You are on page 1of 1


Secretary of Education
No. L-5279 dated Oct. 31, 1955
Bengzon, J
Petitioner: Philippine Association of Colleges and
Universities, etc.
Respondent: Secretary of Education and the Board
of Textbooks
Petitioners challenges the constitutionality of
Act No. 2706 (An Act Making the Inspection
and Recognition of Private Schools and
Colleges Obligatory for the Secretary of Public
Instruction), as amended by Act No. 3075 and
Commonwealth Act No. 180, for the following
1. Deprivation of liberty and property of owners
of schools, teachers and parents without
due process
2. Deprivation of the natural right and duty of
parents to rear their children for civic
3. Unlawful delegation of legislative power to
the Sec. of Education as it has unlimited
power and discretion to prescribe rules and
Governments arguments:
1. The matter concerns no justiciable
2. Petitioners are estopped to challenge the
validity of said acts
3. The Acts are constitutionally valid
The requirement to secure permit was
introduced by Commonwealth Act No. 180 as a
result of a study and survey of educational
institutions conducted by the Board of
Educational Survey. According to the study, the
majority of the private adventure schools are
moneymaking devices for the profit of those
who organize and administer them. One of the
recommendations of the said study was to
prohibit the opening of schools without the
permission of the Sec. of Public Instruction.
ISSUE: WON there is justiciable controversy to
be settled by the Supreme Court? NO
Petitioners: The right of a citizen to own and
operate a school is guaranteed by the Consti.
Any law requiring permits before the person
can exercise the said right amounts to
censorship. Thus, Sec. 3 of Act No. 2706,
which provides that before a private school
may be opened to the public it must obtain a
permit to the Sec. of Educ, is unconstitutional.

Respondents: None of the petitioners has

cause to present the issue, since all the
petitioners have permits to operate schools.
To entitle a private individual who is in danger
of a direct injury as a result of an executive/
legislative action, to invoke judicial power to
determine the validity of the action, he must
show that he has sustained the injury or his
interest is common to all members of the
Courts shall also not pass upon the
constitutionality of a law upon a complaint who
fails to show that he is injured by the operation
of that law.
In the instant case, mere apprehension by the
petitioners that the Sec. of Educ. might
withdraw their permits does NOT constitute a
justiciable controversy.

ISSUE: WON the said Act violates the

constitution on the grounds of lack of due
process and delegation of legislative power to
Sec. of Educ.? - NO
The petitioners contention on the delegation of
legislative power stems from Sec. 1 of Act No.
2706, which provides that it shall be the duty of
the Secretary of Public Instruction to maintain a
general standard of efficiency in all private
schools and Sec. 6 of the same Act, which
provides that the Dept. of Educ. shall prepare
and publish pamphlet for minimum standards
required for academic degrees.
The requirement of permits is the governments
exercise of its police power. Such is also
embodied in the Sec. 5, Art. 14 of the 1935
Consti, which provides that all educational
institutions shall be under the supervision and
subject to regulation by the State. The power to
regulate implies to power to require permits
and licenses.
There is no undue delegation of legislative
power since the Legislature can validly rely
upon the educational experience and training
of those in charge of the Dept. of Educ. to
ascertain and formulate minimum requirements
of adequate instruction as the basis of
government recognition of any private school.
ISSUE: WON the levy of 1% on the total gross
receipts accruing from tuition and other fees is
The court did not rule on this, but it stated that
it should best be carried out in the lower courts
for investigation and examination of relevant