G.R. No. 100127 - Lina, Jr. vs. Carino

This is a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus filed by petitioner Senator Jose D. Lina, Jr., principally in his capacity as taxpayer.
The petition challenges DECS Order No. 30, series of 1991, issued by respondent Isidro D. Carino in his capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS).
DECS Order No. 30 prescribes guidelines on tuition and other school fees for private schools, colleges, and universities for school year 1991-1992.

Allowing private institutions to increase tuition fees and other school fees within prescribed rates.
Stipulation of specific rates for entering freshmen and upper year students in both tertiary and elementary/secondary levels.
Provisions for an emergency tuition fee assessment in designated regions to meet wage orders.
Rules for increasing “other fees” (non-tuition fees) with a cap and designated deadlines for advance notification to the DECS regional office.
Special procedures and requirements for schools seeking fee increases beyond the prescribed percentage, including financial documentation and notarized certification.

The Order also provided for consultation procedures involving various stakeholders such as parents-teachers associations, student governments, alumni associations, and faculty groups.

Contends that respondent Secretary no longer possesses the legal authority to issue DECS Order No. 30 because the power to promulgate rules and regulations regarding school fees has been transferred to the State Assistance Council (SAC) by R.A. No. 6728.
Argues that Section 10 of R.A. No. 6728, which mandates consultation for any increase in tuition fee rates, should also cover “other fees” to prevent burdensome charges on students.

Maintains that the regulatory power to fix and prescribe maximum permissible tuition and other school fees remains vested in the DECS Secretary under P.D. No. 451 and B.P. Blg. 232.
Asserts that R.A. No. 6728 concerns government assistance issues and does not divest the DECS of its fee-setting authority.

Intervenor PACU supports the respondent’s authority but questions the consultation process, particularly the blanket allowance under paragraph 1(a) for tertiary fees without prior consultation.
Intervenor CEAP argues that fixing fee levels should be exclusively within the discretion of the private schools, and it contends that DECS Order No. 30 is entirely null and void, although it agrees with PACU on the narrower interpretation of the consultation requirement covering only tuition fees.

Regulation of private school fees dates back to legislative measures such as Act No. 2706, with subsequent amendments.
Key statutes include P.D. No. 451 (1974) and B.P. Blg. 232 (the “Education Act of 1982”), which granted powers to the DECS Secretary.

The Philippine Consumers Foundation case upheld the DECS Secretary’s power to regulate school fees.
The Cebu Institute of Technology case provided analysis on statutory provisions and underscored differences between private school autonomy and regulatory control by the DECS.

Whether the DECS Secretary retains the legal authority to issue DECS Order No. 30 prescribing guidelines on tuition and other school fees, despite claims that such power was transferred to the State Assistance Council (SAC) under R.A. No. 6728.

Whether Section 10 of R.A. No. 6728, which mandates consultation for any proposed increase in the rate of tuition fees, also applies to increases in “other school fees” or if its application is confined solely to tuition fee increases.