Review Center Association v. Ermita
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from a nationwide Nursing Board Examination conducted in June 2006, which was marred by a significant leakage of examination questions. Handwritten copies of two sets of examinations were circulated among examinees reviewing at specific centers. The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) subsequently admitted the leakage, which was traced to two members of the Board of Nursing. This incident led to the replacement of the Board of Nursing members and an order for the affected examinees to retake the examination. In response to this crisis, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 566, authorizing the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to supervise the establishment and operation of all review centers and similar entities. 2. Procedural History: Following the issuance of Executive Order No. 566, the CHED approved Memorandum Order No. 49, series of 2006 (IRR), which governed the operation of review centers. The Review Center Association of the Philippines (RCAP), an organization of independent review centers, requested the CHED to amend or withdraw the IRR, arguing it would effectively abolish independent review centers by requiring them to tie up with Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) or consortia. After a series of communications and a dialogue, the CHED approved the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) on May 7, 2007. RCAP then filed a Petition to Clarify/Amend the RIRR with the CHED, seeking exclusion of independent review centers from CHED's coverage, clarification on integration requirements, and revision to conform with RA 7722. The CHED, by Resolution No. 718-2007, referred RCAP's request to exclude independent review centers to the Office of the President, stating it required an amendment to EO 566. On October 26, 2007, RCAP filed a petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the Supreme Court, praying for the annulment of the RIRR, the declaration of EO 566 as invalid and unconstitutional, and the prohibition against CHED's implementation of the RIRR. Intervenors, including CPA review centers and PIMSAT Colleges, later joined the case, supporting or opposing the petition. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, including the Review Center Association of the Philippines (RCAP) and several CPA review centers, filed a petition for Prohibition and Mandamus directly with the Supreme Court. They assail Executive Order No. 566 and Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order No. 30, series of 2007 (RIRR), arguing that EO 566 constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by expanding CHED's jurisdiction beyond what is granted by Republic Act No. 7722 (RA 7722). They further contend that the RIRR is an invalid exercise of the Executive's rule-making power. The core of their argument is that RA 7722 limits CHED's coverage to public and private institutions of higher education and degree-granting programs, and that review centers, which offer non-degree refresher courses, do not fall within this scope. They assert that EO 566 and the RIRR improperly expand CHED's mandate and usurp legislative power, as there is no enabling law granting the President the power to amend CHED's functions through an Executive Order in this manner. The petition seeks the annulment of the RIRR, the declaration of EO 566 as unconstitutional, and an injunction against CHED's implementation of the RIRR.
Issue(s)
Whether Executive Order No. 566 is an unconstitutional exercise by the Executive of legislative power as it expands the CHED’s jurisdiction. Whether the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) is an invalid exercise of the Executive’s rule-making power.
Ruling
The petition has merit. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and the petition-in-intervention, DECLARING Executive Order No. 566 and Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order No. 30, series of 2007 VOID for being unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether EO 566 is an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power: The Court ruled that EO 566 expands the coverage of Republic Act No. 7722 (RA 7722). RA 7722 limits CHED's jurisdiction to public and private institutions of higher education and degree-granting programs in post-secondary educational institutions. The Court emphasized the plain meaning rule (verba legis), stating that "higher education" refers to education beyond the secondary level or education provided by a college or university, typically leading to a degree. Review centers, as defined, offer programs to refresh knowledge for licensure examinations and do not grant degrees, thus falling outside the scope of RA 7722. The Court found that EO 566, by directing CHED to regulate review centers and similar entities, effectively expanded CHED's mandate without enabling legislation, constituting a usurpation of legislative power. The President cannot amend the functions of CHED under RA 7722 through an Executive Order without prior legislative grant. The Court cited Ople v. Torres in declaring EO 566 void as it was not supported by any enabling law and was not a mere administrative order implementing existing law but rather an attempt to create new policy and expand regulatory authority. On the issue of whether the RIRR is an invalid exercise of rule-making power: The Court held that since EO 566 was declared void for being an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power, the RIRR, which was issued to implement EO 566, is also invalid. Administrative agencies, like CHED, can only exercise their rule-making power within the confines of their statutory jurisdiction. The RIRR covered review centers and similar entities, which, as established, are neither institutions of higher education nor institutions offering degree-granting programs as contemplated by RA 7722. Therefore, the CHED exceeded its authority in promulgating rules to regulate these entities. The Court also clarified that while the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) has a mandate to preserve the integrity of licensure examinations under RA 8981, this power is limited to the conduct of the examinations themselves and does not extend to the regulation of review centers. The PRC's power to investigate PRB members or bar them from conducting review classes does not grant it the authority to regulate review centers.
Main Doctrine
Executive Order No. 566, which directed the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to regulate review centers, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) were declared void for being unconstitutional as they expanded the CHED's jurisdiction beyond what was granted by Republic Act No. 7722 (RA 7722) and constituted an invalid exercise of legislative power by the Executive Department.