146. Council of Teachers vs.

Secretary
G.R. No. 216930 (2018)

Topic: Separation of Powers

Doctrine: The rationale for requiring an actual case or controversy is partly to respect the principle of
separation of powers. The courts must avoid delving into the wisdom, justice, or expediency of executive
acts and legislative enactment. In Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936): [T]his power of
judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of
argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis
mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to
sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the judiciary does
not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. More than that, courts accord the
presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to
abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and
controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives
in the executive and legislative departments of the governments.

Facts: The Philippines is one of only 3 countries that do not adopt a Basic Ed system of 13 years, or the
K-12 or P-12 system. Before the Court are consolidated petitions under Rule 65, assailing the
constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 10533 (K to 12 Law), RA No. 10157 (Kindergarten Education
Act), and related issuances of the Department of Education (DepEd), Commission on Higher Education
(CHED), Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA) implementing the K to 12 Basic Education Program.

Petitioners are assailing the following policy issues:

a) K to 12 only increases the resource gap by creating more need for resources. The solution to the
problem is closing the resource gap by giving priority to education in the budget and public spending
program of the government and addressing the issue of poverty and malnutrition and programs aimed at
alleviating if not eradicating poverty in the long run but instead government comes up with the K to 12
Law which is a copycat and elitist solution.
b) K to 12 is problem-ridden. Instead, what we need is to prioritize deficiencies in personnel, facilities
and materials; and a nationalist-oriented curriculum relevant to the needs of the people.
c) The Philippine government does not have enough funds to add two (2) more years of senior high
school.
d) Student-teacher ratio is far from ideal.
e) Teachers are paid low salaries.
f) There is no assurance that senior high school results in good employment.

Issue: Should the Court rule on the said issues? NO.

Ruling:
Policy matters are not the concern of the Court. To reiterate, government policy is within the exclusive
dominion of the political branches of the government. It is not for the Court to look into the wisdom or
propriety of legislative determination.281 Stated otherwise, the judiciary does not pass upon questions of
wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation.282 Indeed, whether an enactment is wise or unwise, whether
it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired results, whether,
in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular manner
— all these are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the serious conflict of opinions does not
suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance. When the validity of a statute is challenged
on constitutional grounds, the sole function of the court is to determine whether it transcends
constitutional limitations or the limits of legislative power.

Further, the courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because
the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution, but also because the judiciary, in the
determination of actual cases and controversies, must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as
expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the
government.288 The Court, despite its vast powers, will not review the wisdom, merits, or propriety of
governmental policies, but will strike them down only on either of two grounds: (1) unconstitutionality or
illegality and/or (2) grave abuse of discretion.289 For having failed to show any of the above in the passage
of the assailed law and the department issuances, the petitioners’ remedy thus lies not with the Court, but
with the executive and legislative branches of the government.

Cited Cases:

In the case of Tañada v. Cuenco, the Court, quoting American authorities, held:

“Elsewhere in this treatise the well-known and well-established principle is considered that it is not within
the province of the courts to pass judgment upon the policy of legislative or executive action. Where,
therefore, discretionary powers are granted by the Constitution or by statute, the manner in which those
powers are exercised is not subject to judicial review. The courts, therefore, concern themselves only with
the question as to the existence and extent of these discretionary powers.
As distinguished from the judicial, the legislative and executive departments are spoken of as
the political departments of government because in very many cases their action is necessarily dictated by
considerations of public or political policy. These considerations of public or political policy of course
will not permit the legislature to violate constitutional provisions, or the executive to exercise authority
not granted him by the Constitution or by statute, but, within these limits, they do permit the departments,
separately or together, to recognize that a certain set of facts exists or that a given status exists, and these
determinations, together with the consequences that flow therefrom, may not be traversed in the
courts.” (Emphasis in the original)

Similarly, in Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. DENR Region 12 Employees,

The Supreme Court should not be thought of as having been tasked with the awesome
responsibility of overseeing the entire bureaucracy. Unless there is a clear showing of constitutional
infirmity or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the Court’s exercise of
the judicial power, pervasive and limitless it may seem to be, still must succumb to the paramount
doctrine of separation of powers. After a careful review of the records of the case, we find that this
jurisprudential element of abuse of discretion has not been shown to exist.