Case Analysis: G.R. No.

L-5279 October 31, 1955

Parties and Background:

The case involves a petition brought by the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities against the
Secretary of Education and the Board of Textbooks. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Act No.
2706 as amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180. The challenged laws granted the
Secretary of Education the power to regulate and supervise private schools and required them to obtain permits
before opening. The petitioner argued that these laws violated due process, freedom of education, and
constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power. Additionally, they contested the assessment of 1% of
gross receipts imposed on private schools for government expenses related to supervision.

Procedural History:

The petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, seeking the declaration of unconstitutionality of the mentioned
statutes. The government argued that there was no justiciable controversy, that the petitioner was estopped
from challenging the laws, and that the laws were constitutionally valid. The lower court denied the petition. The
case was then elevated to the Supreme Court for review.

Key Constitutional Legal Issues:

Due Process: Did the laws violate due process by depriving school owners, teachers, and parents of their rights
without due process of law?

Freedom of Education: Did the laws infringe upon parents' natural rights and duty to educate their children?

Delegation of Legislative Power: Were the laws conferring broad power on the Secretary of Education an
unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority?

Assessment of 1%: Was the assessment of 1% on gross receipts of private schools for government expenses
constitutional?

Censorship and Freedom of Expression: Was Republic Act No. 139, giving the Board of Textbooks the power
to prohibit certain textbooks, an infringement on freedom of expression?

Arguments Presented:

Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the laws violated constitutional rights, including due process and freedom
of education. They claimed that the laws were vague, allowing for arbitrary enforcement. The assessment of
1% was seen as a tax on a constitutional right. They also argued that the power given to the Secretary of
Education was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.

Government: The government contended that the laws were constitutional and within the State's power to
regulate and supervise education. They argued that the laws were necessary to ensure educational standards.
The assessment was characterized as a fee for covering supervision costs. They maintained that the power
given to the Secretary was not an unlawful delegation.

Court's Decision and Rationale:

The Supreme Court, through Justice Bengzon, denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of the
challenged laws. The Court held that a justiciable controversy was lacking since the petitioners had not suffered
any concrete injury from the enforcement of the laws. The Court emphasized that it should be cautious in
declaring a legislative enactment void.

Due Process and Freedom of Education:

The Court found that the laws did not violate due process or interfere with parents' rights to educate their
children. The laws were intended to regulate and supervise private schools for the public welfare, a valid
exercise of the State's power.
Delegation of Legislative Power:

The Court rejected the argument of unlawful delegation, stating that the Secretary's authority to regulate and
supervise was within the State's constitutional power. The Court acknowledged that certain circulars or
memoranda might go beyond regulation and approach control, but specifics were lacking in the petition.

Assessment of 1%:

The Court deemed that whether the assessment was a fee or a tax required further investigation and could be
determined in lower courts.

Censorship and Freedom of Expression:

Regarding Republic Act No. 139, the Court recognized the potential danger of censorship but noted that no
specific case of textbook prohibition was presented. The Court indicated that petitioners could seek redress in
administrative or judicial proceedings if the Board on Textbooks overstepped its bounds.

Broader Implications and Significance:

The Court's decision affirmed the State's authority to regulate and supervise private education while also
emphasizing the importance of a justiciable controversy and concrete evidence of rights violations. The ruling
reinforced the balance between government authority and individual rights and highlighted the principle of
avoiding judicial intervention where administrative remedies suffice.

Conclusion:

The case of Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities v. Secretary of Education and the Board of
Textbooks addressed key constitutional issues related to education regulation, due process, freedom of
education, delegation of legislative power, and freedom of expression. The Court's decision underscored the
importance of concrete harm in establishing justiciable controversies and highlighted the cautious approach
courts should take when considering the constitutionality of laws. It reaffirmed the State's power to regulate
education while acknowledging the potential for abuse and the need for safeguards to protect individual
liberties.