Title
Review Center Association of the Philippines vs. Ermita
Case
G.R. No. 180046
Decision Date
Apr 2, 2009
Review centers challenged CHED's regulation via EO 566 and RIRR after a 2006 nursing exam leak. SC ruled CHED exceeded its mandate, declaring EO 566 and RIRR unconstitutional.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176150)

Court of Appeals Intervention and Executive Actions

On August 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals enjoined oath-taking of successful examinees. President Arroyo replaced the Board of Nursing members, ordered a retake of the exams, and on September 8, 2006 issued EO 566 directing CHED to regulate all review centers and similar entities.

Initial CHED Implementing Rules (CMO 49, s. 2006)

On November 3, 2006, CHED issued Memo Order No. 49, prescribing that only CHED-recognized HEIs or consortia may establish or operate review centers. Existing independent centers were given one year to integrate with HEIs or convert into schools, or risk being deemed illegal.

Petitioners’ Appeals and CHED’s Revised IRR

RCAP requested amendment or withdrawal of the IRR, asserting independent centers would be eliminated. CHED held consultations, invited dialogue, and on May 7, 2007 approved Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) in CHED Memo Order No. 30, maintaining original integration requirements and authorizations.

Filing of Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus

On October 26, 2007, RCAP filed before the Supreme Court a petition alleging EO 566 and the RIRR were unconstitutional. It sought annulment of the RIRR, invalidation of EO 566, and a prohibition against CHED enforcement. PIMSAT Colleges intervened in opposition, while independent CPA review centers intervened in support.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

  1. Whether EO 566 constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by expanding CHED’s jurisdiction beyond RA 7722.
  2. Whether the RIRR is an invalid exercise of CHED’s rule-making power.

Judicial Hierarchy and Original Jurisdiction

The Office of the Solicitor General argued for dismissal due to the petition’s direct filing in the Supreme Court. The Court held that exceptional circumstances—alleged constitutional violation by the Executive—justified primary jurisdiction, despite the usual hierarchy requiring lower-court remedies.

Technical Objections by the OSG

The OSG challenged the petition’s verification and certification of non-forum shopping as not properly authorized, and the notarization under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court dismissed these objections, noting the board resolution authorizing filing and subsequent compliance with identification rules.

Scope of CHED’s Jurisdiction Under RA 7722

RA 7722 limits CHED’s coverage to public and private institutions of higher education and degree-granting programs in post-secondary institutions. The Court applied the plain-meaning rule, concluding that review centers—offering non-degree refresher courses for licensure exam preparation—do not qualify as institutions or programs of higher learning under RA 7722.

Usurpation of Legislative Power by EO 566

EO 566 directed CHED to regulate all review centers and similar entities without an enabling law. The Court contrasted executive orders with legislative power, noting that EO 566 amended CHED’s functions beyond statutory grant, thereby usurping Congress’s exclusive legislative authority under Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Invalid Delegation and Quasi-Legislative Rule-Making

Because EO 566 lacked statutory basis, the RIRR—derived from that EO—constituted an unauthorized exercise of CHED’s quasi-legislative power. CHED’s rule-making must remain within the confines of RA 7722, which does not extend to non-degree-granting review centers or similar tut

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.