1 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O.

PAMINTUAN

Republic of the Philippines AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR EXAMINATIONS
SUPREME COURT FROM NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX UP TO AND
Manila INCLUDING NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE.

EN BANC Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:
Resolution March 18, 1954
SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section fourteen, Rule
In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful numbered one hundred twenty-seven of the Rules of Court, any bar candidate
Candidates of 1946 to 1953; who obtained a general average of seventy per cent in any bar examinations
ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL., petitioners. after July fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-six up to the August nineteen
hundred and fifty-one bar examinations; seventy-one per cent in the nineteen
hundred and fifty-two bar examinations; seventy-two per cent in the in the
Jose M. Aruego, M.H. de Joya, Miguel R. Cornejo, and Antonio Enrile Inton for nineteen hundred and fifty-three bar examinations; seventy-three per cent in
petitioners. the nineteen hundred and fifty-four bar examinations; seventy-four per cent in
Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag for respondent. the nineteen hundred and fifty-five bar examinations without a candidate
obtaining a grade below fifty per cent in any subject, shall be allowed to take
DIOKNO, J.: and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine
Bar: Provided, however, That for the purpose of this Act, any exact one-half
In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and or more of a fraction, shall be considered as one and included as part of the
concern as Republic Act No. 972, popularly known as the "Bar Flunkers' Act of 1953." next whole number.
Under the Rules of Court governing admission to the bar, "in order that a candidate (for
admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, SEC. 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of seventy-five per cent in
he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling any subject in any bar examination after July fourth, nineteen hundred and
below 50 per cent in any subject." (Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court). Nevertheless, forty-six shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such
considering the varying difficulties of the different bar examinations held since 1946 grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing general average
and the varying degree of strictness with which the examination papers were graded, that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may
this court passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an take.
average of only 72 per cent in 1946, 69 per cent in 1947, 70 per cent in 1948, and 74
per cent in 1949. In 1950 to 1953, the 74 per cent was raised to 75 per cent. SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and Enacted on June 21, 1953, without the Executive approval.
passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having been discriminated against (See
Explanatory Note to R.A. No. 972), unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of
a few percentage lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress for, and After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for
secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12 which, among others, reduced the admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while others whose motions for the revision
passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946. The of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an
President requested the views of this court on the bill. Complying with that request, additional ground for admission. There are also others who have sought simply the
seven members of the court subscribed to and submitted written comments adverse reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid
thereto, and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did not override the injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for
veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371, embodying substantially the provisions reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.
of the vetoed bill. Although the members of this court reiterated their unfavorable views Unfortunately, the court has found no reason to revise their grades. If they are to be
on the matter, the President allowed the bill to become a law on June 21, 1953 without admitted to the bar, it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. 972 which, if declared valid,
his signature. The law, which incidentally was enacted in an election year, reads in full should be applied equally to all concerned whether they have filed petitions or not. A
as follows: complete list of the petitioners, properly classified, affected by this decision, as well as
a more detailed account of the history of Republic Act No. 972, are appended to this
decision as Annexes I and II. And to realize more readily the effects of the law, the
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972 following statistical data are set forth:

2 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. PAMINTUAN

(1) The unsuccessful bar candidates who are to be benefited by section 1 of Republic Messrs. Arturo A. Alafriz, Enrique M. Fernando, Vicente Abad Santos, Carlos A.
Act No. 972 total 1,168, classified as follows: Barrios, Vicente del Rosario, Juan de Blancaflor, Mamerto V. Gonzales, and Roman
Ozaeta against it, aside from the memoranda of counsel for petitioners, Messrs. Jose
M. Aruego, M.H. de Joya, Miguel R. Cornejo and Antonio Enrile Inton, and of petitioners
1946 (August) 206 121 18
Cabrera, Macasaet and Galema themselves, has greatly helped us in this task. The
1946 (November) 477 228 43 legal researchers of the court have exhausted almost all Philippine and American
1947 749 340 0 jurisprudence on the matter. The question has been the object of intense deliberation
for a long time by the Tribunal, and finally, after the voting, the preparation of the
1948 899 409 11 majority opinion was assigned to a new member in order to place it as humanly as
1949 1,218 532 164 possible above all suspicion of prejudice or partiality.
1950 1,316 893 26
1951 2,068 879 196 Republic Act No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar,
those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate
1952 2,738 1,033 426 preparation. Quoting a portion of the Explanatory Note of the proposed bill, its author
1953 2,555 968 284 Honorable Senator Pablo Angeles David stated:
TOTAL 12,230 5,421 1,168
The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing grade is the
tremendous handicap which students during the years immediately after the
Of the total 1,168 candidates, 92 have passed in subsequent examination, and only
Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the insufficiency of reading
586 have filed either motions for admission to the bar pursuant to said Republic Act, or
materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of students who took up law
mere motions for reconsideration.
soon after the liberation.

(2) In addition, some other 10 unsuccessful candidates are to be benefited by section
Of the 9,675 candidates who took the examinations from 1946 to 1952, 5,236 passed.
2 of said Republic Act. These candidates had each taken from two to five different
And now it is claimed that in addition 604 candidates be admitted (which in reality total
examinations, but failed to obtain a passing average in any of them. Consolidating,
1,094), because they suffered from "insufficiency of reading materials" and of
however, their highest grades in different subjects in previous examinations, with their
"inadequacy of preparation."
latest marks, they would be sufficient to reach the passing average as provided for by
Republic Act No. 972.
By its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094
law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the
(3) The total number of candidates to be benefited by this Republic Acts is therefore
profession, as was exactly found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations. The
1,094, of which only 604 have filed petitions. Of these 604 petitioners, 33 who failed in
public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency,
1946 to 1951 had individually presented motions for reconsideration which were
precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. An
denied, while 125 unsuccessful candidates of 1952, and 56 of 1953, had presented
adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that
similar motions, which are still pending because they could be favorably affected by
should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. To the legal profession is
Republic Act No. 972, — although as has been already stated, this tribunal finds no
entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve officially
sufficient reasons to reconsider their grades
of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate
mission is to create a serious social danger. Moreover, the statement that there was an
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972 insufficiency of legal reading materials is grossly exaggerated. There were abundant
materials. Decisions of this court alone in mimeographed copies were made available
Having been called upon to enforce a law of far-reaching effects on the practice of the to the public during those years and private enterprises had also published them in
legal profession and the administration of justice, and because some doubts have been monthly magazines and annual digests. The Official Gazette had been published
expressed as to its validity, the court set the hearing of the afore-mentioned petitions continuously. Books and magazines published abroad have entered without restriction
for admission on the sole question of whether or not Republic Act No. 972 is since 1945. Many law books, some even with revised and enlarged editions have been
constitutional. printed locally during those periods. A new set of Philippine Reports began to be
published since 1946, which continued to be supplemented by the addition of new
volumes. Those are facts of public knowledge.
We have been enlightened in the study of this question by the brilliant assistance of the
members of the bar who have amply argued, orally an in writing, on the various aspects
in which the question may be gleaned. The valuable studies of Messrs. E. Voltaire Notwithstanding all these, if the law in question is valid, it has to be enforced.
Garcia, Vicente J. Francisco, Vicente Pelaez and Buenaventura Evangelista, in favor
of the validity of the law, and of the U.P. Women's Lawyers' Circle, the Solicitor General,

3 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. PAMINTUAN

The question is not new in its fundamental aspect or from the point of view of applicable admission spoken of must be by the court; that to admit means to grant leave,
principles, but the resolution of the question would have been easier had an identical and that the power of granting necessarily implies the power of refusing, and
case of similar background been picked out from the jurisprudence we daily consult. Is of course the right of determining whether the applicant possesses the
there any precedent in the long Anglo-Saxon legal history, from which has been directly requisite qualifications to entitle him to admission.
derived the judicial system established here with its lofty ideals by the Congress of the
United States, and which we have preserved and attempted to improve, or in our These positions may all be conceded, without affecting the validity of the act.
contemporaneous judicial history of more than half a century? From the citations of (p. 93.)
those defending the law, we can not find a case in which the validity of a similar law
had been sustained, while those against its validity cite, among others, the cases of
Day (In re Day, 54 NE 646), of Cannon (State vs. Cannon, 240 NW, 441), the opinion Now, with respect to the law of April 7, 1860, the decision seems to indicate that it
of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 1932 (81 ALR 1061), of Guariña (24 Phil., provided that the possession of a diploma of the school of law of Columbia College
37), aside from the opinion of the President which is expressed in his vote of the original conferring the degree of Bachelor of Laws was evidence of the legal qualifications that
bill and which the postponement of the contested law respects. the constitution required of applicants for admission to the Bar. The decision does not
however quote the text of the law, which we cannot find in any public or accessible
private library in the country.
This law has no precedent in its favor. When similar laws in other countries had been
promulgated, the judiciary immediately declared them without force or effect. It is not
within our power to offer a precedent to uphold the disputed law. In the case of Cooper, supra, to make the law consistent with the Constitution of New
York, the Court of Appeals said of the object of the law:
To be exact, we ought to state here that we have examined carefully the case that has
been cited to us as a favorable precedent of the law — that of Cooper (22 NY, 81), The motive for passing the act in question is apparent. Columbia College
where the Court of Appeals of New York revoked the decision of the Supreme court of being an institution of established reputation, and having a law department
that State, denying the petition of Cooper to be admitted to the practice of law under under the charge of able professors, the students in which department were
the provisions of a statute concerning the school of law of Columbia College not only subjected to a formal examination by the law committee of the
promulgated on April 7, 1860, which was declared by the Court of Appeals to be institution, but to a certain definite period of study before being entitled to a
consistent with the Constitution of the state of New York. diploma of being graduates, the Legislature evidently, and no doubt justly,
considered this examination, together with the preliminary study required by
the act, as fully equivalent as a test of legal requirements, to the ordinary
It appears that the Constitution of New York at that time provided: examination by the court; and as rendering the latter examination, to which no
definite period of preliminary study was essential, unnecessary and
They (i.e., the judges) shall not hold any other office of public trust. All votes burdensome.
for either of them for any elective office except that of the Court of Appeals,
given by the Legislature or the people, shall be void. They shall not exercise The act was obviously passed with reference to the learning and ability of the
any power of appointment to public office. Any male citizen of the age of applicant, and for the mere purpose of substituting the examination by the law
twenty-one years, of good moral character, and who possesses the requisite committee of the college for that of the court. It could have had no other object,
qualifications of learning and ability, shall be entitled to admission to practice and hence no greater scope should be given to its provisions. We cannot
in all the courts of this State. (p. 93). suppose that the Legislature designed entirely to dispense with the plain and
explicit requirements of the Constitution; and the act contains nothing
According to the Court of Appeals, the object of the constitutional precept is as follows: whatever to indicate an intention that the authorities of the college should
inquire as to the age, citizenship, etc., of the students before granting a
Attorneys, solicitors, etc., were public officers; the power of appointing them diploma. The only rational interpretation of which the act admits is, that it was
had previously rested with the judges, and this was the principal appointing intended to make the college diploma competent evidence as to the legal
power which they possessed. The convention was evidently dissatisfied with attainments of the applicant, and nothing else. To this extent alone it operates
the manner in which this power had been exercised, and with the restrictions as a modification of pre-existing statutes, and it is to be read in connection
which the judges had imposed upon admission to practice before them. The with these statutes and with the Constitution itself in order to determine the
prohibitory clause in the section quoted was aimed directly at this power, and present condition of the law on the subject. (p.89)
the insertion of the provision" expecting the admission of attorneys, in this
particular section of the Constitution, evidently arose from its connection with xxx xxx xxx
the object of this prohibitory clause. There is nothing indicative of confidence
in the courts or of a disposition to preserve any portion of their power over this
subject, unless the Supreme Court is right in the inference it draws from the
use of the word `admission' in the action referred to. It is urged that the

