Adminstrative Law

Arellano Univeristy School of Law

aiza ebina/2015

CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY vs OPLE

156 SCRA 629
Delegation to Administrative Agencies

FACTS: Six cases involving various private schools, their teachers and non-teaching school personnel, and even parents with children studying in
said schools, as well as the then Minister of Labor and Employment, his Deputy, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the then Minister
of Education, Culture and Sports, have been consolidated in this single Decision in order to dispose of uniformly the common legal issue raised
therein, namely, the allocation of the incremental proceeds of authorized tuition fee increases of private schools provided for in section 3 (a) of
Presidential Decree No. 451, and thereafter, under the Education Act of 1982 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 232).

Specifically, the common problem presented by these cases requires an interpretation of section 3 (a) of Pres. Decree No. 451 which states:

SEC. 3. Limitations. The increase in tuition or other school fees or other charges as well as the new fees or charges authorized under the next
preceding section shall be subject to the following conditions;

(a) That no increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be approved unless sixty (60%) per centum of the proceeds is allocated for
increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school concerned, and the balance for institutional
development, student assistance and extension services, and return to investments: Provided That in no case shall the return to investments
exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the incremental proceeds. In addition, there is also a need for a pronouncement on the effect of the
subsequent enactment of B.P. Blg. 232 which provides for the allocation of tuition fee increases in section 42 thereof.

In a nutshell, the present controversy was precipitated by the claims of some school personnel for allowances and other benefits and the refusal
of the private schools concerned to pay said allowances and benefits on the ground that said items should be deemed included in the salary
increases they had paid out of the 60% portion of the proceeds from tuition fee increases provided for in section 3 (a) of Pres. Decree No. 451.

Under Pres. Dec. No. 451, the authority to regulate the imposition of tuition and other school fees or charges by private schools is lodged with
the Secretary of Education and Culture (Sec. 1), where section 42 of B.P. Blg. 232 liberalized the procedure by empowering each private school
to determine its rate of tuition and other school fees or charges.

Pres. Dec. No. 451 provides that 60% of the incremental proceeds of tuition fee increases shall be applied or used to augment the salaries and
wages of members of the faculty and other employees of the school, while B.P. Blg. 232 provides that the increment shall be applied or used in
accordance with the regulations promulgated by the MECS.

Petitioners insist that the questioned rules and regulations contravene the statutory authority granted to the Minister of Education, and that
there is an invalid exercise of rule-making authority

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid exercise of rule-making authority in the statutory authority granted to the Minister of Education

RULING: Yes. The Court finds that there was a valid exercise of rule-making authority. The statutory grant of rule-making power to
administrative agencies like the Secretary of Education is a valid exception to the rule on non-delegation of legislative power provided two
conditions concur, namely: 1) the statute is complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed by the agency, and 2) said statute fixes a
standard to which the latter must conform.

With the The Education Act of 1982's basic policy as well as, specific policies clearly set forth in its various provisions, the Act is complete in itself
and does not leave any part of the policy-making, a strictly legislative function, to any administrative agency.

Coming now to the presence or absence of standards to guide the Minister of Education in the exercise of rule-making power, the standard may
be either expressed or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out
specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole.

RATIO: The standard guide to an administrative agency in the exercise of its rule-making power may be either expressed or implied. In the
former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the
policy and purpose of the statute considered as a whole.

---