The Supreme Court declared Executive Order No. 566 (EO 566) and Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order No. 30, series of 2007, unconstitutional. This ruling safeguards the legislative powers of Congress by preventing the executive branch from unilaterally expanding the jurisdiction of administrative agencies beyond what is defined by law. For review centers, this means relief from CHED regulation and a reaffirmation of the limits of executive authority.

Review Centers Under Regulation? Unpacking the Clash Between Executive and Legislative Power

The Review Center Association of the Philippines challenged Executive Order (EO) 566, arguing it unconstitutionally expanded the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) jurisdiction, encroaching on legislative powers. EO 566 directed the CHED to regulate review centers, a mandate the association contended exceeded the scope defined in Republic Act (RA) 7722, the Higher Education Act of 1994. The central legal question was whether the President, through an executive order, could unilaterally broaden an administrative agency’s authority beyond the bounds set by congressional legislation.

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on whether EO 566 effectively amended RA 7722, which defines the CHED’s jurisdiction over higher education institutions and degree-granting programs. RA 7722 clearly states the CHED’s coverage includes “both public and private institutions of higher education as well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary educational institutions, public and private.” The Court emphasized a strict interpretation of this provision. Review centers, offering refresher courses rather than degree programs, fell outside this defined scope.

Moreover, the Court found that the Executive branch usurped legislative power in issuing EO 566. It cited Ople v. Torres, where a presidential administrative order creating a national ID system without enabling legislation was deemed void. Similarly, EO 566 lacked a statutory basis for altering the CHED’s functions, thus exceeding the President’s executive authority. The power to make laws, including amendments to existing statutes, resides exclusively with Congress as per Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Executive actions must remain within the bounds defined by legislative enactments.

The OSG’s argument centered on the President’s executive power to faithfully execute laws and residual powers under Executive Order No. 292 (EO 292). However, the Court clarified that the President’s residual powers, as defined in Section 20, Title I of Book III of EO 292, require existing legislation. Since no law granted the President the power to amend CHED’s functions, EO 566 could not be justified under this provision. Essentially, the President cannot create law through an Executive Order.

The concurring opinion argued that the President possessed adequate powers under Republic Act No. 8981 to regulate review centers. According to the argument, the power lies with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) as it attempts to provide the blue print for a credible and effective Philippine licensure examination system. Despite this reasoning, the Court did not embrace such as solution.

The implications of the decision are significant for both review centers and administrative law. The ruling prevents the executive branch from expanding its authority through executive orders without legislative support. Review centers now operate without CHED oversight. It’s a re-emphasis of the boundaries of executive power, safeguarding the legislature’s role in defining the scope and function of governmental agencies.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central question was whether an executive order could expand the jurisdiction of an administrative agency beyond what is defined by law.
What is Executive Order 566?	EO 566 is an executive order directing the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to regulate the establishment and operation of review centers in the Philippines.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court declared EO 566 and CHED Memorandum Order No. 30 unconstitutional, effectively preventing CHED from regulating review centers.
Why was EO 566 deemed unconstitutional?	The Court held that EO 566 expanded the CHED’s jurisdiction beyond what was authorized by Republic Act 7722, thus infringing on the legislative powers of Congress.
What is Republic Act 7722?	Republic Act 7722, also known as the Higher Education Act of 1994, defines the scope and authority of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
Does this ruling mean review centers cannot be regulated?	Not necessarily. The concurring opinion argued that the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) could potentially regulate review centers under Republic Act 8981.
What is the practical effect of this ruling for review centers?	Review centers are no longer subject to regulation by the CHED, and existing regulations have been lifted.
What was the basis of the Review Center Association’s challenge?	The Review Center Association argued that EO 566 exceeded the CHED’s authority under RA 7722 and encroached upon the legislative power of Congress.
What happens now?	Absent a new law, review centers are free from CHED regulation.

This landmark ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the separation of powers within the Philippine government and reaffirms the boundaries of executive authority. The case underscores that changes to an administrative agency’s jurisdiction must be initiated through legislative action rather than executive fiat. The delicate balance between the Executive and Legislative Branches has been maintained.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Review Center Association of the Philippines vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 180046, April 02, 2009