it power of the court to impose other and further exactions and qualifications does not decree the admission of any lawyer. had exercise the right been expressly committed to the courts. that has simply prescribed what shall be competent evidence in of legislative power. the act of depends in no small degree upon the integrity of its bar. A comprehensive and conscientious study of this courts themselves into disrepute. The bar is an attache of the courts. and not legislative. disbarment and reinstatement of the attorneys at law is a exclusive." Even considering the power granted to Congress by our Constitution to repeal. 567. State vs. of this attribute. 4. Neither branch enjoys all the powers of sovereignty which properly belongs to its department. concededly the Legislature to prescribe the ultimate qualifications of attorney at law has subordinate to Parliament since the Revolution of 1688. the Legislature is acting within its constitutional authority when it sets up and prescribes such qualifications. 444) failed in the bar examinations be admitted to the practice of law. (2) concrete facts. (p.4 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. their supervision have been disputably a judicial function and responsibility. the admission. the courts of England. 525.. There has been much uncertainty as to the extent of the power of prior to the adoption of our Constitution. The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and intimate relationship. a judicial function of the highest the manner in which the powers of sovereignty thus committed to the judicial degree. in effect. (Section 1. in which the validity of a legislative enactment providing that Cannon be permitted to Through all time courts have exercised a direct and severe supervision over practice before the courts was discussed. The function department of our state government. This act purports to constitute Mr. the courts cannot escape responsibility fir are governed by the rules and principles. if previous department are exercised. An unfaithful bar may admitting. is unacceptable. 444) (3) The Constitution of New York at that time and that of the Philippines are entirely Under our Constitution the judicial and legislative departments are distinct.. By committing a portion of the powers of sovereignty to the judicial legislative function. and coordinate branches of the government. suspension. 445) judicial resolutions on the petitions of these same individuals are attempted to be revoked or modified.93) Under the Constitution all legislative power is vested in a Senate and From the foregoing. 445) following paragraphs: After explaining the history of the case. (p. The quality of justice dispense by the courts We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived. is the the court its jurisdiction over the question of admission of attorney at law. properly belonging to Congress. the Court ends thus: This statute presents an assertion of legislative power without parallel in the history of the English speaking people so far as we have been able to Our conclusion may be epitomized as follows: For more than six centuries ascertain. From the text of this decision we quote the their bars. That was the scheme and thought of the people disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and setting upon the form of government under which we exist.445) matter had been undertaken in the case of State vs. Barstow. the complete inapplicability of the case of Cooper with that at bar Assembly. of its respective functions. Neither department should so act as to embarrass the other in the discharge In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved. alter supplement the rules promulgated by this Court The judicial department of government is responsible for the plane upon which regarding the admission to the practice of law. in effect. foreclosed or exhausted? (p. And it becomes more undisputably judicial. at least in the English speaking countries. and (3) decision as to whether these facts other department of government. Hastings. independent. "constitutes the most solid of all titles. disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the easily bring scandal and reproach to the administration of justice and bring the profession is concededly judicial. and the act of admission has always of determining who should be admitted to the practice of law. PAMINTUAN The Legislature has not taken from the court its jurisdiction over the question Cannon an attorney at law. Because 10 Wis. 4 Wis.) In so far as the prescribing of qualifications for may be clearly seen. as was been regarded as a judicial function. But when the Legislature has prescribed those qualifications which in its (2) The law of New York according to the very decision of Cooper. its continuous and zealous possession and exercise by the judicial 445) power have been demonstrated during more than six centuries. Cannon (1932) 240 NW 441. under 42a scheme which it was requires (1) previously established rules and principles. Its responsibility in this respect is admission. which certainly "constitutes the most solid of titles. which. (p. (1) The law of New York does not require that any candidate of Columbia College who (p. to our judgment and proposition that the the administration of justice is maintained. art. (p. and in this respect it stands alone as an assertion of admission. Please note only the following distinctions: admission to the bar are legislative in character. suspending. Bashford vs. Attorney General ex rel. 444) certain cases upon that question." If the courts and judicial power be . has not taken from judgment will serve the purpose of legitimate legislative solicitude. suspension. different on the matter of admission of the practice of law. said in Matter of the Sergeant's at Law. 6 Bingham's New Cases 235. affecting determinate individuals. (p. whether past supposed rendered it immune from embarrassment or interference by any or present. (p.

18 L. and for what cause he ought to be is a judicial function. Randall vs. such other proceedings invoking judicial action. 53. and . It is an inherent power of such a department of proper administration of judicial functions. and the statement of counsel moving their admission sufficient evidence that their private and professional character is fair. 242 N. whose opportunity for doing mischief is wide. Ed. the power to determine who should be admitted to In that same year of 1932. the authorities are exclusively with the court to determine who is qualified to become one of its well-nigh unanimous that the power to admit attorneys to the practice of law officers. Danforth vs.R. 83 removed. 9. When it does legislate a fixing a standard of qualifications required of conceded to be a judicial function. 333." (p. and such a purpose should withheld. so far as our investigation reveals. 9. There is no express provision in the Constitution which indicates an intent vicious practitioners. Ex parteGarland. 851: "Membership in the bar is a privilege burden our constitution was to make the three great departments of government with conditions. 646. Jur. Karlin vs. the court. Perhaps the dominant thought of the framers of 162 N. (p. Such legislative qualifications records. admitted as such The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been perpetually by its order. 115 P. 180 NE 725. three years preceding their application. Cor. They took this institution along with the assistance to the honest. The order of admission is the judgment of the court that the parties possess the requisite . St. It was said that this traditional power of the judicial department should in any manner be by Cardoz.15 L. and those not possessing good moral character. 366. or an essential element of the judicial power exercised by It is indispensible to the administration of justice and to interpretation of the the court. 333. 519. The establishment by the Constitution of the judicial department do not constitute the ultimate qualifications beyond which the court cannot go conferred authority necessary to the exercise of its powers as a coordinate in fixing additional qualifications deemed necessary by the course of the department of government. with finality in Ex parte Secombe. 82. it is an unlawful attempt to exercise the power of appointment. 4 Wall." He becomes an "officer of the court". 565. holding the test oath for attorneys to be unconstitutional. practice the legal profession by virtue of a law of state (In re Day. Culkin.5 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Grattan. 23 S. It power traditionally exercise to determine who should constitute its attorney at is highly important.E. the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. 60 A. 54 NE 646). 90 A. 366. 413. In this court the fact attempt as this on the part of the Legislature to confer such right upon any one of the admission of such officers in the highest court of the states to which being most exceedingly uncommon. attorneys receive their formal license to practice law by their admission as members of the bar In the case of Day and others who collectively filed a petition to secure license to of the court so admitting. 487. 130 Am. adequate learning only a sovereign institution. However. In the case of Ex parte Garland.Y. In all of the states. it seems clear that the licensing of an they. it having been so generally held that the act of the fair private character. respectively. 19 L. There is no legislative power to government ultimately to determine the qualifications of those to be admitted compel courts to admit to their bars persons deemed by them unfit to exercise to practice in its courts. 285. an embarrass the judicial department by prescribing inadequate qualifications for instrument or agency to advance the end of justice. 4 Wall. 7 said in part: Wall. Ex parte Secombre. Ed.like the court itself. explained the nature of the attorney's office as follows: "They are officers of the court. 13. incidental merely to its general and unquestioned power to protect the public Admission to practice as an attorney at law is almost without exception interest. D. That has been the history legislature may legislate with respect to the qualifications of attorneys. 456. Chief Justice Taney stated succinctly and Furthermore. His cooperation with the attorneys at law is inconsistent with the dominant purpose of making the court is due "whenever justice would be imperiled if cooperation was judicial independent of the legislative department. 471. by the rules and practice of common-law courts.. C.A. and restraining authority over the knavish. 565. (p. 119 N. and to protect itself in this the prerogatives of an attorney at law. subject to legislative control. those lacking in sufficient learning. 19 How. 20 Ann. 34 L. Ed. It has always been the general practice in this country court in admitting an attorney to practice is the judgment of the court. 48 Kan. Ed." Without such attorneys at law the judicial department of government not be inferred in the absence of express constitutional provisions. 489. but is of attorneys under the common law. both in this country and England. Cas. 470. The idea that the Legislature might gain. for assisting in its work. 12). 451) learning. belong for. 1030. 572.L. While the would be hampered in the performance of its duties. Eq. in answering a practice law is a constituent element of that entity. as are attorneys at law in order that public interests may be protected. in People ex rel.W. 1021. is attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function. said: that element and say with assurance that it is either a part of the inherent power of the court. the court Ed.R. except New Jersey (In re Reisch. also that the public be protected from incompetent and law. PAMINTUAN regarded as an entity. 18 L. Brigham. Rep." One is admitted to the bar "for something more than private separate and independent of one another. litigant.J. 19 How. but made of it a separate independent. 15 L.L. Egan. 43. that it rests when it is in pursuance of a legislative functions. "It has been It is quite likely true that the legislature may exercise the power of appointment well settled. Admission to the bar is accomplish qualifications do not constitute only a minimum standard and limit the class and made open and notorious by a decision of the court entered upon its from which the court must make its selection. as an attorney and counselor. 450) respect from the unfit. upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning and exercised by the courts. Hanson vs. no matter where regarded as sufficient evidence of the possession of the requisite legal the power to determine the qualifications may reside. 843. and and sound moral character. This arises from the need of enlightened coordinate branch of the government. and an to obtain this evidence by an examination of the parties.727) N. but that it is a power belonging to the judicial entity and made of not laws that there be members of the bar of sufficient ability. It may be difficult to isolate consultation of the Senate of that State. Petition to that end is filed in courts.

"are not only officers of the court. But this power does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to admit. 65. and 472. It was so held by the court of attempt on the part of any of these departments would be a clear usurpation of its appeals of New York in the matter of the application of Cooper for admission. the legislative action. p. and hence their appointment may. It is the exercise of judicial power. and conduct causes therein. 229. Any and has been so held in numerous cases. The Admission to practice of law is almost without exception conceded everywhere existing laws on pleading. giving careful consideration to the responsibility which the nature of each them to grant new trials. practice. profession requires it. increase or modify substantive rights. — 16 C. disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the The judiciary cannot consent that its province shall be invaded by either of the legal profession. it is very and supplement them may and should be exercised with the respect that each owes to plain it cannot do so directly. The Congress shall have the power to exercise of one of the inherent powers of the court.L.S. — Constitution of the Philippines. in performing his duty. or supplement the rules concerning pleading. Ex parte Hoyfron. and although this Court certainly can heard has been afforded. and not the legislative nor executive department. VIII. it is a office during good behavior. for justifiable reasons. may and should examine if the existing rules on the admission to the Bar respond to . 81. practice. and are responsible to it for professional misconduct. but the authority and responsibility over the admission. and the admission We quote from other cases. and can only be deprived of it for misconduct judgment — a judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court during the aforecited ascertained and declared by the judgment of the court after opportunity to be year affecting the bar candidates concerned. — A. Constitutional Law. procedure. Admission to practice have also been held to be the Court to alter and modify the same. Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter. compelling the other. PAMINTUAN qualifications as attorneys and counselors. suspend. that may be so. The power The distinction between the functions of the legislative and the judicial to repeal. It will be noted that the Constitution has not conferred on Congress and this Tribunal 281 Pac. it is no less certain that only the exercise of a mere ministerial power. Its power is limited to repeal. The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit. this Court. Re Cooper 22 N.C. or a determinate group of individuals to the reference to transactions that are past or conditions that exist at the time of practice of law. article VIII of the Constitution provides: very justly considered as engaged in the exercise of their appropriate judicial functions. They hold their admitted in mass to the practice of law. the power to promulgate and enforce If the legislature cannot thus indirectly control the action of the courts by rules for the admission to the practice of law and the concurrent power to repeal. but officers whose duties relate almost exclusively That the Constitution has conferred on Congress the power to repeal. Section 13. other departments of the government. R. functions. 102 Wash. admission or their exclusion is not revoke these judgments even now. and the distinction is a vital one and not subject on the matter. or directing what department requires. 172 Pac. and are entitled to appear as such In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar examinations of 1946 to 1952. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish. if according to its judgment the need for a better service of the legal to alteration or change either by legislative action or by judicial decree. These powers have existed together for centuries without particular steps shall be taken in the progress of a judicial inquiry. alter and supplement the rules does not signify nor permit that Congress departments is that it is the province of the legislature to establish rules that substitute or take the place of this Tribunal in the exercise of its primary power on the shall regulate and govern in matters of transactions occurring subsequent to matter. and is an inherent power of the court.. may practice of law. alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this Court. the harmonious delimitation being found in that the legislature Constitutional Limitations. 192. said that court. State Bar of California. the following pertinent portions: to the practice of law. alter or to proceedings of a judicial nature. 1512. as is the case with the law in question. be entrusted to the court. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. while the judiciary determines rights and obligations with disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law. alter. subject to the power of the Supreme with citations in this point. power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in this Court. the disputed law is not a legislation. modify or supplement the existing rules the exercise of judicial power. by settling aside their judgments. alter requiring of them construction of the law according to its own views. See Annotation on Power of Legislature respecting admission equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. ordering the discharge of offenders. Brydonjack. From its entry the parties become officers of the a general average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. 650-651). and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. Admission to the practice of law is the exercise of a judicial function. On this matter there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it. the primary to bar. repeal. suspension. Being coordinate and independent branches. and procedure in all courts. Art. 906." (pp. with supplement the rule promulgated by this Tribunal. Section 13.J. concerning the admission to the propriety. practice and procedure are hereby repealed as to be the exercise of a judicial function. and this opinion need not be burdened statutes. and the latter. "Attorneys and Counselors". sec. Congress may and legislative departments of the government. — Re Bruen. Y. A. repeal. 1018. suspend. and are declared Rules of Court. 13. — Cooley's diminution on each part. be court. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading. is no valid argument. vs.6 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O.

