Case Digest (G.R. No. 180046)
Facts:
Review Center Association of the Philippines v. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Commission on Higher Education represented by its Chairman Romulo L. Neri, G.R. No. 180046, April 02, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from the June 11–12, 2006 Nursing Board Examination, when examinees reported that copies of questions for Tests III and V had been circulated among review-center attendees; the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) later admitted leakage and traced it to members of the Board of Nursing. The Court of Appeals, on 18 August 2006, issued a TRO restraining the PRC from proceeding with the oath-taking of the declared successful examinees. In response to the scandal, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo replaced the Board of Nursing and on 8 September 2006 issued Executive Order No. 566 (EO 566) directing the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to regulate the establishment and operation of review centers and similar entities. CHED thereafter promulgated implementing rules and, on 7 May 2007, approved the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (the RIRR).
Petitioner Review Center Association of the Philippines (an organization of independent review centers) challenged CHED’s earlier Memorandum Order and later the RIRR, asserting that CHED regulation would effectively abolish independent review centers and exceeded CHED’s statutory authority under Republic Act No. 7722 (RA 7722). Petitioner sought coordination with CHED beginning November 2006 and submitted position papers and requests to suspend the IRR; CHED referred many concerns to the Office of the President as requiring amendment of EO 566.
On 26 October 2007 petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus directly with the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the RIRR, declaration of EO 566 as invalid and unconstitutional, and an injunction against CHED implementation. Several parties moved to intervene: PIMSAT Colleges (respondent-intervenor) opposed the petition; a group of independent CPA review centers (CPAR, PRTC, ReSA, CRC-ACE) intervened in support of the petition. CHED issued a memorandum extending compliance deadlines (CMO 21, s. 2008) and the Court issued an earlier resolution requ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners improperly bypass the judicial hierarchy by filing directly with the Supreme Court, such that the petition must be dismissed on that ground?
- Did EO 566 unconstitutionally usurp legislative power by expanding CHED’s jurisdiction beyond what RA 7722, Sec. 3 authorizes?
- Is the CHED Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) an invalid exercise o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)