Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5279)
Facts:
Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities, etc. v. Secretary of Education and the Board of Textbooks, G.R. No. L-5279, October 31, 1955, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners, a group of private colleges and universities, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking prohibition and a declaration that Act No. 2706 (as amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180) is unconstitutional. They alleged (A) deprivation of liberty and property without due process; (B) infringement of parents’ natural right and duty to rear their children; and (C) unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Secretary of Education. A printed memorandum setting out their arguments was appended to the record.
The Government, through the Solicitor General, answered that no justiciable controversy was presented because petitioners had suffered no injury, that petitioners were estopped from assailing statutes they had long availed themselves of, and that the statutes were constitutionally valid. Petitioners replied at length.
The challenged statutes—Act No. 2706 (1917) and later amendments including Commonwealth Act No. 180 (1936) and provisions added or modified by later laws—have for decades required recognition/inspection, permits to operate, standards-setting by the Department of Education, and provided for revocation of permits. The Court was told that petitioners in fact possessed permits and were operating; they did not allege threatened revocation or concrete injury.
The petition also attacked (1) the Secretary’s broad authority under section 1 of Act No. 2706 and section 6 (publication of minimum standards), as an unconstitutional delegation; (2) section 11-A (as amended by Republic Act No. 74) imposing a 1% assessment on gross receipts to defray supervisory expenses; and (3) Republic Act No. 139 giving the Board of Textbooks power to prohibit textbooks found illegal, offensive to national dignity, contrary to general government policies, or pedagogically unsuitable—claimed to be prior censorship.
Although the Court emphasized its reluctance to declare long-standing statutes void and its rule not to decide constitutional questions absent an actual controversy, it examined the challenged provisions. The Court reviewed the 1924 Board of Educational Survey (Act No. 3162) report that documented abuses by “private-adventure schools” and expressly recommended prior-permit legislation. The Court noted existing administrative remedies, including the recent creation of the National Board of Education by Republic Act No. 1124, and that petitioners had not speci...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for prohibition justiciable—i.e., do petitioners present an actual controversy that entitles them to a court determination of the constitutionality of the statutes?
- Does the requirement of a prior permit to open and operate a private school violate constitutional liberty or property rights as an unlawful prior restraint?
- Do provisions empowering the Secretary of Education to prescribe and publish minimum standards constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power?
- Is the 1% assessment on gross receipts (sec. 11‑A as amended by Republic Act No. 74) an unconstitutional tax on the exercise of a constitutional right or otherwise judicially reviewable in this proceeding?
- Does Republic Act No. 139’s requirement that textbooks be submitted to the Board of Textbooks and the Bo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)