gher education or the tertiary education. As well, the author was able to find RA 8292 which is another relevant act to the research and is known as the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997.The problems encountered in the search was the lack of resources available regarding the CHED. The CHED being enacted just 1994 made it impossible to find sufficient resources in the library as the author found that the resources available in the library was mostly outdated and does not cover the new provisions provided for the CHED. Fortunately, because of the internet the author was able to find the sufficient resources needed and will be able to start writing the paper.V.Statement of IssuesThe main issue of this case is whether or not the order to prohibit the increase of tuition fee by the Commission on Higher Education is valid.However, before the main issue will be resolved, it must first be shown whether or not the power on Higher Education of the Department of Education for Culture and Sports was indeed transferred to the Commission of Higher Education and thus giving CHED the authority to regulate tuition fees.VI.Discussion of IssuesA. Whether or not the power on Higher Education of the Department of Education for Culture and Sports was indeed transferred to the Commission of Higher Education.In determining whether the power of DECS on governing tertiary education was indeed transferred to the CHED, the provisions on RA 7722 should be closely examined.It is important that this issue be established because this will determine whether CHED has the power to issue such order and later on, allow to determine whether the order was indeed valid.In examining the provisions of RA 7722 specifically SEC. 18, there was indeed the transfer of power from the DECS to the CHED in governing the tertiary education. Sec. 18 is as follow:Transitory Provisions- Such personnel, properties, assets, and liabilities, functions and responsibilities of the ...