fact to the satisfaction of said court. but now "possesses the necessary qualifications of learning and ability. accepted the fact that such appointments had been made as satisfactory attorney for the Moro Province. 136. evidence of the qualifications of the applicant. however. and articles 13 to 16 of Act 190. It is urged that having in mind be admitted to the practice of law without a previous examination. the applicant in this admission of certain candidates without examination. the Court held: of Land Registration. Provided. PAMINTUAN the demands which public interest requires of a Bar endowed with high virtues. or assistant attorney for the Moro Province. illustrates our criterion." rather complementary to each other in attaining the establishment of a Bar that would respond to the increasing and exacting necessities of the administration of justice. of the Philippine Islands. prosecuting attorney for the City of Manila. They are ourselves that despite his failure to pass the examination on that occasion. 1902 of the Congress of the United States.. which would be delinquent in the performance of our duty to the public and to the has the inherent responsibility for a good and efficient administration of justice and the bar. in the face of this affirmative indication of the deficiency of the applicant supervision of the practice of the legal profession. articles 2. dated March 23. shall have held. In the case under consideration. We supplemental rules." as used in the above citation from Act of Congress of July 1. and in view of the context tribunal refused to give his license without previous examinations. Section 2 of Act No.7 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. under the authority of the United States. 1907. if. shows that he received an average of only 71 . Solicitor General. 16 and 17 of Act No. or the position of Attorney General. or at any time thereafter. A recently accompanied by satisfactory proof that he has held and now holds the office enacted law provided that one who had been appointed to the position of Fiscal may of provincial fiscal of the Province of Batanes. applicant was not and never had been practicing attorney in this or any other and failed to pass the prescribed examination. prior to the passage of this act. and the judicial power. The court said: generally and especially of the fact that the amendment was inserted as a proviso in that section of the original Act which specifically provides for the Relying upon the provisions of section 2 of Act No. defining or limiting the power Islands under the sovereignty of Spain or of the United States and are in good conferred upon the commission is to that extent invalid and void. it affirmatively appears that the The records of this court disclose that on a former occasion this appellant took. we have city attorney of Manila. are not repugnant. The legislature may. as and regular standing as members of the bar of the Philippine Islands at the transcending its rightful limits and authority. 37. without first satisfying admitting. disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law is realized. we should grant him reforms the lofty objective that is desired in the exercise of its traditional duty of license to practice law in the courts of these Islands. and see to it that with these presented his former application for admission to the bar. Assistant Attorney General. enacted February 28. upon motion before the Supreme Court and establishing such date of their appointment. by giving the word "may. is as follows: And after copying article 9 of Act of July 1. Guariña took prescribed examination "upon motion before the Supreme Court" examination and failed by a few points to obtain the general average. suspending. But it is contented that under the provisions of the above-cited statute the applicant is entitled as of right to be admitted to the bar without taking the The case of Guariña (1913) 24 Phil. have the power exercised. by means of appeal. culture. and it board. Speaking on the application of the law to those who were appointed to the positions judge of the Court of First Instance. the Court continued: Sec. or judge or associate judge of the Court enumerated. The Government the object which the legislator apparently sought to attain in enacting the appointed Guariña and he discharged the duties of Fiscal in a remote province. without taking the prescribed examination. assistant attorney in In the various cases wherein applications for the admission to the bar under the office of the Attorney General. That any person who. The report of the examining jurisdiction prior to the date of his appointment as provincial fiscal. fill up any deficiency that it may find. should consider these reforms as in the required qualifications of learning in the law at the time when he the minimum standards for the elevation of the profession. provincial fiscal. time of the adoption of this code. mandatory construction is imperatively required in order to give effect to the on the ground that he holds the office of provincial fiscal for the Province of apparent intention of the legislator. Those who have been duly licensed under the laws and orders of the 1902. This above-cited amendment to the earlier statute. and in a case such as that under consideration wholly destroyed. the position of justice of the Supreme Court. Paragraph one of section thirteen of Act Numbered One Hundred and ninety. 1907. It is contented that this case seeks admission to the bar. and with particular emphasis in the case of Guariña. and to the candidate's claim de jure to Batanes. the jurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by the commission follows: and confirmed to it by the Act of Congress would be limited and restricted." is hereby amended to read as Manifestly. 1597. or of any Act of Congress prescribing. exercise within their proper constitutional limits. 1. amendment or examined. assistant city attorney of Manila. 1597. entitled "An Act providing a Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the Philippine Islands. 2. he powers which. thus falling four points short of the required percentage of 75. per cent in the various branches of legal learning upon which he was training and responsibility. But in all of those cases we had may be licensed to practice law in the courts of the Philippine Islands without reason to believe that the applicants had been practicing attorneys prior to the an examination. the provisions of this statute have been considered heretofore.

like those in the case of Day and Cannon. that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law administration of justice." and whose course of study began prior to Commission. The law make a classification. we do — In re Day et al. but the place where such physician has resided and practiced virtue of diplomas from law schools issued to the applicants." approved March 28. This class is subdivided into two classes — . long as the law establishing classes in general. After said provision there is a double proviso." The amendment. not think that his appointment to the office of provincial fiscal is in itself satisfactory proof if his possession of the necessary qualifications of learning . 878). sought to retain him in the Government service by appointing November 4. and had studied for two years and reasonable basis for different one. and to collect fees therefor. shall be admitted upon a satisfactory examination by the him to the office of provincial fiscal. any classification must July 1. or ability to engage in such consists in the addition to the section of the following: "And every application practice.E. 1897. it is clearly a special examinations prescribed by general rule. entitled "An act to amend section 1 of an act entitled "An act to revise the law 18 Atl. The act of the his profession cannot furnish such basis. one branch of which is that and ability. 54 N. 881). 66.E. Ellis. may furnish a basis for classification (Williams vs. is making an enactment based upon it void (State vs.) a committee of the court upon his application therefor. or to those who had studied for three years if People. II N. they commenced their studies after the aforementioned date. for the license. and plainly. 1899. either in a law or office or a law school or college. Here the legislature undertakes to say what shall serve as a test in relation to attorneys and counselors. The Supreme Court Ct. law. of the fact that when he took the examination he fell only two years. and the skill acquired by experience. 255. and creates certain exemptions. each of such years. 113. a law enacted on February 21. (p. vs. The right to practice law is a privilege. — (In re Guariña. 48-49. have some reference to learning. this court shall grant a license of admittance to the in the courts of the Philippines. Railroad Co. therefore. 35 N. Const. declared that this law was unconstitutional being.) legislation.Y.S. character. "and part that the Chief Executive. first. The proviso is limited. and a license for that purpose makes the holder an officer of the court. however. 1874. 98. Pennyeor. If the legislature had any right to admit attorneys to practice in the courts and take part in the It is obvious. it is arbitrary and unreasonable. among others. People. to argue The law in question. 1897. and could prescribe the character of evidence which belongs exclusively to this Court. in framing an enactment for that purpose. provided he offers satisfactory confers substantial rights and privileges upon the persons named therein. and has some reasonable until December 31 of that year. and is an arbitrary discrimination. 165 U. 1897. it could only be done by a general law. and invalid as such. a class legislation. conferring such privileges must be general in its operation. or to those who had studied in a law legislation. so far as it appears in the enacting clause. which. 150. prohibited by the constitution. 454. . This is an application to this court for admission to the bar of this state by 48. 62. and accompanied with the usual proofs of good moral office of the governor of the Province of Sorsogon and presumably gave character. as an enactment.8 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. or as other authorities say. such as suffer from the fatal defect of being a class legislation. PAMINTUAN further affirmatively appears that he was deficient in the required qualifications admission to the bar in force at the time such applicant commend the study of at the time when he last applied for admission to the bar. . bar to the holder of every diploma regularly issued by any law school regularly organized under the laws of this state. if he desires so to do. There must be some difference which furnishes a who began studying before November 4. persons or classes of persons. it is by virtue of the proviso. 1597 in waiving in his case the ordinary right to admission exists at all. 1899 required of the Supreme Court..E. should be denied. and showing that the student began the study of law prior and in view also of the fact that since that time he has held the responsible to November 4. and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of should be received by the court as conclusive of the requisite learning and permissive character. 65 N. to a class of persons who began the study for a license who shall comply with the rules of the supreme court in regard to of law prior to November 4. If the above-cited provisions of Act No. section 2. has been found also to causes. People 121 Ill. without prejudice to his right. whose regular course of law studies is In view. The other branch of the proviso is that any student who has studied evidence of such marked ability in the performance of the duties of that office law for two years in a law office. to grant license for the practice of law to those students relation to the end sought. 1897. having no just relation to the subject of the presented a diploma issued by a school of law. Ritchie vs. Braceville Coal Co. merely to fix the minimum conditions ability of persons to practice law. may classify persons so In the case of Day. office and would pass an examination. and evidence of his proficiency in a special examination which will be given him by establishes rules of legislative creation for their admission to the bar. with the consent and approval of the Philippine in the aforesaid law school. general assembly passed in 1899. 155 Ill. under which the application is made. we think we would be justified under the examining board in the branches now required by the rules of this court. No doubt the legislature. 17 Sup. to present himself at any of the ordinary Considering the proviso. In the light of this affirmative proof of his defieciency on that occasion.E. or part of such time in a law office. 647. and that if it has intended to from jury services and arrest on civil process while attending court. and confers upon him the right to appear for litigants. examination prescribed by general rule. 147 Ill. vs. 1884. The Court said: The length of time a physician has practiced. shall be granted a license under this act notwithstanding any subsequent changes in said rules". art 4. We conclude therefore that this application for license to practice up to December 31. in force of fitness for the profession of the law. 646. it is claimed. 40 N. and requiring an attendance by the student of at least 36 weeks in four points short of the necessary grade to entitle him to a license to practice. pp. however. p.

