EN BANC

STAND FOR THE CHILDREN

As represented by DRAMILLION,

Petitioners,

-versus - G.R. 11091979

FOR: Special Civil
Action for Certiorari
and Prohibition

LEONOR BRIONES AS THE SECRETARY

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
ET AL. as represented by ________________,

Respondents.

x------------------------------------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF LAW

1) Whether or not petitioner Stand for Children has legal standing to the petition for

certiorari and inhibition of the respondent’s Department Order No. 003

implementing the “No Vaccination, No Enrolment” Policy;

2) Whether or not the petition is subject to the judicial review of the Honorable

Court;

3) Whether or not Department Order No. 003 infringes the right of citizens to

education; and

4) Whether or not the issuance and implementation of the assailed Department Order

is a valid exercise of police power.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1
 (a) Stand for Children is not bereft of legal standing, absent the direct injury

sustained by the petitioners, as the assailed Department Order No. 003 or “No

Vaccination, No Enrolment Policy” involves a matter which is of transcendental

importance and paramount interest to the public which the Court should take

cognizance thereof; hence, the requirement of locus standi may be relaxed as a

matter of procedure.

(b) The Court has jurisdiction of the petition in view of its constitutional duty to settle

legal controversies with overreaching significance to society and its power to

inquire whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion on the part of the

Department of Education.

(c) The Court can interfere with the academic judgment of the school faculty and the

proper authorities in terms of enrolment policies when there is marked

arbitrariness.

(d) Department Order No. 003 violates the right of the students to be given access to

education as it imposes an unfair, unreasonable and inequitable admission

requirement to students.

(e) The implementation of Department Order No. 003 by the Department of

Education is not a reasonable regulation over educational institutions as the policy

contemplates that the power to regulate includes the power to prohibit.

(f) Department Order No. 003 is not a valid exercise of police power as it is not a law

but rather an administrative issuance designed to carry out the provision of an

enabling law; thus, the legal basis of the order is wanting.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The present petition emanates from the Department Order No. 003 Series of 2019

issued by the Department of Education adopting the proposal of the Department of

Health in view of the rising number of measles cases in the country. The said Department

Order issued on January 10, 2019 connotes “No Vaccine, No Enrolment Policy”.

2
 Before the scheduled publication of the Department Order on March 1, 2019,

Stand for Children, a group of concerned Parents, Educators, and Education Advocates,

filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court and asking the

Honorable Court to grant Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary

Injunction enjoining the Department of Education from implementing the assailed

Department Order.

BODY OF THE BRIEF

I. STAND FOR CHILDREN HAS LEGAL STANDING IN THIS INSTANT

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND INHIBITION OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONS’ ORDER IMPLEMENTING THE “NO

VACCINE, NO ENROLLMENT” POLICY.

Legal standing or locus standi is defined as a right of appearance in a court of

justice on a given question.1 Also, in Black’s Law Dictionary, it is defined as a party’s

right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right. 2

It was held that the person who impugns the validity of an executive or legislative

action must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained,

or will sustain direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has a

general interest common to all members of the public.3

However, the Court has time and again acted liberally on the locus standi

requirements and has accorded certain individuals, not otherwise directly injured, or with

material interest affected, by a Government act, standing to sue provided a constitutional

issue of critical significance is at stake. The rule on locus standi is after all a mere

procedural technicality in relation to which the Court, in a catena of cases involving a

subject of transcendental import, has waived, or relaxed, thus allowing non-traditional

1
David vs. Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705 (2006)
2
Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co. (10th ed. 2014)
3
People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937)
3
plaintiffs, such as concerned citizens, and voters, to sue in the public interest, albeit they

may not have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government

act.4

The Court leans on the doctrine that the rule on standing is a matter of procedure,

hence, can be relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and

legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the matter is of

transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount

public interest.5 It was also enshrined in a landmark and well-celebrated case about

intergenerational responsibility which hinges on the right of the present generation to sue

in its behalf and in behalf of the succeeding generations for their protection and
6
preservation. Therefore, it is right and just that future generation should be well-

guarded and defended from this policy.

Thus, the petitioner Stand for Children is the proper party hereof to assail the validity

and constitutionality of Department Order No. 003 for it involves a matter of

transcendental importance which this Honorable Court should resolve the soonest

possible.

