PACU vs. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil.

806, October 31, 1955

SEPTEMBER 18, 2018

FACTS:

Act. No. 2706 makes the inspection and recognition of private schools and colleges obligatory for
the Secretary of Public Instruction. In particular:
• Before a school can be opened, the owner must secure a permit from the Secretary of Education.
• There is a 1% levy on receipts of all private schools.
• The Secretary of Education has the power to regulate textbooks to be used by private schools.

The petition assails the constitutionality of Act. No. 2706 (amended as Act. No. 3075) and
Commonwealth Act. No. 180 on the following grounds:
• They deprive owners of schools and colleges as well as the parents and teachers of liberty and
property without due process of law
• They deprive parents of their natural right and duty to rear their children for civic efficiency
• Their provisions conferring on the Secretary of Education unlimited power and discretion to
prescribe rules and standards constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power

Respondents, on the other hand, contend that:

• The matter constitutes no justiciable controversy exhibiting unavoidable necessity of deciding
the constitutional questions
• Petitioners are in estoppel to challenge the validity of the said acts
• The Acts are constitutionally valid

ISSUES:
1. Whether the issue is justiciable – NO.
2. Whether the securing of permit from the Secretary of Education before opening a school is
constitutional – YES.
3. Whether the acts constitute unlawful delegation of power – NO.
4. Whether the 1% levy on receipts of all private schools is constitutional – MUST BE DECIDED
BY LOWER COURTS.
5. Whether the power to regulate the textbooks to be used by private schools constitute censorship
– NO JUSTICIABLE ISSUE.

RATIO:
1. The issue only becomes justiciable when the petitioners will suffer, or has suffered, an injury as
a result of the statute. On that note, the petitioners already have permits and are actually operating
by virtue of those permits. They did not show that the respondent threatened to revoke their
permits. As such, they do not need relief in the form they are seeking to obtain.

The Court stated that if the dangers which petitioners apprehended materialize and judicial
intervention is suitably invoked, after all administrative remedies are exhausted, the courts would
not shrink from their duty to delimit constitutional boundaries and protect individual liberties.

2. The power of the state to regulate educational institutions is provided for in the Constitution.
Further, by virtue of a study and survey which reported that a great majority of the private
educational institutions are money-making devices necessitates the exercise of the Government’s
police power.
3. The standards are left on the hands of the Secretary because he has the relevant expertise and
experience to do so. Further, the standards have been in effect for 37 years without complaint.

4. This issue involves investigation and examination of relevant data and this would still be within
the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance.

5. The issue is not a justiciable controversy. Further, the petitioners have not shown that the any
text has been prohibited, or that petitioners refused or intend to refuse to submit some textbooks,
and are in danger of losing substantial privileges or rights for refusing so.