G.R. No.

L-5279

October 31, 1955

PHILIPPINE
ASSOCIATION
OF
UNIVERSITIES, ETC., petitioner,

colleges in order to determine the efficiency of instruction

given in the same,
COLLEGES

AND

vs.
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
TEXTBOOKS, respondents.

and

the

BOARD

OF

FACTS:
The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities
made a petition that Acts No. 2706 otherwise known as the
Act making the Inspection and Recognition of private schools
and colleges obligatory for the Secretary of Public Instruction
and was amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act
No. 180 be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that 1)
the act deprives the owner of the school and colleges as well
as teachers and parents of liberty and property without due
process of Law; 2) it will also deprive the parents of their
Natural Rights and duty to rear their children for civic
efficiency and 3) its provisions conferred on the Secretary of
Education unlimited powers and discretion to prescribe rules
and standards constitute towards unlawful delegation of
Legislative powers.
Section 1 of Act No. 2706
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Public Instruction to
maintain a general standard of efficiency in all private schools
and colleges of the Philippines so that the same shall furnish
adequate instruction to the public, in accordance with the class
and grade of instruction given in them, and for this purpose
said Secretary or his duly authorized representative shall have
authority to advise, inspect, and regulate said schools and

The petitioner also complain that securing a permit to

the Secretary of Education before opening a school is not
originally included in the original Act 2706. And in support to
the first proposition of the petitioners they contended that the
Constitution guaranteed the right of a citizen to own and
operate a school and any law requiring previous governmental
approval or permit before such person could exercise the said
right On the other hand, the defendant Legal Representative
submitted a memorandum contending that 1) the matters
presented no justiciable controversy exhibiting unavoidable
necessity of deciding the constitutional question; 2) Petitioners
are in estoppels to challenge the validity of the said act and 3)
the Act is constitutionally valid. Thus, the petition for
prohibition was dismissed by the court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Act No. 2706 as amended by Act no. 3075 and
Commonwealth Act no. 180 may be declared void and
unconstitutional?
RATIO DECIDENTI:
The Petitioner suffered no wrong under the terms of
law and needs no relief in the form they seek to obtain.
Moreover, there is no justiciable controversy presented before
the court. It is an established principle that to entitle a
private individual immediately in danger of sustaining a
direct injury and it is not sufficient that he has merely
invoke the judicial power to determined the validity of
executive and legislative action. He must show that he
has sustained common interest to all members of the
public.

Furthermore, the power of the courts to declare a law

unconstitutional arises only when the interest of litigant
require the use of judicial authority for their protection
against actual interference. As such, Judicial Power is
limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies
and the authority to pass on the validity of statutes is incidental
to the decisions of such cases where conflicting claims under
the constitution and under the legislative act assailed as
contrary to the constitution but it is legitimate only in the last
resort and it must be necessary to determined a real and
vital controversy between litigants. Thus, actions like this
are brought for a positive purpose to obtain actual positive
relief and the court does not sit to adjudicate a mere
academic question to satisfy scholarly interest therein.
The court however, finds the defendant position to be
sufficiently sustained and state that the petitioner remedy is to
challenge the regulation not to invalidate the law because it
needs no argument to show that abuse by officials entrusted
with the execution of the statute does not per se
demonstrate the unconstitutionality of such statute.
On this phase of the litigation the court conclude that there has
been no undue delegation of legislative power even if the
petitioners appended a list of circulars and memoranda issued
by the Department of Education they fail to indicate which of
such official documents was constitutionally objectionable for
being capricious or pain nuisance. Therefore, the court denied
the petition for prohibition.
Others: the State has the power to regulate, in fact control, the
ownership of schools. The Constitution provides for state
control of all educational institutions even as it enumerates
certain fundamental objectives of all education to wit, the
development of moral character, personal discipline, civic
conscience and vocational efficiency, and instruction in the

duties of citizenship. The State control of private education

was intended by the organic law.
Also, the State has the power to ban illegal textbooks or those
that are offensive to Filipino morals. This is still part of the
power of control and regulation by the State over all schools.