II. THE PETITION OF STAND FOR CHILDREN IS SUBJECT TO THE

COURT’S JUDICIAL REVIEW.

The Supreme Court should take cognizance and review this instant petition as part of

its power aggrandized in the Constitution. Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987

Constitution states:

“The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower

courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual

controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and

to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
4
Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 232131, April 24, 2018
5
SJS vs. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 591 Phil. 393 (2008)

6
Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993)

4
 to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the

Government.”

The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to determine the

nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided for the

instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to

allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other

departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only

asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine

conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an

actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This

is in truth all that is involved in what is termed judicial supremacy which properly is the

power of judicial review under the Constitution.7

But like most powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review is

subject to the following limitations, to wit:

(1) There must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial

power;

(2) The person challenging the act must have standing to challenge the validity of the

subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and substantial

interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result

of its enforcement;

(3) The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and

(4) The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.8

An aspect of the case-or-controversy requirement is the requisite of ripeness. In the

United States, courts are centrally concerned with whether a case involves uncertain

contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.

In our jurisdiction, the issue of ripeness is generally treated in terms of actual injury to

7
Angara vs. The Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

8
Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, 552 Phil. 1(2006)

5
the plaintiff. Hence, a question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has

had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.9

In light of these points of argument, it is clear that this Court has jurisdiction over the

petition. It is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether

indeed the Department of Education committed a violation against the Constitution or

gravely abused their discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives, as the

circumstances of the case satisfy the requisites laid down by the Supreme Court for the

valid invocation of the exercise of judicial review:

1. That there is an actual case or controversy with the issuance of Respondent of the

Department Order adopting the assailed proposal of DOH to implement the “No

Vaccination, No Enrolment” Policy;

2. That it has already been established in this petition that Stand for Children has

legal standing on the grounds that the issue at hand is of transcendental

importance and a matter of paramount public interest;

3. That the petition has been raised at the required opportune moment – at the

earliest opportunity, it being raised before the publication of Department Order

No. 003 Series of 2019; and

4. That the constitutionality of the issuance of the department order is the lis mota of

the case, as it calls for the determination of whether the said administrative order

infringes the citizens’ right to education – which is a constitutionally-guaranteed

right.

III. THE RESPONDENT’S DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 003 SERIES OF 2019

INFRINGES THE CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO ACCESSIBLE EDUCATION.

Education is a basic human right for all and is important for everyone to make the

most out of their lives. Having an education helps improve an individual’s chances at life

and promotes understanding of all of their other human rights. Governments must

provide good quality education and make sure all people can access it – without any form
9
Lozano vs. Nograles, 607 Phil. 334 (2009)

6
of discrimination. This is an international legal obligation and governments can be held

accountable for failing to provide education for all its citizens.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution speaks elaborately of the right to education. It vows

to “protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, take

appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” 10 This was further echoed in

the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, which provides:

“It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect and promote the right of all

citizens to quality basic education and to make such education accessible to all by

providing all Filipino children a free and compulsory education in the elementary

level and free education in the high school level.”11 

The primacy of the right to education as a constitutionally-vested right is further

emphasized in the case of Regino v. Pangasinan College of Science and Technology 12,

stating that:

“In Non, we stressed that the school-student contract is imbued with public

interest, considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education and

the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational

institutions. Sections 5 (1) and (3) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution

provide:

‘The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at

all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such declaration accessible to

all.

Every student has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject

to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.’”

10
CONST. Art XIV, Sec. 1

11
An Act Instituting a Framework of Governance for Basic Education, Establishing Authority and

Accountability, Renaming the Department of Education, Culture and Sports as the Department of

Education, and for Other Purposes, R.A. 9155, Sec. 2 (2001)

12
Regino v. Pangasinan College of Science and Technology, 485 Phil. 446 (2004)

7
 The same state policy resonates in Section 9(2) of BP 232, otherwise known as

the Education Act of 1982:

Section 9. Rights of Students in School. In addition to other rights, and subject to

the limitations prescribed by law and regulations, students and pupils in all

schools shall enjoy the following rights:

xxxxxxxxx

(2) The right to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and

to continue their course therein up to graduation, except in cases of academic

deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations.

