G.R. No. L-5279 October 31, 1955
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC., petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF TEXTBOOKS, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities, filed a petition seeking to declare Act No. 2706 (as amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180 ) unconstitutional. The petitioner argued that these Acts: (A) deprive owners of schools, teachers, and parents of liberty and property without due process of law; (B) deprive parents of their natural right and duty to rear their children for civic efficiency; and (C) constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power by conferring unlimited power and discretion on the Secretary of Education to prescribe rules and standards. The Government, through the Solicitor General, contended that there was no justiciable controversy, that petitioners were in estoppel to challenge the validity of the Acts since they were operating under permits granted by them, and that the Acts were constitutionally valid. The Court noted that the Department of Education had supervised and regulated private schools under these Acts for 37 years without protest.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court should rule on the constitutionality of Act No. 2706 and its amendments, given the petitioner’s claims and the circumstances of the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for prohibition. The Court held that there was no justiciable controversy presented. The petitioners, all of whom possessed permits to operate and were actually operating their schools, failed to show any actual injury or threat from the enforcement of the statutes. The Court emphasized the established principle that judicial power to declare a law unconstitutional arises only when a litigant shows a direct, actual injury or interference, not a mere hypothetical threat or general interest. The Court further noted that the requirement for a permit before opening a school, introduced to address the “great evil” of substandard “private-adventure schools” as documented by an educational survey, was a valid exercise of the State’s police power and its constitutional authority to supervise and regulate all educational institutions. Regarding the delegation of power, the Court found that the Secretary of Education’s authority to advise, inspect, and regulate private schools to maintain standards was not an undue delegation, as the law provided sufficient standards and guidelines. The Court also addressed the challenge to the Board of Textbooks’ power to prohibit textbooks, stating that while petitioners foresaw potential dangers, no actual controversy had arisen from its implementation. The Court reserved the petitioners’ right to institute proper actions in the future if and when an actual justiciable controversy materializes.