CoTesCUP v Secretary of Education GR 216930

ISSUE:  Whether the K to 12 Law violates petitioners' right to substantive due process and equal protection of the laws. 

FACTS:  In an attempt to bolster petitioner case against the K to 12 Law, petitioners also raised the following policy issues: 1)K to 12 only increases the resource gap by creating more need for resources. The solution to the problem is closing the resource gap by giving priority to education in the budget and public spending program of the government and addressing the issue of poverty and malnutrition and programs aimed at alleviating if not eradicating poverty in the long run but instead government comes up with the K to 12 Law which is a copycat and elitist solution.275 2)K to 12 is problem-ridden. Instead, what we need is to prioritize deficiencies in personnel, facilities and materials; and a nationalist-oriented curriculum relevant to the needs of the people.276 3)The Philippine government does not have enough funds to add two (2) more years of senior high school.277 4)Student-teacher ratio is far from ideal.278 5)Teachers are paid low salaries.279 6)There is no assurance that senior high school results in good employment. 
DECISION:  Denied 

RATIO DECIDENDI:  Policy matters are not the concern of the Court. To reiterate, government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the political branches of the government. It is not for the Court to look into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination. Stated otherwise, the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. Indeed, whether an enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired results, whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular manner — all these are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the serious conflict of opinions does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance. When the validity of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, the sole function of the court is to determine whether it transcends constitutional limitations or the limits of legislative power.Further, the courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution, but also because the judiciary, in the determination of actual cases and controversies, must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the government.The Court, despite its vast powers, will not review the wisdom, merits, or propriety of governmental policies, but will strike them down only on either of two grounds: (1) unconstitutionality or illegality and/or (2) grave abuse of discretionFor having failed to show any of the above in the passage of the assailed law and the department issuances, the petitioners' remedy thus lies not with the Court, but with the executive and legislative branches of the government.