Cebu Institute of Technology Vs Ople, 156 SCRA 629 Case Digest (Administrative Law)

Adminstrative Law
Arellano Univeristy School of Law

aiza ebina/2015
CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY vs OPLE

156 SCRA 629
Delegation to Administrative Agencies
FACTS: Six cases involving various private schools, their teachers and non-teaching school personnel, and
even parents with children studying in said schools, as well as the then Minister of Labor and Employment,
his Deputy, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the then Minister of Education, Culture and
Sports, have been consolidated in this single Decision in order to dispose of uniformly the common legal
issue raised therein, namely, the allocation of the incremental proceeds of authorized tuition fee increases
of private schools provided for in section 3 (a) of Presidential Decree No. 451, and thereafter, under the
Education Act of 1982 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 232).
Specifically, the common problem presented by these cases requires an interpretation of section 3 (a) of
Pres. Decree No. 451 which states:
SEC. 3. Limitations. The increase in tuition or other school fees or other charges as well as the new fees
or charges authorized under the next preceding section shall be subject to the following conditions;
(a) That no increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be approved unless sixty (60%) per
centum of the proceeds is allocated for increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all
other employees of the school concerned, and the balance for institutional development, student
assistance and extension services, and return to investments: Provided That in no case shall the return to
investments exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the incremental proceeds. In addition, there is also a need
for a pronouncement on the effect of the subsequent enactment of B.P. Blg. 232 which provides for the
allocation of tuition fee increases in section 42 thereof.
In a nutshell, the present controversy was precipitated by the claims of some school personnel for
allowances and other benefits and the refusal of the private schools concerned to pay said allowances and
benefits on the ground that said items should be deemed included in the salary increases they had paid
out of the 60% portion of the proceeds from tuition fee increases provided for in section 3 (a) of Pres.
Decree No. 451.
Under Pres. Dec. No. 451, the authority to regulate the imposition of tuition and other school fees or
charges by private schools is lodged with the Secretary of Education and Culture (Sec. 1), where section 42
of B.P. Blg. 232 liberalized the procedure by empowering each private school to determine its rate of tuition
and other school fees or charges.
Pres. Dec. No. 451 provides that 60% of the incremental proceeds of tuition fee increases shall be applied
or used to augment the salaries and wages of members of the faculty and other employees of the school,
while B.P. Blg. 232 provides that the increment shall be applied or used in accordance with the regulations
promulgated by the MECS.
Petitioners insist that the questioned rules and regulations contravene the statutory authority granted to
the Minister of Education, and that there is an invalid exercise of rule-making authority
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid exercise of rule-making authority in the statutory authority
granted to the Minister of Education
RULING: Yes. The Court finds that there was a valid exercise of rule-making authority. The statutory grant
of rule-making power to administrative agencies like the Secretary of Education is a valid exception to the
rule on non-delegation of legislative power provided two conditions concur, namely: 1) the statute is
complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed by the agency, and 2) said statute fixes a
standard to which the latter must conform.
With the The Education Act of 1982's basic policy as well as, specific policies clearly set forth in its various
provisions, the Act is complete in itself and does not leave any part of the policy-making, a strictly
legislative function, to any administrative agency.
Coming now to the presence or absence of standards to guide the Minister of Education in the exercise of
rule-making power, the standard may be either expressed or implied. If the former, the non-delegation
objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be
implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole.
RATIO: The standard guide to an administrative agency in the exercise of its rule-making power may be
either expressed or implied. In the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though
does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the statute
considered as a whole.
---

Cebu Institute of Technology Vs Ople, 156 SCRA 629 Case Digest (Administrative Law)

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cebu Institute of Technology Vs Ople, 156 SCRA 629 Case Digest (Administrative Law)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cebu Institute of Technology Vs Ople, 156 SCRA 629 Case Digest (Administrative Law)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adminstrative Law

Arellano Univeristy School of Law