8.quezon City PTCA Vs DepEd

ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION v.
NHA | 8
EN BANC
QUEZON CITY PTCA FEDERATION, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016
LEONEN, J.:
FACTS:
 This resolves a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that respondent Department
of Education's Department Order No. 54, Series of 2009 (Department Order) be nullified for
being unconstitutional and contrary to law, and that a writ of prohibition permanently
enjoining the Department of Education and all persons acting on its behalf from enforcing
the assailed Department Order be issued.
 The Petition also prays that, in the interim, a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction be issued, restraining the enforcement of the Department Order.
 On June 1, 2009, the Department of Education, through Former Secretary Jesli A. Lapus,
issued Department Order No. 54, Series of 2009 entitled Revised Guidelines Governing
Parents-Teachers Associations (PTAs) at the School Level.
 More specifically, the Department Order provides for:
1) The approval of the school head as a prerequisite for PTAs to be organized;
2) The terms of office and manner of election of a PTA's board of directors;
3) The cessation of recognition of existing parents-teachers community associations
(PTCAs) and of their federations effective school year 2009-2010.
 The Department Order gave them until June 30, 2009 to dissolve, wind up their activities,
submit financial reports, and turn over all documents to school heads and schools division
superintendents.
 In principle, Administrative agencies, however, are not given unfettered power to
promulgate rules.
 As noted in Gerochi v. Department of Energy, two requisites must be satisfied in order
that rules issued by administrative agencies may be considered valid: the
completeness test and the sufficient standard test.
 In the face of the increasing complexity of modern life, delegation of legislative power to
various specialized administrative agencies is allowed as an exception to this principle.
 Given the volume and variety of interactions in today's society, it is doubtful if the legislature
can promulgate laws that will deal adequately with and respond promptly to the minutiae of
everyday life.
 Hence, the need to delegate to administrative bodies - the principal agencies tasked to
execute laws in their specialized fields - the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement a given statute and effectuate its policies.
 All that is required for the valid exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the
regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law and that the regulation be not
in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law. These
requirements are denominated as the completeness test and the sufficient standard test.
ISSUES:
Whether Department Order is invalid and ineffective as no public consultations were
(supposedly) held before its adoption, and/or as it was not published by the Department of
Education
RULING:
No. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, the adoption of the Department Order is not
tainted with fatal procedural defects. Petitioner decries the supposed lack of public
consultations as being violative of its right to due process. Notice and hearing are not essential
when an administrative agency acts pursuant to its rule-making power.
In Central Bank of the Philippines v. Cloribel: Previous notice and hearing, as elements
of due process, are constitutionally required for the protection of life or vested property rights,
as well as of liberty, when its limitation or loss takes place in consequence of a judicial or
quasi-judicial proceeding, generally dependent upon a past act or event which has to be
established or ascertained.
ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION v. NHA | 8
It is not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations promulgated to govern

future conduct of a class of persons or enterprises, unless the law provides otherwise. "It is
also clear from the authorities that where the function of the administrative body is legislative,
notice of hearing is not required by due process of law. Administrative Law, 2 Md. L.R. 185,
204, supra, where it is said:
'If the nature of the administrative agency is essentially legislative, the requirements of
notice and hearing are not necessary. The validity of a rule of future action which affects a
group, if vested rights of liberty or property are not involved, is not determined according to the
same rules which apply in the case of the direct application of a policy to a specific individual.'
It is said in 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure, sec. 130, pages 452
and 453: Aside from statute, the necessity of notice and hearing in an administrative
proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the circumstances involved. In so
far as generalization is possible in view of the great variety of administrative proceedings, it
may be stated as a general rule that notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of
administrative action where the administrative body acts in the exercise of executive,
administrative, or legislative functions; but where a public administrative body acts in a judicial
or quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are particular and immediate rather than general and
prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to
notice and hearing."
In any case, petitioner's claim that no consultations were held is belied by the
Department of Education's detailed recollection of the actions it took before the adoption of the
assailed Department Order:
1. On March 1, 2003, pursuant to D.O. No. 14, s. 2004, respondent DepEd created a task
force to review, revise, or modify D.O. No. 23, s. 2003 (the existing guidelines), in order
to address numerous complaints involving PTAs and PTCAs and to resolve disputes
relative to the recognition and administration of said associations. The task force came
up with draft guidelines after consultations with parents, teachers and students;
2. On May 3, 2003, pursuant to D.O. No. 28, s. 2007, the task force was reconstituted to
evaluate the draft guidelines prepared by the original task force and to review the
provisions of D.O. No. 23;
3. On February 2, 2009, the reconstituted task force, after soliciting comments,
suggestions and recommendations from school heads and presidents of PTAs or
PTCAs, submitted a draft of the "Revised Guidelines governing PTAs/PTCAs at the
School Level;"
4. The draft was submitted for comments and suggestions to the participants to the Third
National Federation Supreme Student Governments (NFSSG) Conference held in
February 2009. The participants, composed of regional education supervisors,
presidents of regional federations of Supreme Student Governments (SSG), and
representatives from the SSG advisers, submitted another set of revised guidelines;
5. The draft was subjected to further review and consultations, which resulted in the final
draft of D.O. No. 54, s. 2009. Apart from claiming that no consultations were held,
petitioner decries the: non-publication, by the Department of Education itself, of the
assailed Department Order. This does not invalidate the Department Order. As is
evident from the previously quoted provisions of Book VII, Chapter 2 of the
Administrative Code all that is required for the validity of rules promulgated by
administrative agencies is the filing of three (3) certified copies with the University of the
Philippine Law Center. Within 15 days of filing, administrative rules become effective.
CONCLUSION:
In the light of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed.

8.quezon City PTCA Vs DepEd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8.quezon City PTCA Vs DepEd

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

8.quezon City PTCA Vs DepEd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION v.

It is not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations promulgated to govern

You might also like