Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs. Sec. of Education, Culture and Sports, G.R. No.

78385 August 31, 1987 Posted by Pius Morados on November 13, 2011 (Admin Law, quasi-legislative power,) Facts: The DECS, as recommended by the Task Force on Private Higher Education and through respondent Secretary issued Dep Order No. 37, a modification of a previous Department Order, authorizing the 10% to 15% increase in school fees. Petitioner opposed and alleged in a petition that said order was issued without any legal basis arguing that authority of DECS to regulate school fees does not always include the power to increase the same. Sec. 57 (3) of BP Blg. 232 (The Education Act of 1982), vests the DECS with the power to regulate the educational system; and Sec. 70 of the same act grants the DECS the power to issue rules which are likewise necessary to discharge its functions and duties under the law. The respondent Secretary maintains that the increase in tuition and other school fees is urgent and necessary. Issue: WON the fixing of school fees through department order by DECS is a valid delegation of legislative power. Held: Yes. Power granted to the educational department to regulate the educational system includes the power to prescribe school fees. In the absence of a statue stating otherwise, this power include the power to prescribe school fees. No other government agency has been vested with the authority to fix school fees and as such, the power should be considered lodged with the DECS. Taada vs Tuvera

136 scra 27 Publication Presidential Proclamations Invoking the peoples right to be informed on matters of public concerns as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable they must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, Taada et al seek a writ of mandamus to compel Tuvera to publish and/or to cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various Presidential Decrees (PDs), Letters of Instructions(LOIs), Proclamations(PPs), Executive Orders(EOs), and Administrative Orders(AOs).

ISSUE: Whether or not the various PDs et al must be published before they shall take effect.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the fact that a PD or LOI states its date of effectivity does not preclude their publication in the Official Gazette as they constitute important legislative acts, particularly in the present case where the president may on his own issue laws. The clear objective of this provision is to give the public general adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. Publication is indispensable.