It is worth stressing that none other than the Constitution itself vests the right to

select a profession or course of study subject to “fair, reasonable, and equitable admission
13
and academic requirements” to all citizens. Thus, in the case at hand, to promulgate a

directive such as the “No Vaccination, No Enrolment” Policy would effectively breach

these constitutional safeguards to the rights of individuals to quality education, as the

measure seeks to impose an unfair, unreasonable and inequitable admission requirement

coercing enrolees – the children and young people alike – to avail of the Department of

Health’s Vaccination program for them to be given access to education.

On the other hand, the right to education is recognized in international law as a

fundamental human right. Education as a human right means that the right to education is

legally guaranteed for all without any discrimination. States have the obligation to

protect, respect, and fulfil the right to education, and can be held accountable for failing

to provide education for all its citizens.

This has been particularly provided under the Convention against Discrimination in

Education, which states:

Article I

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘discrimination’ includes any

distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference which, being based on race, color,

sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,

13
CONST. Art XIV, Sec. 5, par. 3

8
 economic condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing

equality of treatment in education and in particular:

(a) Of depriving any person or group of persons of access to education of any

type or at any level...

xxxxxxxxx

Article III

In order to eliminate and prevent discrimination within the meaning of this

Convention, the State parties thereto undertake:

(a) To abrogate any statutory provisions and any administrative instructions and

to discontinue any administrative practices which involve discrimination in

education;

(b) To ensure, by legislation where necessary, that there is no discrimination in

the admission of pupils to educational institutions… 14

As a signatory to various international instruments providing normative contents to

the right to education including the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, our

government – the Department of Education, in particular – is bound to provide legislative

as well as administrative frameworks to concretize the State’s commitment to promote,

protect and fulfil these educational rights.

The Philippine Constitution mandates reasonable regulation of all educational

institutions. In the deliberation of the Constitutional Commission of the 1987

Constitution, the Honorable Serafin V.C. Guingona said that when the Constitution

speaks of State supervision and regulation, it does not in any way mean control but only a

reference to the power of the State to provide regulations to ensure that these are duly

implemented. He added that it (the State’s prerogative to supervision and regulation of

education) does not include the right to manage, dictate, overrule, prohibit or dominate.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Convention against Discrimination in
14

Education, May 22, 1962

9
 The late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee supplied the rationale underlying our

attitude towards academic decisions or policies in his concurring opinion in the case of

Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, to wit:

"Only . . . when there is marked arbitrariness, will the courts interfere with the

academic judgment of the school faculty and the proper authorities as to the

competence and fitness of an applicant for enrollment. . . . The courts simply do

not have the competence nor inclination to constitute themselves as Admission

Committees of the universities and institutions of higher learning and to substitute

their judgment for that of the regularly constituted Admission Committees of such

educational institutions. Were the courts to do so, they would conceivably be

swamped with petitions for admission from the thousands refused admission

every year, and next the thousands who flunked and were dropped would also be

petitioning the courts for a judicial review of their grades."15

Simply put, the courts only intervene when there is apparent arbitrariness on the part

of agencies and educational institutions in their exercise of regulating education,

particularly in the determination of the competence and fitness of an applicant for

enrolment. One such glaring example of arbitrariness is the issuance of the assailed

department order. Clearly, the action of the Department of Education of adopting the

proposed policy of the Department of Health is not contemplated within the constitutional

guarantee of reasonable regulation by the State of educational institutions and processes,

as it would encroach upon the fundamental right of individuals to education.

While having access to health services is guaranteed by one’s right to health,

everyone should be entitled to take care of the health voluntarily and on their own

volition. Nobody should be subjected to unsolicited medical examination or given

treatment without informed consent. Furthermore, making vaccination a mandatory

requirement for admission to all schools is a coercive measure that may do more harm

than the contemplated advantage to the learners and their families. It also leads us to the

question: could vaccinating a child by coercion, for instance to secure admission to

15
Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, et al., 68 SCRA 277 (1975)

10
educational institutions breach principles of valid consent? It is worth stressing that the

Department of Education earlier recognizes valid consent as indispensable by providing

in its Guidelines in the Implementation of School-Based Immunization that “only

students with parental/guardian’s consent shall be vaccinated.”16

If the purpose is to address the current problem of low vaccination rates among the

children which resulted to the measles outbreak, the Department of Education and the

government in general should put into consideration the constitutional, ethical and

equitable implications of the promulgation of the assailed order and determine whether

there are better ways to improve immunization rates rather than the Department of

Education doing this job for the Department of Health.