151-153 as follows: But the statute is invalid for another reason. A law is not general because it operates on all within a clause possessors and cannot be arbitrarily taken from them. and courts have seriously considered whether the exemption from years in a law office. 424) commanded the before December 31. 1924 and whose disability is persons. which will furnish a basis of classification. In the case of Cannon above cited. and not generally on all. 122 Wis. such examinations of those practicing in the state at the time of the enactment who are to be admitted upon examination in the subjects specified in the of the law rendered such law unconstitutional because of infringement upon present rules of this court. Thomas Call.E. conditions and limits of time are fixed." This right may in many respects be considered as a distinguishing it can be defended. Ed. have obtained a general average of 69. or. known as "World War Veteran's Act.9 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. conditions of the rules are dispensed with. 345. is to be admitted without examination A statute of the state of Minnesota (Laws 1929. some situation and circumstances of all other members of the state in relation to the requiring years of study and great learning for their successful prosecution. and. 129 U. 9 S. subjects of the discriminatory legislation as presents a just and natural cause The interest. must be founded upon pertinent and real the case of Dent. That power must be classification to be valid must rest upon material differences between the exercised through general laws which will apply to all alike and accord equal person included in it and those excluded and. and without any prescribed course of study. 178 Minn.5 per cent in the bar examinations in . have been December 31. and as to this latter subdivision there seems to be this general principle. Here all vocations are all open to every the situation and circumstances of all the members of the class and the one on like conditions. That fact in no matter affect the themselves to practice in two years as well as those who began on the 3rd. see. Jur. Those who began the study of law November 4th could qualify other qualifications to entitle him to that right. PAMINTUAN First. 114.W. As the rule has sometimes avoided the qualifications of those desiring to pursue chosen callings. the court also held with regards to its aspect of being a class legislation: A good summary of a classification constitutionally acceptable is explained in 12 Am. there must be such a difference between feature of our republican institutions. 151-153. right to practice law and that one time he possessed the requisite learning and Plainly not. 101 Wis. If it be granted that the legislature has power to prescribe ultimately and definitely the qualifications upon which courts must admit and license those applying as attorneys at law. Speaking of the right of the Legislature to exact upon substantial distinctions. 1897. 647-648. Cannon and assumes to confer upon him the right to its managers may prescribe is made all-sufficient. legislature attempted by law to reinstate Cannon to the practice of law. West Virginia. 32 differences. 179. In other words. without a grade below 50 per cent in any requiring medications to establish the possession on the part of the application subject. Justice Field in constitutional prohibition. while individual upon whom it would confer its favors. that power The general rule is well settled by unanimity of the authorities that a can not be exercised in the manner here attempted. Therefore." This Act was held |unconstitutional on the ground that it clearly violated the quality clauses of the constitution of that state.W. 643. (12 Am. No course of study is prescribed for the law school. 468. and none is suggested. As to both classes. 227 N. and individuals to which it does not apply and must rest on some reason on which condition.C.) government that all similarly situated and possessing equal qualifications shall enjoy equal opportunities. If possessed of a diploma. any L. 121. Winkler vs. 28 S. Mr. 172. c. Cannon. all who as to the other the prescribed course must be pursued. the "estate" acquired in them — for the difference made in their liabilities and burdens and in their rights and that is. 331. power of the Legislature to select from the great body of the public an The classes named in the proviso need spend only two years in study. It is fundamental under our system of only. Pursuant to the law in question. where the Humphrey. 1924. The one who commenced on the 3rd. State vs. those who commenced the next day must spend three years. or part of the time in a law school and part in a law office. and as between the two different State vs. 517. Even statutes regulating the practice of medicine. vs. and the diploma is had served in the military or naval forces of the United States during the World utterly useless. 110.S. Can there be anything with practice law and to constitute him an officer of this Court as a mere matter of relation to the qualifications or fitness of persons to practice law resting upon legislative grace or favor. State vs. subject some substantial difference between the situation of that class and other only to such restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of like age. 121 N.W. 232. any more than their real unless there is a substantial reason why it is made to operate on that class or personal property can be thus taken. 626. 1899. Such classification cannot rest upon any natural reason. Whitcom. 99 N. although they would complete two years before the time limit. 441. as it is sometimes termed. said: "It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen of the United States law that is made applicable to one class of citizens only must be based on to follow any lawful calling. 1899. (pp. no limit of time for making application for admission. those who studied law for the period of two challenged. or War and received a honorable discharge therefrom and who (were disabled bear any just relation to the subject sought. sex. furthermore. 76 N. but a diploma granted upon the completion of any sort of course This law singles out Mr. second. those who. the also. 240 N. those presenting diplomas issued by any law school of this state before of his proper qualifications before he may be licensed to practice. business or profession he may choose. The State ex rel.) rated at least ten per cent thereunder at the time of the passage of this Act. pp. It is not material that he had once established his the mere date of November 4. All may be pursued as sources of livelihood. 233. The therein or thereby within the purview of the Act of Congress approved June proviso is for the sole purpose of bestowing privileges upon certain defined 7th. the right to continue their prosecution — is often of great value to the privileges. In re Application of George W. while Supreme Court to admit to the practice of law without examination. must be based opportunity to all. as distinguished from irrelevant and artificial ones. Jur. Ct.W. Rosenberg.

and who. and that in such form it is constitutional. It decrees the average of 75 per cent: in 1946 those who obtained only 72 per cent. This is doing directly what the Tribunal should have done during those years should tend to improve and elevate the practice of law. 70. which vitiates and annuls article 2 since 1950. It in 1950 to 1953. It is therefore the primary and inherent prerogative of the corresponds to the judiciary. with the general the legislative powers of Congress to enact. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the deemed to be sufficiently justifiable. Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may continue in the practice of law according to existing rules. to wit: To defend the disputed law from being declared unconstitutional on account of its retroactivity. it admits. and third. by means of simply taking its are. The grave defect of this system is that it does not take into account that the 4. it is argued that it is curative. By the disputed law. What 1. inasmuch as a good bar assists to stop or suspend them. at indefinite intervals. the contested law suffers 1955. will be permitted to take and subscribe the is not expressed in the title will have temporary effect only from 1946 to 1955. alter or supplement the rules. 972 violated the cure of this infirmity. without having examined their respective lamented is that the Court did not consider 69. 1954. to which such duty been confided. and to complete the and alter them.5 per cent obtained by those candidates examination papers. and 73. only this Court and no other may revise lack of will or defect of judgment of the Court that is being cured. and determine if they are at present already prepared to become members of the Bar. In this case. it is obvious that its nullity affect authorities. by reason of circumstances manner. and this Tribunal shall consider according to the judgment of Congress. the fatal defect is that the article per cent in 1954. article VI of the Constitution. which continue in force. And this power is not included in what the Constitution has immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential to a worthy granted to Congress. average indicated. 1953. and none has been given. because their purposes or effects violate the classification of unsuccessful candidates by years. The reason advanced for the pretended classification of candidates. 71. because it falls within the power to apply the rules. This power administration of justice. in the 1947 and admission to the Bar of these candidates. Neither is the exclusion of those who failed before said years under the same from these fatal defects. were not included because the Tribunal has no record of the second. This purpose. The disputed law clearly does not propose 2. admission to the Bar of law students inadequately prepared. the text corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar. Because it is. 74 per cent. suspension. classification is fatally defective. The system that the said law classification is arbitrary.5 for this and other disadvantages. those who obtained 74 per cent. What Congress petitions of these 810 candidates. unconstitutional and therefore. those years were all that could be objected to or criticized. In other words. 1941 or the years before. notwithstanding that the rules of article 2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. Article 2 of the law in question permits partial passing of examinations. in effect. in 1948. Constitution or its basic principles. from 1946-1951. Such additional or amendatory rules rules promulgated. manifest in the 3. the power exercised was not these rules as minimum norms towards that end in the admission. conditions justified. PAMINTUAN 1946 to 1951. the effectivity of the disputed law is being extended up to the years Constitution. void. which the law laws and jurisprudence are not stationary. 1954 and 1955. Now. but was abandoned . What was done was disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar. and without any force nor effect for the following reasons. and those will obtain 72. as they ought to be. a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the to do so. The pretended seriously affecting in this manner his usefulness. and when a candidate finally receives his makes. Concededly. because they are not within It was indicated that those who failed in 1944.5 per cent in 1953. These changes in the passing averages during Supreme Court. As has already been seen.5 per cent in 1955. 1952. This fact does not justify the unexplained constitutional principles. Is there any motive of the nature indicated by the abovementioned completely. 972 is equal consideration. prescribes was used in the first bar examinations of this country. however. increasing each year the general average by one per cent. then the the entire law. Laws are unconstitutional on the following grounds: first. 1953. it is the resolution at any time for justifiable reasons. It is undoubtedly a class legislation. In attempting to do it directly Republic Act No. it is desired to undo what had been done — cancel the license that was issued to those who did not obtain the prescribed 75 per cent ? Certainly not. The fact that this Court has no record of examinations prior to 1946 does not signify that no one concerned may prove by some other means his right to an Summarizing. because they create or establish arbitrary methods or forms that infringe unsuccessful candidates of those years. alter said law. it approves what has been done by this Tribunal. This is contrary to require a minimum general average of 75 per cent.10 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. are certainly inadequately prepared to the Tribunal permitted admission to the bar of candidates who did not obtain the general practice law. which has been invariably followed Section 21 (1). but the will or judgment of the Court. with the order that said candidates be admitted to the Bar. Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar does Rep. and because it is inseparable from article 1. intended to regulate acts subsequent to its promulgation and place. it may happen that the existing laws and jurisprudence are already different.5 per cent in 1952. we are of the opinion and hereby declare that Republic Act No. is contrary to facts which are of general knowledge and does not justify the certificate. depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to those who had 69 per cent or more. 70 per cent and in 1949. to repeal. and although it is admitted that this Tribunal may reconsider said who failed in 1946 to 1952 as sufficient to qualify them to practice law. or Congress has exceeded its powers. for this classification ? If there is none. Act 972 intend to cure ? Only from 1946 to 1949 were there cases in which examinations of 1946-1952. is the best proof that what the law attempts to amend and correct are not the and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. as was exactly found by this Court in the aforesaid years. which was considered by the Court obliges the Tribunal to perform something contrary to reason and in an arbitrary as equivalent to 75 per cent as prescribed by the Rules. Hence.

972 18 announced their decision not to take part in voting. article (72 per cent and above 73 per cent --- VII of the Constitution. Prof. Sixto de la Costa. Jose Teodoro who was substituted by Atty. Atty. Chairman. is valid and shall continue to be in force. Labrador.5 per cent or more. members. Hon. and Reyes. Atty. Federico Agrava. Bausan. Joaquin Ramirez. Atty. after hearing and availing of the magnificent Number of candidates who passed 85 and impassioned discussion of the contested law by our Chief Justice at the opening Number of candidates who failed 121 and close of the debate among the members of the Court. Atty. they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the chief Justice may set. Jamora. we. Article 2 of Republic Act No. October. follows: the entire law is void. and after hearing the judicious observations of two of our beloved colleagues who since the beginning have Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Members. Atty. That. Atty. After this decision has become Percentage of failure (per cent) 47. Hon. Guevara. are considered as having passed. and being inseparable from the provisions of article 1. Carlos B. insofar as it concerns the Florendo. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. in conformity with section 10. Bienvenido A. and (2) all candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.20 whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. 972 Number of candidates whose grades were raised 43 70. August. 972 referring to the examinations November.62 who subscribed to this decision have voted and resolved. therefore. Emilio Peña. Minutes of March 31. without Number of those affected by Republic Act No. PAMINTUAN 5. Passing grade (per cent) 72 (By resolution of the Court). Gerardo examinations of 1953 to 1955. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law. for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices. JJ. 1946. the eight members of the Court Percentage of success (per cent) 41. and Hon. concur. Honesto K. Atty.74 Passing grade (per cent) 72 1. Atty. Hilado. said part of article 1. 1947) Number of candidates who passed 249 Consequently. ANNEX I Number of candidates 749 PETITIONERS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 972 43 having a grade below 50 per cent in any subject. Board of Examiners: The same as that of August. shall continue in force. Padilla. Atty. 19461 6. and have decided for the Court. Montemayor. contrary to A resume‚ of pertinent facts concerning the bar examinations of 1946 to 1953 inclusive what the Constitution enjoins. (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the Number of candidates who failed 228 examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied. examinations in those years. 1946 of 1946 to 1952. void and without force and effect. Atty. Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 referring to the Board of Examiners: Hon. Number of candidates 206 Number of candidates whose grades were raised 12 RESOLUTION 73'S 6 72'S 6 Upon mature deliberation by this Court. that is from 1953 to 1955 Number of candidates whose grades were raised 19 inclusive.11 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Pedro Tuason. 1947 Board of Examiners: Hon. Simon Cruz. except Hon. Tan. Percentage of success (per cent) 52. Crispin Oben. that part of article 1 which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law. and under the authority of the same: Percentage of failure (per cent) 58. Jose Teodoro. Pablo.80 final.. Jugo. Celso B. So ordered. Hon. Antonio Araneta.55 per cent with 2 subject below 50 per 1 cent . Guillermo B. Number of candidates 481 2. Bernardino Guerrero. Federico Agrava. Cesar Bengzon. Bengzon. and (b) all of article 2 of said law are unconstitutional and. Chairman. Hon. Jose Perez Cardenas.

