Scribd
Upload
44 views1 page

PACU v. Secretary of Education Case Summary

1) Act 2706 makes inspection and recognition of private schools by the Secretary of Education obligatory and requires schools to obtain permits before opening. It also levies 1% of private school receipts. 2) Petitioners argue these acts deprive owners, parents and teachers of liberty and property without due process and deprive parents of rearing children. 3) Respondents argue the issues are not justiciable and petitioners cannot challenge acts they are operating under. 4) The Court found the issues were not yet justiciable as petitioners showed no threat of permit revocation. It would consider constitutional boundaries if dangers materialized after administrative remedies were exhausted. It sent

Uploaded by

Paul John Lambatin Paciente
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views1 page

PACU v. Secretary of Education Case Summary

1) Act 2706 makes inspection and recognition of private schools by the Secretary of Education obligatory and requires schools to obtain permits before opening. It also levies 1% of private school receipts. 2) Petitioners argue these acts deprive owners, parents and teachers of liberty and property without due process and deprive parents of rearing children. 3) Respondents argue the issues are not justiciable and petitioners cannot challenge acts they are operating under. 4) The Court found the issues were not yet justiciable as petitioners showed no threat of permit revocation. It would consider constitutional boundaries if dangers materialized after administrative remedies were exhausted. It sent

Uploaded by

Paul John Lambatin Paciente
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

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:
[Link] the issue is justiciable – NO.
2. Whether the 1% levy on receipts of all private schools is constitutional – MUST BE
DECIDED BY LOWER COURTS.
3. Whether the power to regulate the textbooks to be used by private schools constitute
censorship – NO JUSTICIABLE ISSUE.

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

3. 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.

You might also like