Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities v Secretary of Education

97 PHIL 806 (No. L-5279) October 31, 1955 Original ActionSupreme Court Petition for prohibition of Act No. 2706 as amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180 on grounds of unconstitutionality. FACTS: (1) Petitioners allege that said statutes deprive them (owners, teachers, parents) of liberty and property without due process of law (2) That said statutes deprive parents of natural right and duty to rear their children for civic efficiency (3) Provisions confer on the Secretary of Education unlimited power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards unlawful delegation of legislative power (4) Govt responds that matter constitutes no controversy petitioners have no cause of action, that petitioners are in estoppel to challenge validity, Acts are constitutionally valid. ISSUES: (1) Does Section 3, Act No 2706 violate petitioners alleged constitutional right to own and

operate a school by virtue of censorship manifested by the requirement of permits to operate? (2) Do the mentioned statutes confer on the Sec of Educ unlimited power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards and do these constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power? (3) Was the 1 per cent levy on gross receipts of private schools a tax on the exercise of a constitutional right? JUDGMENT (1) No. They have no cause to present this issue. Petitioners are operating with permits. They do not assert that there is a threat to the revocation of their permits. They do not suffer injury under the operation of such law. Even granted that they have cause, Art XIV, Sec 5 of the constitution (1935) provides that All educational institutions shall be under the supervision and subject to regulation by the state. The power to regulate establishments or business occupations implies the power to require a permit or license. (2) No. Standards have been satisfactorily in operation for 37 years. The Legislature did and could, validly rely upon the educational experience and

training of those in charge of the department of education. At any rate, petitioners do not show how they are injured by its operation. No undue delegation of legislative power. (3) If it is considered a fee, then no. If it is indeed a tax, then the proper setting for the dispute would be the Courts of First Instance. Petition denied reserving the petitioner right to institute action at the proper time.