of Education. No. . Blg. No. the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. in sustaining Department Order No. 232 concluded that legal authority to issue that Department Order was vested in the DECS Secretary Further. Culture and Sports shall promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. it explains that each private school shall determine its rate of tuition and other school fees or charges and subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Education. 451 had been eliminated by Section 42 of B. In the Phil. Accordingly.P. binding and conclusive as against the secretary of Education. for all the foregoing.regulate" but also to fix the very tuition and other school fees to be charged by any particular private school. private school may determine for itself in the first instance the rate of tuition and other school fees or charges that it deems appropriate. Petitioner Lina in contends that the DECS Secretary’s authority has been transferred instead to the SAC. 232. Such determination by the private school is not. R. Consumers case. the Court in the Cebu Institute case shows that the Court did not rule that the power granted to the DECS Secretary to fix maximum permissible tuition and other school fees by Section 1 of P. however. 6728 did authorize the SAC to issue rules and regulations.A. The SAC was authorized to define the classes of students who may be entitled to claim government financial assistance. Wherefore. The Court is unable to agree with this contention.D.P. WHEREFORE. this task is vested in respondent Secretary. Culture and Sports. 6728 to the SAC. No pronouncement as to costs. 232. 37. In B. Blg. the Court citing certain sections of B. Blg. The determination of the levels of tuition and other school fees which may lawfully be charged by any private school. Culture and Sports. known as the Education Act of 1982. The task SAC was authorized to carry out though the promulgation of rules and regulations. but the rules and regulations which may be promulgated by the SAC must relate to the authority granted by R. is clearly another matter. No.A.P. What the Court dealt with in the Cebu Institute case was the matter of the detailed allocation of the proceeds of increases in tuition and other school fees.
it emphasizes that it is the policy of the State to promote free enterprise unhampered by protective regulations and unnecessary bureaucratic red tapes. The resolution in question was issued by the PCA in the exercise of its rule-making or legislative power.ASSOC. The rule of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a party may seek judicial review. In its Resolution by the RTC. OF PHIL. 1468. 232. Issue: WON the petition should be denied on the ground that petitioner has a pending appeal before the Office of the President with regard to the case earlier filed. Ruling: Affirmative. National Capital Judicial Region in Makati. directly reporting to. No. the PCA adopted the questioned resolution which allows not only the indiscriminate opening of new coconut processing plants but the virtual dismantling of the regulatory infrastructure whereby. . and supervised by. 110526. The Philippine Coconut Authority was originally created by P. Issue: WON respondent PCA’s board Resolution No.D. the President of the Philippines. 058-87. By P. authorizing the establishment and operation of additional DCN plants.” In plain disregard of this legislative purpose. as the applicants were seeking permits to operate in areas considered “congested” under the administrative order. only judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function is subject to the exhaustion doctrine.D. COCONUT DESICCATORS vs. 1998 Facts: Seven desiccated coconut processing companies belonging to the APCD brought suit in the RTC. so strenuously urged by the Solicitor General on behalf of respondent. Petitioner alleged that the issuance of licenses to the applicants would violate PCA’s Administrative Order No. The establishment of new plants could be authorized only upon determination by the PCA of the existence of certain economic conditions and the approval of the President of the Philippines. 018-93 is null and void for being an undue exercise of legislative power by an administrative body.R. it was made an independent public corporation . While it continues the registration of coconut product processors. . 02. forsaking controls theretofore placed in its keeping. that the issuance of permits or licenses prior to business operation is a form of regulation which is not provided in the charter of nor included among the powers of the PCA. the opening of new plants was made subject to “such implementing guidelines to be set forth by the Authority” and “subject to the final approval of the President. Ruling: Negative. the registration would be limited to the “monitoring” of their volumes of production and administration of quality standards. the Governing Board of the PCA issued Resolution providing for the withdrawal of the Philippine Coconut Authority from all regulation of the coconut product processing industry. the PCA limits its function to the innocuous one of “monitoring” compliance by coconut millers with quality standards and volumes of production. . Subsequently and while the case was pending in the RTC. has obviously no application here. PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY G. No. When the PCA adopted Resolution No. No. February 10. However. to enjoin the PCA from issuing permits to certain applicants for the establishment of new desiccated coconut processing plants.
