PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondent.

FACTS: Herein petitioner Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. is a non-stock, nonprofit corporate entity duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. he herein respondent !ecretary of "ducation, Culture and !ports is a ranking ca#inet mem#er who heads the $epartment of "ducation, Culture and !ports of the %ffice of the President of the Philippines. %n Fe#ruary &', '()*, the ask Force on Pri+ate Higher "ducation created #y the $"C! su#mitted a report entitled ,-eport and -ecommendations on a Policy for uition and %ther !chool Fees., he report fa+ora#ly recommended to the $"C! the following courses of action with respect to the .o+ernment/s policy on increases in school fees for the schoolyear '()* to '())0 1'2 Pri+ate schools may #e allowed to increase its total school fees #y not more than '3 per cent to &4 per cent, without the need for the prior appro+al of the $"C!. !chools that wish to increase school fees #eyond the ceiling would #e su#5ect to the discretion of the $"C!6 1&2 7ny pri+ate school may increase its total school fees in excess of the ceiling, pro+ided that the total schools fees will not exceed P',444.44 for the schoolyear in the elementary and secondary le+els, and P34.44 per academic unit on a semestral #asis for the collegiate le+el.' he $"C! through the respondent !ecretary of "ducation, Culture and !ports 1hereinafter referred to as the respondent !ecretary2, issued an %rder authorizing, inter alia, the '38 to &48 increase in school fees as recommended #y the ask Force. he petitioner sought a reconsideration of the said %rder, apparently on the ground that the increases were too high. hereafter, the $"C! issued $epartment %rder 9o. :* dated 7pril '4, '()* modifying its pre+ious %rder and reducing the increases to a lower ceiling of '48 to '38, accordingly. $espite this reduction, the petitioner still opposed the increases. hus, on ;ay &4, '()*, the petitioner went to this Court and filed the instant Petition for prohi#ition, seeking that 5udgment #e rendered declaring the <uestioned $epartment %rder unconstitutional. he thrust of the Petition is that the said $epartment %rder was issued without any legal #asis. In support of the first argument, the petitioner argues that while the $"C! is authorized #y law to regulate school fees in educational institutions, the power to regulate does not always include the power to increase school fees. ISSUE: =%9 the act of $"C! in authorizing the increase of school fees is +alid. HELD: >es.

he Court is not con+inced #y the argument that the power to regulate school fees ,does not always include the power to increase, such fees. !ection 3* 1:2 of ?atas Pam#ansa ?lg. &:&, otherwise known as he "ducation 7ct of '()&, +ests the $"C! with the power to regulate the educational system in the country, to wit@ /!"C. 3*. "ducations and powers of the ;inistry.0 he ;inistry shall@ ,x x x.

,1:2 Promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the administration, super+ision and regulation of the educational system in accordance with declared policy. ,x x x,

Se tion !" o# t$e s%&e A t 'r%nts t$e DECS t$e po(er to iss)e r)*es ($i $ %re *i+e(ise ne ess%r, to dis $%r'e its #)n tions %nd d)ties )nder t$e *%(. In the a#sence of a statute stating otherwise, this power includes the power to prescri#e school fees. 9o other go+ernment agency has #een +ested with the authority to fix school fees and as such, the power should #e considered lodged with the $"C! if it is to properly and effecti+ely discharge its functions and duties under the law. he function of prescri#ing rates #y an administrati+e agency may #e either a legislati+e or an ad5udicati+e function. If it were a legislati+e function, the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a re<uirement of due process. 7s regards rates prescri#ed #y an administrati+e agency in the exercise of its <uasi-5udicial function, prior notice and hearing are essential to the +alidity of such rates. =hen the rules andAor rates laid down #y an administrati+e agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of a gi+en kind throughout the country, they may partake of a legislati+e character. =here the rules and the rates imposed apply exc usi+ely to a particular party, #ased upon a finding of fact, then its function is <uasi5udicial in character. Is $epartment %rder 9o. :* issued #y the $"C! in the exercise of its legislati+e functionB =e #elie+e so. T$e %ss%i*ed Dep%rt&ent Order pres ri-es t$e &%.i&)& s $oo* #ees t$%t &%, -e $%r'ed -, %** priv%te s $oo*s in t$e o)ntr, #or s $oo*,e%r /01! to /011. T$is -ein' so, prior noti e %nd $e%rin' %re not essenti%* to t$e v%*idit, o# its iss)%n e.