COUNCIL OF TEACHERS AND STAFF OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES

(COTESCUP)
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

The case is a consolidated petitions filed under Rule 65, petitioners question the constitutionality
of (i) Republic Act No. 10533, otherwise known as the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, (ii)
Republic Act No. 10157, otherwise known as the Kindergarten Education Act, and (iii) related
issuances implementing these laws issued by the Department of Education, Commission on Higher
Education, Department of Labor and Employment, and Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority.

COTESCUP, the petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari (known as Cert of Petition/ asking the
Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court). They allege that respondents committed
grave abuse of discretion, causing them and their members serious, grave, and irreparable injury
because the assailed laws and issuances will cause massive displacement of faculty and
nonacademic personnel of higher education institutions.

This Petition for Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus was filed on
behalf of students, parents, and teachers of Manila Science High School and of other
students, parents, and teachers in the Philippines who are similarly situated and who
share a common interest They claim to have already suffered an injury in the
implementation of Republic Act No. 10533 and Department of Education Order No.
31, series of 2012 considering that Manila Science High School is already
implementing has already adopted the K-12 Program beginning school year 2012-
2013 and is requiring its students to attend two (2) more additional years of senior
high school starting school year 2016-2017.6 Furthermore, they contend that
students have been unable to take entrance exams for colleges and universities
because of the implementation of the law and Department Order.7 They further
invoke that there are exceptional and compelling reasons for this Court to take
cognizance of this case, alleging that the law has far-reaching implications which
must be treated with extreme urgency.

Congressman Antonio Tinio with several individuals filed a taxpayer's suit and a
concerned citizens' suit through a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and
Mandamus,9 alleging that Republic Act No. 10533 is unconstitutional and that the
instant case is justiciable because respondents committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its legislation and implementation. 10
They contend that grave injustice and irreparable violations of the Constitution and
of the rights of the Filipino people were committed, and that the issues in this case
are of transcendental importance.
Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes IV, Gary C. Alejano, and Francisco Ashley L. Acedillo filed a
Petition to Declare Republic Act No. 10533 as Unconstitutional and/or Illegal, in their
capacities as citizens, taxpayers, members of Congress, and as parents whose
children will be directly or indirectly affected by Republic Act No. 10533. They raise
the national interest, the sanctity of the Constitution, and the system of checks and
balances in the government in asking this Court to exercise its power of judicial
review.

THE ISSUES:
1. Whether the court may exercise its power of judicial review over the
controversy.

The OSG submits that the case filed are merely political question and not a
justiciable one.

However, the court disagrees.

The SC asserts that under the expanded definition of judicial power in the
1987 constitution, political question doctrine is “no longer the
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable
shield that protects the executive and legislative actions from judicial review”.

Article VIII authorizes the court “ to settle actual case controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable” but also “ to determine
whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch of instrumentality of the
government”

Therefore when there is a serious allegations that a law or executive issuance

infringes upon the constitution is brought before the court, such as what the
petitioners claimed to be, it becomes not only a right but a duty of the court
to settle the dispute.

There are two requisites the must first be complied before the court exercise
the power of judicial review.
 1. There is an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
review.
2. The petitioner has a standing to question the validity of the subject
3. The question of constitutionality is raised at the earliest opportunity
4. The constitutional question is the very lis mota (purpose or the cause of
legal action)

ACTUAL CASE- involces a conflict of legal rights. Related to this is the requirement of
‘ripeness’. And a question is ripe when the act being challenged has a direct effect
on the individual challenging it. The consolidated cases present an actual case that
is ripe thus the petitioners are directly affected by the implementation (teachers,
students, parents)

LEGAL STANDING- there is a substantial interest for the side of the petitioners as tax
payers, legislators, organizations. The court finds the petitioners to have sufficient
legal interest in the outcome.

Therefore the court may exercise the power of judicial review.

ISSUE:
1. K to 12 was not a valid.
The court says that it is valid.
The petitioners claim that there was no public consultation (Section 16 Article
XIII). However there was a nationwide, regional consultations conducted by
DepEd.

2. The Court submits that there is no undue delegation of legislative power in

the enactment of the K to 12 Law. This is in opposition to the claim of the
petitioners.
TWO TEST IN DETERMINING UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.
1. Completeness test- law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
when t leaves the legislature
2. Sufficient standard test- there must be an adequate guidelines or
limitations in the law
The k to 12 satisfactory complied with these two tests.
3. Another issue raised was that the DO No. 31 which is an administrative
regulation addressed to DepEd personnel providing for guidelines in the
implementation of the Act. The petitioners claimed that there is a need for
publication. However, the court contends that interpretative regulations
and those merely internal in nature are not required to be published.
4. The petitioners assail that State’s exercise of police power to regulate
educaton through the adoption of k to 12.
Police Power of the state is the state’s authority to enact legislation that
may interfere with personal liberty of property in order to promote the
general welfare. It is a power of co-extensive with self protection and is
mostly aptly termed ‘ the law of overwhelming necessity”. It is also the “
most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers”. It is a dynamic force
that enables the state to meet the exigencies of the winds of change.

The court contends that the enactment of the k to 12, and the
kindergarten education act are an exercise of the state’s police power. For
a law to be nullified, there must ne a clear and unequivocal breach of the
constitution,.