Percentage of success (per cent) 32. Atty. Hon.--In passing the 2 whose grades were 68.95 per cent and 68.60 Number of candidates who passed 1. Members. Fernando Jugo. Barrera. Enrique V. Alfonso Felix.2 Chairman. Jose Teodoro. 1952 Number of candidates 1. the Court found out that they were (The grade of 74 was raised to 75 per cent by recommendation not benefited at all by the bonus of 12 points given by the and authority Examiner in Civil Law. Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Hon. Chairman. Hon. J. 972 26 Federico Agrava. Sabino Padilla. Emilio (74's) Peña. Guevara. of the examiner in Remedial Law. 972 972 August. August. Hon. Francisco Delgado). Antonio Horrilleno.. Pablo. 972 196 August. Hon. Atty. 1951 71's 29 Board of Examiners: Hon. Hon.14 Hon. Hon. Enrique V. Atty. Sr. Arturo Alafriz. Sabino Padilla. Filamor. Mariano H. Marcial P. Number of candidates who passed 686 Atty. Hon. Filamor. Atty.218 Board of Examiners: Hon. 1948 Number of candidates who passed 432 Board of Examiners: Hon. Hon. Fernando Jugo. Emilio P. Hon. Vicente Albert. Pastor M. Number of candidates who failed 894 Luis P. Chairman. Enrique Altavas. Jesus G. Marceliano R. Lichauco.1 per cent respectively. Percentage of failure (per cent) 42. Guillermo F. Salvador Araneta. 1950 Percentage of success (per cent) 54. Hon.. Hon. Percentage of failure (per cent) 67. Pastor M. Delgado. Number of candidates who failed 532 Number of candidates 2. Members. 972 164 Number of candidates whose grades were raised 163 (74's) . Atty.189 Passing grade (per cent) 70 Number of candidates who failed 879 (by resolution of the Court). Atty. Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Atty. August. Emeterio Barcelon.86 Number of candidates 899 Passing grade (per cent) 75 Number of candidates whose grades were raised 64 August. Torres.12 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Felipe Passing grade (per cent) 75 Natividad. Enrique Filamor..28 68 per cent 2 Percentage of failure (per cent) 43.59 Board of Examiners: Hon. Rafael Amparo. Atty. Atty. Atty. Hon. Hilado. Hon. Enrique Altavas. Atty. Chairman Hon. Number of candidates whose grades were raised 55 Endencia. de Joya.316 Number of candidates whose grades were raised 38 Note. Hon. Felipe Natividad.738 Number of those affected by Republic Act No. 972 11 Number of candidates 2. Hon. Passing grade (per cent) 69 Hon. Atty. Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Hon.49 Board of Examiners: Hon. Atty.51 Endencia. Macario Peralta. 1949 Percentage of success (per cent) 57. Montemayor. Atty. Members. Macario Peralta. Number of candidates who failed 409 Filamor. Members. Federico Agrava. Francisco A. Francisco Ortigas. Manuel Lim.40 Number of candidates whose grades were raised 112 (74's) Percentage of failure (per cent) 37. Number of candidates 1. Hon. Atty.068 Percentage of success (per cent) 62. Chairman. Hon. Hon. Felipe Natividad. Endencia. Sr. Guillermo Percentage of failure (per cent) 45. Carlos B. PAMINTUAN 69 per cent 40 Percentage of success (per cent) 56. Hon. (by resolution of the Court). Pastor 70's 35 M. Members. Virata.72 Number of candidates who passed 409 Passing grade (per cent) 74 Number of candidates who failed 340 (by resolution of the Court). Hon. Felipe Number of candidates who passed 490 Natividad. Sr. Antonio Araneta. Alfonso Ponce Enrile. Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Alfonso Felix.41 B. Enrique V.

PAMINTUAN Number of candidates who passed 1. Irineo E.15 5.75 3. Amando C.4 motions for reconsideration without invoking said law. Conrado O. 972 426 MRD.4 PETITIONER UNDER THE BAR FLUNKERS' LAW 29. Atty. MRD. Anacleto A. Fernando Jugo. 63 82 76 75 81 84 65 75 72. Pol. 63 85 70 77 80 81 65 80 71. Hon. Hon.15 Emilio Peña. 75 81 81 79 72 73 65 70 73.9 36.95 Number of candidates 2. 31. Atty. Enrique Altavas. 76 80 66 75 72 70 60 75 69. 77 86 71 80 60 82 65 75 71. Alfonso Felix. 64 77 68 82 89 77 65 75 72. 71 68 66 75 63 75 70 88 69. Corona. Passing grade (per cent) 75 23. Antonio V. Bandon. 76 80 62 86 81 72 60 65 70. Carlos. David D. Mejia.85 MRD. with annotations as to who had 25. 66 80 66 71 93 72 55 70 69. 75 77 70 81 81 77 65 80 73. Abaya. Pastor M.5 Percentage of failure (per cent) 38. 15. 75 73 73 65 63 66 65 80 69. Dizon. Cornejo.8 Number of those affected by Republic Act No. Blanco. Baquero. Olvido D. 68 76 73 81 81 72 60 75 71. 75 83 69 80 81 83 55 85 72. Flaviano V.15 MRD.73 9.04 21. Amog. grouped by the years in which they took the bar examinations. Bernardo 75 80 64 78 74 67 65 70 70 Number of candidates whose grades were raised 100 (74's) 17. Francisco Ortigas. 72 75 69 82 83 79 65 80 73. 74 79 69 77 91 73 60 80 73. Gatchalian. 75 84 78 78 70 70 60 75 71. 66 71 61 76 80 83 73 75 71.033 7. 76 62 78 77 73 72 60 70 71. 64 64 65 68 83 74 68 80 69. Rem. Gallardo.35 Number of those affected by Republic Act No.1 MRD. Bandala.6 Number of candidates who failed 986 19. 40.95 4. Alfredo L.8 Passing grade (per cent) 75 10. Alawadin L.5 Percentage of success (per cent) 61. de la Rosa. Clarin.3 Number of candidates who passed 1.4 MRD.13 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Chairman.705 1949 Number of candidates who failed 1. 80 88 69 75 76 77 65 75 73. 68 65 74 80 85 75 60 75 71. Felipe 14. which are still pending. 972 284 20. Claudo. Cerezo. Antonio Lu.8 presented motions for reconsideration which were denied (MRD). Baldivino. Atty. Mariano L. Garcia. 69 79 75 75 71 89 55 75 70. Agunod. Crim.95 MRD. Candido D. Jesus A.6 . Manuel L. Victoriano 75 71 72 78 67 82 60 75 70. Enriquez. Alacar. Leg. 13. 75 72 75 82 76 77 65 75 73. Estela S. Members. Crisanto R. Cunanan.555 16. Benjamin 76 79 64 77 85 72 65 75 72. Balintona. 39. Vivero. Macario J. Angel L. Agraviador. Hon. Condevillamar. Fernandez. Filemon L.85 33. 69 76 76 79 71 80 55 80 70. Soledad R. 972. Orlina. Freidrich M. Canon. Jose S. follows: 27. Pedro V. 32. Buenaluz.27 8.45 2. Gregorio O. Salud 72 66 71 75 78 68 65 50 69. Guillermo 77 86 67 88 75 69 70 85 73. Hon.570 18.7 MRD. Advincula. Banawa. Garcia. Julian L. 82 77 71 77 76 77 60 75 73.65 Civ.65 6. Hon. Jose B.5 Percentage of success (per cent) 62. Garcia. Marcial C.05 August. Agustin P. 75 82 76 81 73 69 70 75 73. 76 82 73 81 74 83 60 85 73. 12. Jose 75 75 70 75 77 76 60 90 72. Jr. Espiritu.85 T..95 Endencia. Percentage of failure (per cent) 37. Benjamin S. Pascual C. Miguel S. 78 70 70 75 81 83 60 60 72. Aquino.55 24. 37. Gen. Av. Int. Asinas. de la Cruz. Canda. Leon Mo. Maximo G. 61 63 83 79 71 85 65 80 72. 78 79 67 77 76 75 60 65 70. Land Merc.65 Natividad.95 38. 1.2 Board of Examiners: Hon. 1953 11.9 A list of petitioners for admission to the Bar under Republic Act No. Pedro M.4 30.8 1948 35. 76 86 69 83 75 74 65 80 73. 75 66 76 78 81 74 55 85 72.96 22. Garcia. Apolinario. and who filed mere 26.95 28. 34. Albino 76 72 74 75 70 70 65 72 71. 75 65 72 82 82 69 60 80 71.

de 77 76 66 81 74 76 60 75 70. Felipe 66 71 75 81 67 74 60 70 68. Genoves. Leyson.14 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Hechanova. Linao. Libanan. Jocom. Semilia. de 75 83 67 79 78 85 60 75 72.6 61. Serafin C. Sarmiento. Remigio 65 75 74 80 70 70 65 85 70. 72 70 65 78 81 90 60 80 71. Gaudencio 77 79 70 75 70 75 60 75 70. Josefina R.6 110. Santiago C. Porfirio D.1 106. Abasolo. Basilio S. Odon R.2 65. 78 75 66 77 76 83 65 75 72. Marcelino 71 83 61 77 80 81 65 85 71. Ungson. 75 84 72 77 70 82 60 75 71. Gonzales.6 108. Felipe D. Alfredo P.6 103. 62 77 74 73 68 80 70 80 70. Patalinjug.75 43.25 53. Pimentel. Juan T. 76 76 68 80 79 79 50 75 70. Mariano A.9 MRD. Villacarlos. Leocadio T. 73 87 71 82 69 70 75 85 73. Rafael I.45 D. 76 78 63 75 74 61 75 79 71.4 98. Viado. Zabala.05 107. Crispulo P. 72 78 63 80 71 85 70 80 72. 68 69 76 71 77 82 65 75 72. Ananias G.2 67. Peñalosa. Benjamin G. 77 77 74 77 74 64 55 85 70. 75 71 71 75 86 75 60 75 72. Osias R.65 84. Amancio F. 60 78 68 79 84 88 62 93 71. Delfin A.7 94.15 88. Cuadrato 62 75 69 93 80 79 55 80 69. 77 75 68 82 69 72 65 75 71.95 MRD. Nicolas 77 84 56 76 73 82 60 85 70 85. 72 80 64 80 75 81 55 80 69. Seludo. Lim. 76 70 67 75 76 76 60 75 70. Eliezar M. 77 77 72 76 72 64 65 70 71. Juares.15 90. Jose C. Garcia. Jakosalem. 67 64 71 83 76 76 65 80 70. Guia. 48. Padua.55 99. Pedro 75 83 70 78 87 76 55 80 72. Kalalang. Ariston L. Crisogono 79 79 74 78 69 65 65 70 71.25 1951 73.6 62.65 58. Nicanor S. Palma. Rodriguez. 75 71 63 75 82 62 65 63 69. Filomeno de la 70 71 78 81 76 72 64 96 73.95 97. Vicente L. 72 84 69 81 70 82 65 75 71.4 56. 67 84 65 75 89 66 60 80 70.5 MRD. 80 75 69 80 72 80 65 80 73. Daniel G. 68 69 70 81 76 75 65 75 70. Jose V. Mercado. Casto P.55 109. 71 78 55 76 85 69 65 93 70. Luis P. 66 84 76 78 80 75 60 75 71. 77 75 60 75 77 85 60 75 70. Amado P.5 50. Saliguma. Rodil. Rodrigo C. Eriberto 73 77 78 73 78 71 55 75 71. Foronda.85 82. Paulin.85 60. Pido. Clarencio J. Manera. 73 63 68 75 70 69 75 75 71.25 52. Miranda.9 49. Francisco C. Manad.8 72.15 69. 67 83 61 81 91 74 60 75 70. 61 87 75 70 57 85 83 82 72.6 83. Proceso D. 71 75 82 71 55 87 55 75 69. 75 59 74 65 69 51 78 67 70.1 102. Adeva. 73 81 76 86 86 73 55 85 73.9 42. PAMINTUAN 41. Orosco.85 54.75 92. 75 76 66 75 76 60 77 76 72. Lopez. Regalario. de 70 75 71 79 65 80 65 80 70. Zosimo C. 76 81 67 82 74 77 65 80 72. Jacobo M.7 59.7 74. Lim. Villamil. Vicente 59 76 75 75 69 68 75 96 71. Robis. Lopez. 66 69 71 77 83 82 65 75 72.55 MRD.65 55. Fortunato A. Andres B.4 91. 78 71 72 81 61 84 55 85 70. Telan. 80 78 61 76 61 77 66 85 70. Española. Saez. Floro A.3 86. Tesorero.3 66. Amando A. 75 80 69 79 77 82 65 75 73. Jose F. 71.75 105. Jesus. 67 64 71 83 76 76 65 80 70.4 75. Santos. Fernando S. Benito B. Jose E. 75 85 68 78 69 67 65 69 70. Santos.15 100.9 81.25 70. Valentin S. Filoteo 82 83 73 82 61 87 65 70 73. 64.55 95. Palang. Aguilar. Mariano I. 72 71 70 78 77 84 60 75 71. Casimiro P. Layumas.35 44. Plantilla.3 51. Añosa. . Romero. Veyra. 75 75 72 81 69 77 60 75 71 46. Pablo S.25 76. Jose 67 70 74 75 75 90 55 80 70. Faustina C. 75 78 75 75 68 79 60 65 71 1950 63. Lopez. 71 68 68 76 75 85 55 75 69. Pablo S. Samano. Mancao. Pareja. Leonor S. Torre.4 57. Pañganiban. Vicente Z. Romulo 77 70 64 65 76 70 76 64 71. Amodia.3 87. Angelo P. Catalino P. 62 91 79 75 72 75 65 80 71.8 47.6 104. 68 85 55 83 89 79 65 80 71. 70 75 62 83 80 71 65 80 70.9 1948 101.35 77. Torre. de la 85 81 71 76 69 65 55 70 70.75 89. Simeon 62 68 71 80 74 90 65 75 70. Manoleto. 77 75 76 81 76 68 55 80 71. 67 81 75 72 79 81 55 80 71 93. Cruz.65 80. 69 83 75 76 81 75 65 75 73. 65 86 63 82 89 72 60 72 70. Fernandez.7 79. Arsenio N.95 96. 72 78 68 89 79 81 65 85 73.8 78. Torres. 68. Mariano M.85 45. Manuel C.