regulate and supervise pilotage and conduct of pilots in any port district. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOC. RENATO C. G. In any event. Dayan issued PPA-AO No.HON. 111953. December 12. Dayan should be presumed to have acted in accordance with law and the best of professional motives. including cases which have reached this Court. respondents filed a petition for certiorari before Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 04-92 avowed policy was to instill effective discipline and thereby afford better protection to the port users. Yet the number of cases filed in court between private respondents and Dayan. by virtue of Presidential Decree No. . This was implemented by providing therein that all existing regular appointments shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only and that all appointments be only for a term of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance. In the absence of proof to the contrary. Issue: WON PPA General Manager Dayan was responsible for the issuance of the questioned administrative order Ruling: Affirmative.D. Exec. He concluded that the act of Dayan was merely implementing Section 6 of P.” Consequently. No. 04-92 with the Office of the President. Secretary for Legal Affairs Renato Corona. 04-92. mandating it “to control. Respondents requested for the suspension of the implementation of PPA-AO No.R. cannot certainly be considered the primordial reason for the issuance of PPA-AO No. PPA General Manager Rogelio A. OF THE PHIL. 1997 Facts: The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) was created on July 11. 857. 1974. recall and annul administrative issuances lies with the Board of Directors. CORONA vs. dismissed the appeal/petition. 505. Power and authority were vested in his office to propose rules and regulations. The OP through then Asst. The trial court’s finding of animosity between him and private respondents might likewise have a grain of truth. his actions are certainly always subject to scrutiny by higher administrative authorities. The respondent primarily questioned the order to the DOTC however it was dismissed on the reason that review. No. The trial court then rendered the Administrative Order null and void.
"The rule is that what has been delegated. (4) Delegation to local governments. 8177 to the Secretary of Justice and the Director of Bureau of Corrections Ruling: Negative but section 19 of the rules and regulations to implement RA. (3) Delegation to the people at large. Republic act no. 8177 unduly delegates legislative power to respondent director.R. 8177 is invalid. VI. Respondent secretary exceeded the authority delegated to him under republic act no. xxx xxx xxx Issue: WON there's undue delegation of legislative power in RA. 8177 and unlawfully usurped the power to legislate in promulgating the questioned rules. No. to promulgate rules and regulations on the subject of lethal injection is a form of delegation of legislative authority to administrative bodies. V. and (5) Delegation to administrative bodies. Section 17 of the questioned rules is unconstitutional for being discriminatory as well as for being an invalid exercise by respondent secretary of the power to legislate. October 12. Empowering the Secretary of Justice in conjunction with the Secretary of Health and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections. The reason for delegation of authority to administrative agencies is the increasing complexity of the task of government requiring expertise as well as the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. VII. . 7659 (the death penalty law) and the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of rape Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the mode of carrying out his death sentence by lethal injection on the following grounds: xxx xxx xxx IV. No. a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raising for the first time the issue of the constitutionality of Republic Act No. cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest. Respondent secretary unlawfully delegated the legislative powers delegated to him under republic act no. and on its heels. No. 132601. 8177 to respondent director. (2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution.Leo Echegaray y Pilo vs." The recognized exceptions to the rule are as follows: (1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution. The secretary of justice G. 1998 Facts: Petitioner duly filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising mainly factual issues.
and the removal of the intravenous system. However Section 19 of the implementing rules is invalid: "SEC. 19. The manual shall contain details of. Said manual shall be confidential and its distribution shall be limited to authorized prison personnel. during and after administering the lethal injection shall be set forth in a manual to be prepared by the Director. the Bureau of Corrections is a mere constituent unit of the Department of Justice. the administration of the lethal drugs. among others. . EXECUTION PROCEDURE. the pronouncement of death.Details of the procedure prior to. . the sequence of events before and after execution. procedures in setting up the intravenous line.It would show that there is no undue delegation of legislative power from the Secretary of Justice to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections for the simple reason that under the Administrative Code of 1987.
