PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC.

, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF TEXTBOOKS, respondents.

G.R. No. L-5279 October 31, 1955

Manuel C. Briones, Vicente G. Sinco, Manuel V. Gallego and Enrique M. Fernando for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Assistant Solicitor General Francisco Carreon for
respondents.

Judge: BENGZON, J.

Facts and Procedural History:

The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU) assailed the constitutionality of Act No.
2706 as amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180. These laws sought to regulate the
ownership of private schools in the country. It is provided by these laws that a permit should first be
secured from the Secretary of Education before a person may be granted the right to own and operate a
private school. This also gives the Secretary of Education the discretion to ascertain standards that must
be followed by private schools. It also provides that the Secretary of Education can and may ban certain
textbooks from being used in schools. PACU contends that the right of a citizen to own and operate a
school is guaranteed by the Constitution, and any law requiring previous governmental approval or
permit before such person could exercise said right, amounts to censorship of previous restraint, a
practice abhorrent to our system of law and government. PACU also avers that such power granted to
the Secretary of Education is an undue delegation of legislative power; that there is undue delegation
because the law did not specify the basis or the standard upon which the Secretary must exercise said
discretion; that the power to ban books granted to the Secretary amounts to censorship.

Issues:

1. W/N the case filed by the petitioners constitutes a justiciable controversy (exhibiting
unavoidable necessity of deciding the constitutional questions)
2. W/N the Act No. 2706 as amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180 is
unconstitutional
3. W/N there was an unlawful delegation of legislative power because the said laws confer on the
Secretary of Education unlimited power and discretion to prescribe rules and standards.

Judgment:

1. No. It is the established principle that courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a law upon
the complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Hypothetical threats are
insufficient. All of the petitioners are actually operating on the virtue of their permits. They also do
not assert that there is immediate threat by the Secretary of Education to revoke their permits. Thus,
because they have failed to establish direct injury (nor allege any) from the enforcement of the said
statute, the case does not constitute a judiciable controversy.
2. No. Art. XIV, sec. 5. Of the 1935 constitution provides that all educational institutions shall be
under the supervision and subject to regulation by the state"
This gives the State the power to:
a. issue and revoke permits;
b. advise, inspect, and regulate said schools and colleges (as stated in Act No. 2706).
c. collect fees to finance the cost of the Department of Education to regulate and supervise
private schools; However, if the collected fee was actually a tax, it is should be within the
original jurisdiction of the court of first of first instance because it involves an
investigation and examination of relevant data
d. prohibit the use of textbooks that are illegal, offensive or adverse to governmental
policies or educationally improper.

3. No. To confer, by statute, upon the Secretary of Education power and discretion to prescribe rules
fixing minimum standards of adequate and efficient instruction to be observed by all private
schools and colleges, is not an unlawful delegation of legislative powers.
This is because the Secretary of Education has fixed standards to ensure adequate and efficient
instruction, as shown by the memoranda fixing or revising curricula, the school calendars,
entrance and final examinations, admission and accreditation of students etc. It also does not
give him complete control of schools. It only gives him powers to inspect private schools, to
regulate their activities, to give them official permits to operate under certain conditions, and to
revoke such permits for cause.
Abuse of the officials entrusted with the execution of a statute does not per se demonstrate the
unconstitutionality of such statute.

Holding: Petition denied reserving to petitioner right to institute action at the proper time.