Emiliano 71 70 63 85 71 60 85 53 70.95 151. Jr. 172. Leodegario 73 67 66 80 81 65 81 75 73. 64 58 66 65 76 70 89 75 72. Jesus B. Guinald M. 60 75 74 70 74 70 80 75 71. 75 57 73 65 67 54 78 56 69. Jose N. MRD.1 142.8 144. Cabangbang. Cacacho. 74 74 75 75 71 69 75 71 73. Antiola. 70 72 74 75 67 70 77 69 72. Crispin B. Monico L. 68 76 75 70 71 70 81 66 73. Llenos.75 127. Dominador 75 61 72 75 74 71 67 66 71. Aquino. Manuel G. Monterroyo.75 161. Woodrow M. Calimlim. Montero. 80 78 66 75 81 72 62 73 72. Inandan. Briñas. 170. Jose B. Francisco U. Navallo. Atienza.9 MRD. Llanto. Deysolong. MRD. 73 79 68 65 73 69 75 79 72. Ibasco. 136. 71 69 74 70 76 52 79 72 71. Cesar L.1 114. Venancio M. de 63 73 60 85 75 75 90 70 72. Tomas P.5 138. Puzon. Guiani. 70 71 71 60 74 62 76 77 71.65 126.95 MRD. 163.9 118. Fernan. Jeremias L.25 140. 66 66 75 65 79 68 85 62 73.15 MRD. Genson. Jr. 70 73 62 75 72 69 85 71 72. 70 72 68 85 81 66 71 74 72. Bienvenido 75 72 72 70 69 61 75 60 70.25 154. Domingo L.65 MRD. Languido. Ad. Benjamin S. Farol. Meynardo R. Rey A. 131. M. 164. Salvador G.65 157. 66 69 67 60 78 52 83 61 69.85 MRD. Evencia C.1 162. Manio. 77 67 61 80 73 59 83 76 72. 66 82 69 60 69 52 83 75 70 159. 78 63 58 70 70 67 87 63 71. Balacuit. Alfonso 71 71 65 75 70 72 78 80 71. 78 79 63 75 73 75 81 59 73.1 171. Marcelo D. Cabrera. 70 77 63 65 75 66 84 64 71.25 MRD.75 MRD.35 117. 64 73 73 80 73 57 75 59 69. Nisce.2 147. Antonio del 78 78 70 60 79 67 69 76 72. Conrado S. Dacanay. 75 73 75 70 72 65 75 76 73. Ibarra. 150. Encarnacion 77 66 70 70 76 71 75 61 72.35 113. 71 78 68 80 86 51 82 75 73. Calilung. Martin. Jimenez. Maligaya. Eduardo S. 70 83 72 65 76 73 75 69 72. Casuga. S. C.05 133. Angelo B. 70 69 68 75 78 66 86 72 73. 67 88 66 85 73 68 78 75 72. 72 77 61 70 71 58 79 71 69.65 167.2 149. Arcadio P. 158.85 143. 165. Leon. 73 82 67 65 66 72 77 68 71. Avanceña. Eufemio P. Ireneo M. S.. Guina. Felisberto 66 62 72 75 70 62 83 62 70. Emilio V. Pablo L.35 128. Machachor.5 121.55 115. 146. Imperial. 75 66 70 65 72 81 70 79 72. Dimaano. 72 86 72 75 65 75 76 71 72. Federico S. Biason. Juan A.5 .05 141. 70 61 75 65 75 50 91 51 72. Natividad. 64 73 73 80 73 57 75 59 69.05 MRD.6 MRD. Priscilla 72 68 60 65 76 67 84 68 71.25 MRD. 63 71 63 85 70 61 85 79 70.7 119. 68 60 75 65 74 67 75 77 71. 130. Castro. Graciano P. 68 72 63 75 69 63 84 62 70. Camilo Z. Camello. 68 69 73 70 74 50 80 79 71.2 139. 72 78 75 75 72 56 82 77 73. Isagani A. PAMINTUAN 111. Sixto F.75 112. MRD.05 MRD.5 116. Demetrio M. 137. 134. 66 75 74 70 75 67 81 75 73. 61 89 75 55 73 63 75 78 70. Capistrano C.05 122. Leonardo S. Espinosa. Barinaga. 64 70 65 60 72 65 92 75 71. Gandioco.85 169. 148. Cabilao. Cruz. 75 70 70 75 72 61 75 78 72.65 MRD.6 MRD. Anastacio R. Cesar V. Kintanar. Florencio C.85 132. Benitez. 67 75 75 60 73 72 75 78 72.55 124.55 160.15 129. Magsino.15 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O.95 123. Castillo. 73 50 75 75 75 60 71 79 71. Fortunato C. 77 77 67 53 73 75 79 57 72.15 B.75 168. Gregorio 67 67 69 80 71 67 75 75 70. Sotero H. 72 82 60 60 69 70 68 72 62. Candido T. Campos. Pedro B. 120. 152. Praxedes P. Homeres.95 135. Buela. 69 74 75 75 68 65 76 70 71. Marcial. Monzon. Gastardo.2 166. Alberto M. 156. 71 71 75 65 70 58 75 69 70. Oscar 68 59 78 70 67 57 75 75 70. 71 88 70 75 64 69 71 62 70. Felix.3 MRD. Calimlim.75 153..55 125. Catalina 70 80 75 80 76 66 82 51 73.25 145.4 155. Barrientos. Lavilles. Camilo N. D. Castillo.1 Santiago B. Ambrosio 76 60 67 55 74 63 77 62 70. Soledad C.

. Rimorin-Gordo. de 204. 70 66 65 70 75 64 75 70 69. 71 87 78 81 64 63 74 76 72. Cayetano S. 70 83 61 83 72 87 72 70 71. Ramos-Balmori. 62 77 73 75 69 64 76 69 70 209. 175. 187. Adrias. 211. Vicente D. Tria. Ricardo 72 87 70 79 66 55 75 75 70. Francisco C. Santa Ana. Pedro 75 74 75 55 75 66 67 75 71.1 226. 75 92 90 68 65 64 68 60 73.7 223. Ceferino D. Pogado. Rey A. Samuel 73 79 72 75 71 59 84 65 73.2 MRP. Villagonzalo.25 228. Abellera.2 MRD. 76 74 68 65 65 65 88 75 73. Rigor. Abenojar. Nehemias C. Abinguna. Geronimo F. Camilo N. Mariano L. 77 69 65 75 81 75 70 75 73 219. Rosario. Pablo V. Domingo A.65 186.7 Felicidad 190. Velasco.3 193. Suson. MRD. Jose S. 78 83 50 89 76 77 70 70 70.45 229. Candido T. Fabian T.5 MRP. 75 76 66 80 72 63 82 69 72. 71 79 80 81 73 70 72 62 73.9 212. 77 84 83 80 69 70 61 65 73 203. Juan T. 194. Abella.65 182.8 198. 75 78 70 81 73 70 67 78 72. Agapito 73 76 73 85 75 63 62 75 70. 180. 71 76 81 83 79 52 72 70 73. Felino A. Ramos B. Oscar C. 66 72 73 75 67 68 77 69 70. Avelino A. Job R. 75 79 79 87 76 51 63 70 71. 174. Agapito N.65 . 75 72 75 75 65 70 76 64 72.65 214.2 MRP. Alcantara. Arteche. Deogracias A. 192. 65 72 75 75 71 67 78 76 72. Cesario Z. 213. 76 86 78 77 66 78 69 62 73. Tapayan. Estela 70 72 62 60 88 66 67 79 70. Ireneo I. Antonio. MRP.7 176. Serafin V. 73 76 68 75 74 68 80 53 72. 78 67 74 65 72 51 69 71 70. Prisco del 70 64 70 70 72 73 85 57 72. 70 81 76 81 70 66 77 58 72. Inocencio C.85 202. 64 83 93 91 68 59 60 60 71. 75 77 79 90 64 60 67 50 70. Almonte-Peralta.95 227.4 191. 75 73 62 65 78 59 75 66 70. Baclig. Balcita. Felipe 73 80 63 75 76 73 68 62 70. Adove. Azucena.3 MRP. 196.7 MRD. 178. PAMINTUAN MRD. Filomeno D. Antonio.7 MRP. Tado.7 197. 75 83 73 88 72 62 72 62 72. 201. Perez. Acosta. Abad. S. Torres.35 210. 77 81 72 65 73 60 76 75 73 MRP.7 Tiausas. Andres R. 200. del 75 91 65 75 68 68 79 62 72.16 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. 66 85 80 84 75 58 76 75 73. 68 71 71 70 70 63 82 71 71. Florentino P.4 185. 72 67 78 89 72 67 77 65 73.95 205. Añonuevo.35 221. Romulo R. 224.7 230. Redor. Agapito C. 73 71 72 91 75 67 65 53 70. Arcangel. Arribas. Ocampo. 75 85 71 73 76 65 68 65 71. 75 81 76 65 74 67 75 69 73. Isaac M. Santos. Foz. 65 80 73 75 68 79 65 75 70.2 199.6 225. Rosario. 64 76 67 65 76 72 76 53 69. 189. Villa.55 184.15 MRP. 177. Salem.3 1952 MRP.9 179. Abacon. 69 72 69 70 76 73 82 79 73. MRP. Aglugub. Aquilino 72 66 69 65 68 70 81 71 71.35 216. Agustin Ag. Teodorico 74 68 66 80 66 59 79 67 70. 75 83 61 88 76 67 79 75 73.2 215. Saavedra. Pablo 75 72 78 81 78 72 64 55 72. Santos. 72 70 69 55 66 70 77 75 70. Villarama. Miguel V. Regis. Dionisio N.75 222. Recinto. Alfredo N. 71 72 78 84 70 75 69 70 72. 231. Alano. Jr. 67 78 61 80 71 77 79 65 70. Valeriano V.75 188. Amodia. Andrada. 75 79 68 85 62 64 75 78 71. Carlos P. Julita A. Hipolito 69 72 75 60 69 54 78 66 70. Antonio F. 67 60 71 75 79 67 84 60 72. Doroteo R.8 MRD. Balacuit.05 MRP. 183. 72 72 75 81 61 67 73 65 70.95 206.3 208.7 MRP. Alandy.75 195. 75 78 89 75 70 54 66 75 73.9 Manuela 207. Almeda. Suico.5 218. Salazar. 67 77 57 78 69 70 69 80 67. Estelita C. Francisco K.75 MRP.1 220. Jose O. Aquino. 75 81 78 87 56 65 77 70 72. 76 72 75 75 68 62 76 79 73.85 217. Ludovico B.95 173. Atienza.65 MRD. Causin O.85 181. 76 85 66 87 63 77 75 77 73. Olaviar.

