Case 1 - G.R. No. 157286
Case 1 - G.R. No. 157286
Case 1 - G.R. No. 157286
Facts:
• Ever since DepEd was founded, its management had been so centralized in the
Manila office. Schools in the national, regional, and division levels merely followed
and implemented the orders and memoranda issued by the Education Secretary.
Due to the evolution of the learning process and the onset of information
technology, there was a need for a radical change in the governance of the DepEd.
Thus, a study on how to improve the management of the Department was
conducted, and one of the proposals was the abolition of the office of the district
supervisor.
• The office of the schools district supervisor has been retained under the law. Each
district is headed by a school district supervisor and an office staff for program
promotion. However, the responsibilities of the schools district supervisor were
limited.
• Under Sec. 14 of the law, the DepEd Secretary is mandated to “promulgate the
implementing rules and regulations within 90 days after the approval of the Act,
provided that the principle of shared governance shall be fully implemented within
2 years” after such approval.
• Before the DepEd could issue the appropriate implementing rules and regulations,
PSDSA sought the legal assistance of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
National Committee on Legal Aid to make representations for the resolution of the
following administrative issues:
• PSDSA thus requested the DepEd Secretary to call an immediate consultation with
the district supervisors nationwide through a convention, and their valid inputs be
considered in formulating the rules and regulations to be urged by the DepEd.
However, the Secretary failed to reply.
• DepEd Secretary Edilberto C. De Jesus thereafter issued DECS Office Order No.
1 which constitutes the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9155.
• PSDSA led a petition for prohibition and mandamus with SC.
Issue:
Whether the IRR extended RA 9155 also known as the Governance of Basic
Education Act of 2001. – NO.
Ruling:
• It bears stressing, however, that administrative bodies are allowed under their
power of subordinate legislation to implement the broad policies laid down in a
statute by “filling in” the details. All that is required is that the regulation be
germane to the objectives and purposes of the law; that the regulation does not
contradict but conforms with the standards prescribed by law.
• Moreover, as a matter of policy, the Court accords great respect to the decisions
and/or actions of administrative authorities not only because of the doctrine of
separation of powers but also for their presumed knowledgeability and expertise
in the enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction. The
rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs
of a modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative
agencies for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to the
accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the
administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute.