Title
Lina, Jr. vs. Carino
Case
G.R. No. 100127
Decision Date
Apr 23, 1993
DECS Order No. 30 upheld; DECS Secretary retains authority to regulate tuition fees under B.P. Blg. 232. Consultation required only for tuition, not other fees. Petition dismissed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100127)

Summary of DECS Order No. 30

DECS Order No. 30 permitted private schools to raise tuition fees and other school fees, contingent upon certain conditions. It established guidelines that included limitations on tuition increases, a process for these increases to be approved, and stipulations for emergency fee assessments in response to economic factors. Notably, the Order allowed for increases without requiring prior consultation in specific instances, particularly for entering freshmen, while imposing certain parameters for upper-year students and other fees.

Petitioner's Legal Position

Senator Lina argued that Secretary Carino lacked the legal authority to issue DECS Order No. 30 because the authority to regulate school fees had been transferred to the State Assistance Council (SAC) under Republic Act No. 6728. He contended that prior rulings from the Supreme Court on the authority of the DECS Secretary were superseded by this later statute, which placed the power to issue regulations firmly with the SAC, thus rendering DECS Order No. 30 invalid.

Respondent's Defense

The Solicitor General, representing Secretary Carino, maintained that the power to prescribe school fees remained vested in the DECS Secretary. He asserted that although R.A. No. 6728 granted rule-making authority to the SAC, this authority pertained solely to regulations for government assistance programs and not to the regulation of tuition fee limits. The Solicitor General emphasized that DECS Order No. 30 was fundamentally consistent with the consultation requirement of R.A. No. 6728, save for a specific provision that allowed for tuition increases without consultation.

Intervenors' Positions

Two intervenors, the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU) and the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), engaged in the proceedings. PACU acknowledged the authority of the DECS Secretary in regulating tuition but contested specific provisions of DECS Order No. 30 that allowed increases without consultation. CEAP opposed the regulatory authority of both the DECS Secretary and the SAC, arguing that private schools should independently set their fees, thus contending for the complete nullification of DECS Order No. 30.

Legal Issues

The core issues at hand were: (1) whether DECS Order No. 30 was valid and whether the DECS Secretary had the authority to issue such guidelines, and (2) whether the consultation requirements under R.A. No. 6728 applied not just to tuition fees but also to other school fees. Petitioner Lina argued that all fee increases should be subject to consultation to provide protection against excessive charges, which he believed undermined the intent of the law.

Historical Context and Legal Authority

The Court noted relevant legislative history, tracing the evolution of the DECS Secretary's regulatory powers through various acts and decisions. Precedents, including t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.