Case Summary (G.R. No. 181735)
Petitioner
Public Schools District Supervisors Association (PSDSA), its officers, and all district supervisors of the Department of Education in their individual and representative capacities.
Respondents
Hon. Edilberto C. De Jesus in his capacity as DepEd Secretary; the Department of Education; the Department of Budget and Management.
Key Dates
• August 11, 2001 – Approval of Republic Act No. 9155 (“Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001”).
• January 6, 2003 – Issuance of DepEd Order No. 1, Series 2003 (IRR of R.A. 9155).
• March 13, 2003 – Filing of petition for prohibition and mandamus by PSDSA.
• June 16, 2006 – En Banc decision of the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
• Republic Act No. 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001).
• DepEd Order No. 1, Series 2003 (IRR of R.A. 9155), particularly Rule IV § 4.3; Rule V §§ 5.1–5.2; Rule VI § 6.2(11).
• Republic Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers).
• Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended by R.A. 6758 (Salary Standardization Law).
• Joint DBM–DepEd Circular No. 1, Series of 2003 (Salary upgrading guidelines).
Antecedents
DepEd governance had long been centralized; R.A. 9155 was enacted to institute shared governance, define roles at national, regional, division, and district levels, and retain the office of district supervisor for professional support functions only. The law explicitly limited district supervisors to (1) providing instructional advice and support, (2) curricula supervision, and (3) other functions as assigned, without administrative control over school heads. DepEd was mandated to promulgate IRR within 90 days and fully implement shared governance within two years.
Disputed IRR Provisions
PSDSA challenged as unconstitutional: Rule IV § 4.3 (appointment/disciplines), Rule V §§ 5.1–5.2 (district supervisor’s staff function and discretionary administrative supervision), and Rule VI § 6.2(11) (omitting district supervisors from required report of donations/grants). They also sought to compel DepEd and DBM to upgrade their salary grade from SG 19 to SG 24 by writ of mandamus.
Petitioners’ Contentions
PSDSA argued the IRR (a) expanded or modified R.A. 9155 by stripping district supervisors of inherent administrative functions; (b) conferred arbitrary, discretionary administrative power to “proper authorities”; (c) reduced their classification and benefits below that of school principals; and (d) deleted the mandatory reporting of donations and grants to district supervisors, contrary to R.A. 9155 § 7(E)(11). They claimed equal-protection and due-process violations and prayed for salary upgrading to reflect their mid-level management status.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the IRR faithfully implements R.A. 9155’s limited district supervisor functions; that administrative supervision over school heads was intentionally vested in division superintendents; that the reportorial duty was directory only; and that salary grade issues were already addressed by the FY 2003 General Appropriations Act and thus moot.
Supreme Court’s Rulemaking Analysis
The Court reiterated that IRR authority is confined to detail-filling that conforms to statutory objectives without extending or contradicting the law. It found that Rules IV § 4.3 and V §§ 5.1–5.2 merely implement R.A. 9155’s express limitation of district supervisors to staff and curricular functions, with no administrative control over school heads, consistent with legislative history and the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Disciplinary Authority and Reporting Duty
The last paragraph of IRR Rule IV § 4.3, vesting disciplinary authority over tea
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 181735)
Facts of the Case
- Petition filed by PSDSA (national organization of ~1,800 Public Schools District Supervisors) for prohibition with prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction, and for mandamus.
- Challenged the constitutionality of:
• Rule IV, Section 4.3;
• Rule V, Section 5.1 and second paragraph of Section 5.2;
• Rule VI, Section 6.2(11) of DECS Order No. 1, s. 2003 (IRR of RA 9155). - Sought writ of mandamus to compel DepEd and DBM to upgrade district supervisors’ salary grade from SG 19 to SG 24.
Legal and Institutional Antecedents
- DepEd management historically centralized; field offices merely implemented Manila directives.
- Senate Bill No. 2191 (RA 9155 – Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001) enacted to institute shared governance:
• National level defined policies and provided resources;
• Regional directors empowered to organize divisions/districts, hire/place/evaluate except assistant director;
• Division superintendents to supervise all schools, hire/place/evaluate employees except assistant superintendent;
• District supervisors retained with strictly instructional/curricular functions and “other functions as assigned”; no administrative supervision. - RA 9155 § 14: IRR to be promulgated within 90 days; shared governance to be fully implemented within two years.
- Prior DECS orders (1991, 1994, 1996, 1998) phased out, selectively restored, then re-emphasized instructional leadership role of district supervisors.
Challenged IRR Provisions
- Rule IV, § 4.3: Division superintendent’s appointing and disciplinary authority over division staff; restrictive disciplinary scope.
- Rule V, § 5.1: District supervisor “primarily perform staff functions”; no administrative supervision over principals unless authorized.
- Rule V, § 5.2 (2nd para): Criteria for establishment of additional school districts.
- Rule VI, § 6.2(11): Donation/grant acceptance to be reported only to division superintendents (deleted district supervisors).
Petitioners’ Contentions
- IRR “expanded or modified” RA 9155 by stripping inherent administrative supervision of district supervisors ove