Eulogio 71 80 71 89 70 55 72 75 71 233.95 260. 70 80 79 79 68 72 64 78 71. Dusi. 79 80 73 82 63 77 75 50 73. Juan A. Benjamin S. Getulio R. 76 82 69 82 66 62 80 71 72. 248. 73 65 79 84 73 69 66 84 73. 75 70 53 87 78 63 76 91 71. Jr. Cabello.8 286. Cruz. Cabreros. Batucan. Cantoria. 272. Campos. 240. Binaoro. Cabugao. de 70 68 69 87 76 75 72 70 73. Melecio F.2 234. 67 85 62 91 72 63 76 80 70. 78 60 88 86 60 66 69 64 73. Daniel T. 274. Jose Y. MRP.4 281. Cabrera. Cunanan. Arsenio V. 70 75 72 86 80 55 68 79 71. MRP. PAMINTUAN 232. MRP. Jose M. Celso J.. 76 87 69 80 58 64 78 75 71. Barilea. Datu. Avelina R. O. Jr.65 MRP.6 245.2 250. 77 76 79 86 74 53 71 75 73.95 280. Agustin 71 76 76 80 70 71 75 71 73. Bejec. MRP.25 MRP.75 264.75 MRP. Calañgi.1 MRP.65 MRP.2 243. Castro. Jesus L. Bautista. 75 86 65 92 64 64 84 75 73.95 268. 73 69 78 83 73 59 70 82 72. Barrientos. 72 71 77 90 62 75 66 82 71. Jose 76 81 76 92 70 66 67 62 72.7 262. Conrado 67 78 71 90 65 75 72 60 70. Capacio. Cabegin.3 252.. 78 92 63 83 76 72 68 65 72. Bautista. Borres. MRP.75 MRP. Vicente M. B. Cobangbang. Cimafranca. 73 93 71 87 70 66 69 62 71.1 249. Honorato A. Castro. 239.05 246. MRP.8 256.15 266. Florentino R. Herminio 71 72 65 89 64 73 80 70 71. Cunanan. Dominador Z. Cartagena. Bihis. 78 71 73 76 79 56 69 60 71.17 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Cerio. Maximino L. 72 78 78 89 58 70 67 71 70.6 283. MRP. 78 80 75 75 70 55 72 80 72. 76 77 64 73 75 71 76 76 72. 275. Beriña. Gaudencio 70 78 72 73 77 69 64 80 71. V. 75 82 75 86 60 54 76 75 71. 68 87 78 86 79 50 80 60 73. MRP. MRP.35 244.85 B. 65 75 77 76 85 60 75 69 73.85 MRP. Calayag. MRP.35 MRP. B. Felicisimo R. . 261. Chavez.95 MRP. Gervasio M. Salvador F. Roger C.15 277.85 265. 66 76 78 88 62 76 67 78 71. Armando R. Canabal.2 263. 71 67 82 77 64 61 65 80 70. Conceso D. Marcelo M. MRP.45 254. Rosalio B. 66 85 83 84 67 61 80 57 73. Paulino N. D. Bobila. Irineo M. 238.85 270. 76 87 74 76 62 55 76 66 71. Cesar V. 236. 284.7 MRP. Crisostomo. 267.8 MRP. Mariano 80 75 78 77 73 71 63 76 73.15 235. Alfredo 75 93 81 76 64 75 68 56 73.9 278. 253. Ambrosio 76 70 67 80 67 65 70 81 70. Alejandro P. Capitulo. Pedro L. 71 68 63 87 80 67 80 70 72. 79 88 53 91 71 85 75 76 73. Alfonso R. 68 75 80 74 77 66 67 80 72.15 242. Belderon. 73 78 71 78 71 67 71 60 71. Beltran. Bueno. 269. Pablo N.5 251. Caluya. 257. Calzada. Cortez. Anastacio F. Belo.5 259. 75 80 77 81 75 63 71 75 73. Cornejo. 71 79 83 84 60 62 71 50 70.9 237.65 MRP. Campanilla. Victor B. Robustiano 74 84 77 84 75 63 68 62 72.85 282. Alfredo J. Atilano C.25 MRP.65 241. Cardoso. Crisanto R. Isabel 70 82 81 77 78 51 75 75 73. 76 86 76 83 68 59 71 78 73.8 285.75 273.45 MRP. Raymundo 75 81 79 85 72 57 68 75 72. Orlando 69 81 74 82 76 61 78 80 73. Chavez. Crisol. Canda.85 276. 255. R. Calupitan. 75 86 70 87 77 52 77 82 73. Juan A. 69 79 66 88 69 75 68 76 70. Buenafe. 72 75 81 73 75 57 75 80 73. Benaojan. Mateo C. Cauntay. 70 91 78 85 68 55 71 50 70. 70 82 64 92 67 75 73 76 71. Cesar de la 76 72 80 67 62 71 66 62 70.85 MRP. Angelita G.7 279. 70 82 84 85 58 61 71 62 71.45 271. Doroteo M.5 258. 72 71 76 75 74 70 71 60 72. Colorado. Jose C.65 247. Banta.

Fajardo. de la 76 88 72 74 60 71 79 79 73. Galem. Percival B.25 MRP.05 333. Galindo. Luis B.9 S.9 MRP. Encarnacion.55 317. Evangelista.85 297. Gaudioso R. Manuel L. Mateo de 76 79 79 73 72 69 68 80 73. Feliciano. Agapito B. Gracia. 70 79 77 79 79 50 73 75 72. 322.55 MRP. Familara. 70 76 82 73 79 70 72 56 73.9 293.65 314.5 306. 72 72 80 85 71 56 70 53 71. 304.85 319.85 298. Jose A. Nazario 72 79 71 77 68 61 76 60 70. Dionisio 70 78 89 66 65 75 70 50 72. Favila. Dionisio. Cesar 65 78 58 68 66 64 75 78 67. 78 72 77 83 67 60 68 73 72. 334. 68 93 85 78 64 69 70 54 72.9 335. Cirilo B. 342. A. Fajardo.75 339. Gonzales.35 290. Ducusin. Gaerlan. Sulpicio 65 77 75 89 75 62 75 65 72 327. 70 84 82 84 77 52 73 50 72. Carlos S. de 66 68 90 84 77 59 69 65 73. Carmelo 75 87 77 82 74 57 68 81 73. Eulalio D. Dacuma.18 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. MRP.4 328. 310. 70 83 82 83 70 63 75 65 73. Vicente N. 299.8 MRP.05 289. 71 61 74 72 61 66 78 75 70.5 336. Pedro R. Antonio S. 72 79 86 78 60 61 75 70 73. Claro C. 71 84 74 70 75 67 73 59 72. Guzman. 291. Guzman. Claudio R. 67 78 74 90 79 59 76 65 72. Fuggan. Lorenzo B.35 294. 71 69 70 85 69 81 72 70 72. 320. 77 75 71 89 55 70 70 60 70. Antonio G. 70 78 53 88 75 77 62 76 68.2 321. 338.05 MRP. Alberto M. Fohmantes. Fabros.75 MRP. Jose S. Diolazo.35 308. Fuente. 71 67 70 72 76 60 75 68 70. Estoista.25 MRP.95 295.65 325. Ganete.65 315. Galang. Salvador B. Alberto I. 76 79 81 86 67 63 69 55 72. 70 80 85 76 66 63 76 75 73. Gofredo.1 MRP.15 MRP. Edradan. Hilario B.05 323. Jesus S. Degamo. Gamalinda. 70 89 87 65 78 71 62 62 73.3 Z. 75 83 86 73 54 54 75 75 72. Balbino P. Jose S. Matias N. Fortich.8 303.65 292. 68 78 72 86 78 52 70 76 70. 69 80 75 81 68 62 73 68 71.75 312. Gomez. 77 69 82 83 65 60 75 75 73. Benjamin B. Galman.15 296. Lope F. Rafael C. Jose B. Ebbah. Jose Pe B. Jr. Ernesto A.2 340. Grageda. MRP. 73 77 86 79 70 76 64 50 73 MRP. Gamboa. 309. Fariñas.7 332.05 P. MRP. Gosiaoco. Agustin A. Duque. Dipasupil. 316. Dominador 70 69 81 82 68 63 71 75 72. MRP. 73 87 77 90 67 61 72 75 73. 71 76 71 81 76 63 69 62 70.85 307. 71 77 71 81 69 75 80 70 73. Delgado. Dionisio S. 75 67 80 82 67 57 64 70 70.2 329. Patrocinio G. B. 69 83 84 76 70 57 71 60 71. 331.25 MRP. Garcia. Gallos. 75 88 75 75 63 70 70 65 71. 311. Genaro P. PAMINTUAN 287. 78 76 74 86 58 67 70 76 71.65 MRP. Jacinto N.. 318. Enage. 337. Felicidad 75 75 72 87 63 63 77 70 72. 66 75 80 82 80 71 67 70 73. Juan de 75 86 69 84 64 79 75 76 73. Encarnacion. Domingo. 70 82 70 70 78 65 64 75 70.6 MRP.15 301. Jose M. Gallardo. 75 77 78 86 76 72 64 75 73. Edisa. Rosa C. 330. T. Fernando.25 MRP. 70 75 84 84 71 59 69 86 73. Gabuya.85 MRP. Gannod. Delgado. MRP. Nestor R. Raymundo 68 75 87 83 64 65 68 65 71. 73 80 82 74 80 67 67 57 73. Duque. 66 70 88 93 72 67 65 75 73. Guzman. 76 81 74 69 71 71 73 60 72.9 313. Lorenzo V. 71 67 87 83 71 50 65 70 71. Flores. 288. Victor N. MRP. Gilbang.4 300. Abner 75 84 63 67 64 60 70 72 68. Castulo 75 80 73 83 66 67 65 66 70. Guillermo 73 84 64 89 71 78 75 66 72. MRP.95 302. Eulalia L. MRP.9 324. 341.3 305. 70 78 84 91 80 51 65 70 72. 70 85 72 67 70 60 73 73 70. MRP.95 326.75 . Dichoso. Alfonso 75 86 73 81 63 77 69 75 72.