9963). 84 and 84-1 Held: Yes. if not impossible. MAXIMO A. Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing. and by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than five years. dams. No. As electro fishing is not banned under that law." Issue: Whether or not Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing Fisheries Administrative Orders Nos. equipped with motor and electrocuting device locally known as sensored with a somewhat webbed copper wire on the tip or other end of a bamboo pole with electric wire attachment which was attached to the dynamo direct and with the use of these devices or equipments catches fish thru electric current. the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. On June 28. such as rivers. swamps. Administrative agents are clothed with rule-making powers because the lawmaking body finds it impracticable. lakes.R. to the detriment and prejudice of the populace. 11 of the Fisheries Law prohibits "the use of any obnoxious or poisonous substance" in fishing. Section 76 of the same law punishes any person who uses an obnoxious or poisonous substance in fishing with a fine of not more than five hundred pesos nor more than five thousand. Cruz by using their own motor banca. by restricting the ban against electro fishing to fresh water fisheries (63 O. MACEREN Facts: Jose Buenaventura.Benjamin Reyes. It is noteworthy that the Fisheries Law does not expressly punish electro fishing. Nowhere in the said law is electro fishing specifically punished. Nazario Aquino and Carlito del Rosario were charged with having violated Fisheries Administrative Order No. amending section 2 of Administrative Order No. irrigation canals and other bodies of fresh water. the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. upon the recommendation of the Fisheries Commission.G. They exceeded their authority. . 84. Notwithstanding the silence of the law. 1977 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. issued Fisheries Administrative Order No. The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute The Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it should conform to the standards that the law prescribes. Sta.G. upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 84(62 O. The rule-making power confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. Sec. It alleged that the five accused resorted to electro fishing in the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte. prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine waters. the phrase "in any portion of the Philippine waters" found in section 2. which destroy any aquatic animals within its cuffed reach. 84-1.G. a penal provision to that effect could have been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law. Godofredo Reyes. Hence. 1224). L-32166 October 18. 1967 the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. was changed by the amendatory order to read as follows: "in fresh water fisheries in the Philippines.Thus. to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be encountered in enforcing the law. promulgated Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1.
for second year. Director ordered petitioner to pay the deficiency of P200.00 per day. vs. . 6640 particularly the provision excluding anniversary wage increases from being credited to the wage increase provided by said law is null and void on the ground that the same unduly expands the provisions of the said law. SEC FRANKLIN M. On December 14. Its statutory minimum wage rate of workers and employees in the private sector to be increased P10. Cebu Oxygen. representing 208 employees are not receiving wages above P 100/day in the aggregate amount of P48.00. Hence. The Asst. 1989 CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO. the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot apply because issues of law cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer. No. 1 of Art.200. 6640. Issue: WON Sec.00 and a 13th month pay differential of P31. 8 unduly expands the provisions of the said law. P300. The thrust of the argument of petitioner is that Section 8 of the rules implementing the provisions of Republic Act No. Acetylene and Central Visayas Employees Association (COAVEA) entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering the years 1986 to 1988.048. Ruling: Negative. IV on salary states that for the first year. 1987.00 in the 13th month pay of its employees for the period stated while petitioner contended that it was liable only for a salary differential of P62. the failure to exhaust administrative remedies cannot be considered fatal to this petition. P200 will be the monthly salary of the covered employees and for the third year. except non-agricultural workers and employees outside Metro Manila who shall receive an increase of eleven pesos P11.00.00 in the monthly salary and P 231. Under Sec.00. P200 will be the monthly salary of covered employees. Republic Act No.R. Appeal to the administrative officer of orders involving questions of law would be an exercise in futility since administrative officers cannot decide such issues with finality. INC. 82849 August 2. Issue: WON there’s non-compliance with the exhaustion of all the remedies before raising the case to the SC. No. 6640 was passed increasing the minimum wage. Lastly. Reg. The questions raised in this petition are questions of law. Petitioner argued that the payment of the differentials constitutes full compliance with Republic Act No. Ruling: Affirmative. 6640. 6640 covering the period of 2 months representing 208 employees are not receiving wages above P100/day in the aggregate amount of P83..00 per day.A.G. Sec 8 of the law prohibits the employer from crediting the anniversary wage increases provided in collective bargaining agreements. Under payment of 13th month pay for the year 1987. DRILON Facts: Petitioner and the union of its rank and file employees. Section 8 of the implementing rules prohibits the employer from crediting anniversary wage increases negotiated under a collective bargaining agreement against such wage increases mandated by Republic Act No. The Labor and Employment Development Officer found that petitioner committed violations of the law. It is fundamental that in a case where only pure questions of law are raised. Under payment of Basic Wage per R. It is a fundamental rule that implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of law it is designed to implement.
is correct. . Thus petitioner's contention that the salary increases granted by it pursuant to the existing CBA including anniversary wage increases should be considered in determining compliance with the wage increase mandated by Republic Act No.The provisions of Republic Act No. do not prohibit the crediting of CBA anniversary wage increases for purposes of compliance with Republic Act No. 6640. 6640. 6640.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?