IV. THE ISSUANCE OF THE ASSAILED DEPARTMENT ORDER IS NOT A

VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER.

The Department order is not a valid exercise of police power on the following

grounds – it has no legal basis, and that it is repugnant to the Constitution.

The Department Order has no legal basis. “No vaccination, no enrollment” is not

a law but rather an administrative issuance designed to carry out the provisions of an

enabling law. In Genuino vs. De Lima, the Supreme Court ruled that:

“In the exercise of this power, the rules and regulations that administrative

agencies promulgate should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by

the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the regulation be

germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in

conformity with, the standards prescribed by law. They must conform to and be

consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or

regulation to be valid.

Department of Health, Guidelines in the Implementation of School-Based Immunization, Department

16

Memorandum No. 2015-0328, Part III, Par. 3, July 22, 2015

11
 It is, however, important to stress that before there can even be a valid

administrative issuance, there must first be a showing that the delegation of

legislative power is itself valid. It is valid only if there is a law that (a) is complete in

itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by

the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate

and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his

functions.” 17

In the instant case, the Department Order (DO) issued by the Department of

Education is not valid in the absence of enabling that allows such. The Mandatory Infants

and Children Health Immunization Act of 201118 did not provide for penal provision for

violation nor did it allow or prohibit mandatory vaccination as a requirement to school

admission. In the absence of any provision by the said law requiring vaccination as a

requirement for admission purposes such as enrollment to academic institutions, the

implementing executive department is bereft of any legal authority to impose said order.

Said law does not authorize the regulation of any constitutional right for its

implementation. It is required that for a statute to impair or restrict any constitutional

right, it must be clearly and unambiguously provided for.

Further, the exercise of police power, to be valid, must be reasonable and not

repugnant to the Constitution. Clearly, the Department Order undermines the mandate of

the Constitution the right of all citizens to access quality education. The assailed

Department Order is the reverse of said constitutional mandate.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees right to education, under the following

provisions:

17
Genuino vs. De Lima, GR No. 197930, April 17, 2018

18
An Act Providing for Mandatory Basic Immunization Services for Infants and Children Repealing for the

Purpose Presidential Decree No. 996, As Amended, R.A. 10152, June 21, 2011

12
 “Sec.1, Article VIX. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens

to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such

education accessible to all.”

"Sec. 17, Article II. The State shall give priority to education, science and

technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate

social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.”

In Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, the Court held that:

“Notwithstanding its extensive sweep, police power is not without its own

limitations. For all its awesome consequences, it may not be exercised arbitrarily or

unreasonably. Otherwise, and in that event, it defeats the purpose for which it is

exercised, that is, to advance the public good.”19

Police power does not carry with it the power to indiscriminately devise all means it

deems proper notwithstanding constitutionally-protected rights. Supreme Court further

ruled in Genuino v. De Lima:

“Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and

regulations may be promulgated by an administrative body, as well as with respect to

what fields are subject to regulation by it. It may not make rules and regulations

which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute,

particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in

derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.”20

The valid exercise of police power is satisfied by two tests of lawful subject matter

and lawful means. While it holds true that the purpose of the Department Order is to

address the increasing number of measles victims is a lawful subject matter, it is beyond

doubt that the means of achieving such is unlawful, for it is unconstitutional. To bar the

enrollment of students on the basis of non-vaccination perspicuously violates the right to

19
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, GR No. 81958, June 30, 1988

20
Genuino, G.R. No. 197930

13
education, which is a guaranteed Constitutional right and a recognized fundamental

human right of international law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it is respectfully prayed that

judgment be rendered in favour of petitioners and against defendant by:

1) FINDING Leonor Briones, in her capacity as the Secretary of the

Department of Education, as having committed grave abuse of

discretion resulting to lack or excess in jurisdiction for issuing the

Department Order No. 003, otherwise known as the “No Vaccination,

No Enrolment” Policy; and

2) RENDERING Order No. 003 as unconstitutional.

Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are also

prayed for.

14