95 390. Romeo P. Antonio S. Guzman. Maniquis. Jose P. Brigido C. 385. Leonilo F. 366.3 MRP. 65 88 71 88 77 73 61 70 70. Hedriana. 70 62 64 82 88 75 71 79 72. 75 84 79 78 77 61 66 66 73. Marasigan.85 371. MRP. Generoso 78 84 78 84 60 73 68 70 73 357.4 383. Pedro R. 395. Servillano S. Tomas S. Salvador T.9 MRP. Llanera. Jose M. Antonio D. Morada. Homeres.35 MRP. Magbiray.3 398. 70 86 76 78 72 71 75 53 72. Luz.9 356.15 362. 79 79 68 88 64 78 69 83 73. 72 69 80 87 73 62 70 61 72. Estanislao 75 78 75 85 72 55 77 66 73.6 V. 72 77 79 70 72 57 71 50 70. 364. 72 75 68 72 84 50 75 79 71.95 353. Manuel R. 75 84 64 81 74 61 78 58 71. Mosquera. Emilio 73 86 72 78 82 67 67 64 72. 359.. 67 70 71 76 76 79 75 57 72. Javier. 75 76 69 70 73 76 74 75 73.9 MRP. Quintin B. Jamer. 72 64 64 81 73 50 75 75 69.55 386. 397. Jardinico..05 MRP. Geronimo E. 75 80 73 91 69 71 65 70 72. Macario. 367. Masancay. Mison. Mercado. 68 81 79 84 73 60 77 60 73 387. Justiniano F. MRP.1 . Jose.15 365. Hernandez. 73 81 72 83 66 75 72 70 72. 351. Jr. Amado A. La Q. 74 83 74 89 58 60 72 76 71. 68 75 83 89 80 61 65 50 72 377. 75 76 67 71 65 66 75 76 70. Domiciano R. 352. Nestor L.85 380.8 379. Malapit. Alipio S..85 394. Benedicto S. Luna. Leon. 77 81 80 78 64 59 75 63 73 MRP. Jr.95 1952 375. Montero. Nadela.9 de 373. Godofredo 80 67 84 76 70 62 65 68 73. Eduardo 75 90 77 83 59 71 72 78 73. Rodolfo P. Nuval.4 388. 73 77 82 82 78 52 69 85 73. Jr. Napoleon 75 71 83 75 69 62 69 70 72. 80 78 70 94 72 75 70 57 73. Nazareno. Felipe A. Lomontod. Majarais. Leones. L. Emiliano 75 65 68 85 76 70 83 54 73. Cesar L.9 345. Miculob. Monponbanua. Aquilino M.8 MRP. 347.5 MRP. 70 70 69 73 57 37 64 72 63. 348. Constante B. Eugenio P. Iluminado M.3 349. Guillermo L. Rodentor P. 69 79 77 77 72 62 76 76 72. Nieto. Noguera. Agustin R. Naterno G. 363. M. Ocampo.05 MRP. Motus. Daniel R.35 350.65 MRP. Pacifico G. 381. Lauro L. MRP. Nodado.9 374. 75 71 75 72 70 67 81 59 73. 73 87 75 77 72 50 78 80 73.5 MRP. MRP.8 378. Makabenta. Ignacio T.. Jaen. Arsenio 65 79 60 72 73 51 75 86 67. 70 87 73 76 77 50 76 76 72. 354.1 396. Jaring. Jr.75 360. Amando E.55 MRP. Ibasco. 75 68 84 76 66 58 76 60 72.2 376. 393. Osmundo P. Oliveros. Augusto 75 90 77 72 69 55 65 67 60. 75 67 74 76 64 75 75 57 71. Justiniano S.7 384.1 MRP. Raymundo 71 86 81 80 73 56 72 70 73.9 370.19 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. 70 82 73 86 77 52 79 65 72. 67 75 72 81 72 72 66 76 70. Maloles. C. Rafael M.2 389.7 369.75 372.15 355. 79 78 73 75 71 68 69 53 71. Mati-ong.6 MRP. 71 76 71 87 73 60 67 55 69. Opiña. Mara. Jaime P.05 382. Leodegario 72 89 69 89 70 68 70 75 72. Francisco 75 75 72 88 78 58 76 43 72. 67 77 78 67 75 59 71 76 71. de 67 75 78 91 78 51 72 80 72. Habelito.4 MRP. Horacio T. 62 87 72 79 73 76 69 77 71.75 344.75 MRP. PAMINTUAN 343. MRP. Jomuad. Nono. 391. 78 72 67 90 72 68 78 67 73.65 368. MRP.7 MRP. 392. 70 78 78 89 75 67 66 65 72.15 361. 70 67 74 86 78 63 72 66 72. 76 75 78 84 71 66 70 77 73. Maraña. Geredion T. Liboro. Martir.15 358. 346. 78 61 64 73 68 76 64 80 69. Mocorro. Pedro 76 77 74 67 73 66 68 70 71. Lucito 70 75 69 83 59 53 74 75 68. 73 84 65 86 70 77 63 76 70. Macasaet. Marco. 76 90 78 88 64 58 75 77 73. Ines.

Piza. 404. Emmanuel 75 83 70 83 77 67 77 60 73. Samaniego.7 MRP.6 425. Sabelino. Raffiñan. 72 64 76 86 72 61 76 75 72. Cesar V.15 448.65 MRP.65 401. A. Josefina D. Domingo B. 429.55 400. 75 85 84 68 75 71 68 50 73. Luz 68 70 75 87 74 67 64 75 70. Jose O.95 E. Reyes.25 403. 71 75 78 81 66 67 70 78 72. Perfecto D. 72 80 81 69 72 53 67 70 71. 70 62 85 81 74 50 68 79 71.45 MRP. Vicente C. 67 80 79 83 73 71 75 70 73. Roldan. Olaviar.3 MRP.8 MRP. 71 66 76 79 68 67 74 66 71.6 414. 72 87 78 83 72 75 62 70 72. . Bayani R. 77 81 72 82 69 71 60 75 71. 70 66 80 87 75 50 65 80 70. 68 75 81 82 78 53 66 54 70.8 450.65 443.25 416. Jose V. Rayos. Melchor V. Ramirez. Jr. 75 72 85 85 77 59 63 71 73.55 453. Pablo. 427. PAMINTUAN MRP. 71 85 65 86 75 70 76 70 72.9 434. 407.9 MRP. Jesus 75 75 75 62 75 70 60 66 70. Felix L. 437. Paderna. Pariña. Buenaventura 72 88 72 94 68 73 66 80 72. Rosario. Racho.85 399. Reyes. 78 84 76 90 48 75 80 65 73. MRP.95 MRP. Orden.2 del MRP.4 446. 72 64 81 78 76 73 69 53 72. Crispin M. Reyes. 412.45 428.45 438. 72 93 76 80 67 75 66 62 72. Restituto F. Rodriguez. Reyes. MRP. 435. MRP. 71 88 74 89 69 66 76 73 73. Macario D. MRP. 444. Conrado S. Pinlac. MRP. 80 83 79 79 62 72 68 65 73.7 MRP.1 430. San Juan.2 445.9 MRP. Revilla. M. Pestaño. Sañiel. Mariano S.20 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Paulin. Robles. Pastrana. Quipanes. 75 75 79 90 68 65 66 63 72. Lozano M.15 419. Poblete. Abdon L. Celso 75 81 76 67 75 77 55 77 71. 70 87 85 77 64 67 63 76 71. Eduardo S. MRP. 75 69 72 75 78 58 75 70 72. MRP. Per O. Rivera.. Melquiades 77 81 74 87 59 68 76 75 73. Orestes 76 75 76 63 69 77 65 78 72. Pido. 75 86 79 91 71 67 67 70 73. Angel A. 75 90 60 93 64 78 76 83 72. Padlan. Santos L.95 MRP. Jr. 75 75 82 82 76 64 68 60 73. Jose O. Rigonan. Enrique 75 77 75 77 82 64 69 70 73.65 433. 70 65 67 82 78 75 78 75 73. Quietson. 76 79 69 80 76 52 72 80 71.1 424. 71 81 69 75 77 71 75 70 72. Quetulio. 75 80 76 72 60 67 68 70 70. Jesus B. Melencio T. Parayno.55 442. Padilla. Vicente V. 79 87 73 83 69 71 68 65 73. Pacifico.1 420. 80 57 78 79 78 65 64 79 73.2 413. Manuela 405.95 422. 439. Toribio R. 451.65 411. 73 75 76 77 70 81 71 53 72. Celso B. Jose A.9 410. Adelaida R.45 MRP. Rizal R. Estanislao 71 88 78 86 59 75 78 50 72. del 421. Sandoval. Reyes. Puzon. 80 75 65 70 68 72 80 70 73. Rivero. Honorio 71 56 70 90 71 65 75 71 71. Ramos. Palma.6 423.25 447. Peña. 72 65 84 86 66 50 72 68 71. Olandesca. Patricio S. Papa. Filemon 67 76 74 86 65 79 65 72 70. Ortiz. Apolonio J.25 402. Perez. Serafin C. Raro. 69 88 79 82 65 62 71 66 71. Oscar R.15 449.05 452. Victor S. Bartolome 67 81 80 82 71 75 69 75 73. 408. Sabas P. Padilla. 426.25 436. Francisco M. Pelaez. Mario V. Damaso 77 86 72 89 59 76 65 72 71.35 MRP. Ramos-Balmori. 75 78 81 90 70 54 69 81 73. 440. 72 79 82 76 66 64 74 50 72. 431.4 406. Rosario. Pasion.9 418.7 415. Arellano 417.35 MRP. 69 76 71 76 68 63 77 83 71. Fedelino S.85 441.55 MRP.95 MRP. 75 87 76 75 72 72 61 75 72.6 432.85 409.. Anastacio 63 80 68 81 82 79 76 58 72. Jose C. 71 64 81 92 69 58 67 70 71. 70 91 76 87 72 66 70 79 73. 71 80 73 87 62 62 75 80 71.

Feliz M. Sanidad. 470. 80 77 65 93 70 65 65 65 70. Soriano. Aniceto S. Sulpicio M.4 501. Ismael P. Q.75 MRP.85 458. Tiongson. Juanito C. 73 85 70 87 76 70 64 70 71. Umayam.1 469. Suanding. Osmundo C. 76 79 76 78 72 75 68 67 73. Jose H. 77 75 87 85 56 56 66 60 71 454. MRP. 77 66 67 83 68 75 71 63 71.2 473. Santiago. Juanito Ll. Santos. 76 89 83 83 63 58 65 52 71. 489. 71 69 75 89 70 75 67 63 71. de 78 62 79 87 70 70 71 65 73. Rem.3 MRP. MRP.. 68 75 81 80 71 69 68 60 71. 485. 70 68 82 84 60 69 76 65 73. 73 70 89 80 56 50 72 67 71.85 457. 497. 69 58 74 81 71 55 65 57 67.8 filed motions for reconsideration which were denied. 75 89 63 84 85 73 73 50 73. 479. Yaranon. Federico B. Torrijas. MRP.7 MRP. Trinidad. MRP.9 492.5 490.7 MRP. MRP. 75 85 79 88 66 77 67 70 73. Villaseñor. 462. Vega. Tasico. Artemio V. 66 78 78 85 78 51 64 75 70. Usita.95 495. Venus. Alberto 70 65 76 79 62 77 69 82 71. Tolentino.65 468.8 487. Cecilio C.15 498. Velez.65 MRP. 456. Benjamin R. . Land Merc. 73 80 83 84 62 59 72 77 72.8 482. Pedro 70 77 76 85 72 50 75 75 71. Sybico. MRP.45 499. 66 91 83 75 63 66 67 65 70. Francisco M. Santillan. 500. 70 70 76 84 77 75 75 50 73. Gelacio U. PETITIONERS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 67 75 81 86 72 57 81 70 73. 72 81 80 84 62 78 71 75 73. Umali.7 1.95 465. Mariano R. Emmanuel 71 75 81 90 62 64 76 68 72. Conrado B. Tan Kiang. MRP. 486. Sulit. 67 54 69 76 63 64 71 60 66. Felicisimo G. Velasco. MRD. Amao.8 MRP. 72 71 73 79 73 79 71 85 73. PAMINTUAN MRP. Rodolfo C. Villafuerte. 75 75 72 76 63 77 70 60 71. Pedro O. Alfredo A. Verzosa.3 A list of those who petitioned for the consolidation of their grades in subjects MRP. Villar. Bantas 75 67 67 92 79 59 76 76 73.05 461. Valino.7 MRP. Zamora.05 459. showing the years in which they took the 475. Eduardo V.1 MRP. Villanueva.. 69 68 77 79 74 68 72 60 71. examinations together with their grades and averages. MRP. Jr. Yulo. 73 69 70 88 76 66 69 50 70.85 MRP.65 471. Viterbo. Rufino A. Custodio R. Amado T. 460. Emmanuel 71 80 74 85 60 66 76 76 71.95 481.25 483.65 MRP. Felipe C. Av. 69 81 74 85 62 66 72 77 77. 480. Santos. 71 82 78 83 71 61 71 60 72 MRP. Varela. Clarita 81 79 72 80 62 75 73 80 73. follows: MRP. 72 478.8 477. Crim. Jr. 464. Apolonio 76 86 76 86 70 68 75 50 73. Manuel O.35 491.55 455. 75 75 78 82 73 76 66 70 73. Int. Leg. Venal. Rigonan. 75 83 70 76 64 64 75 65 71. Songco. Federico T. 70 79 69 89 76 62 71 64 71. D. Ygay. 474. 78 91 58 67 76 55 75 73 73. Teodoro 73 82 78 75 60 81 75 75 73.7 484. Cristobal 75 76 84 93 63 65 59 70 71. 75 81 79 85 74 72 66 54 73. Jr. Aquilino C.95 472.21 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O.75 466.6 Civ. Maria E. Santos. Dominador M. Udarbe. Leonidas 80 85 67 77 62 75 76 73 73. Yasay.3 488. Artemio M. Trillana. Venancio M. 80 82 77 82 67 56 68 75 72.2 463. Flavio J.15 467. Tiburcio. Jesus C.8 MRP. 79 70 70 72 75 75 72 60 73. Pablo D. 496. Jesus L. Pol.55 passed in previous examinations. 75 79 72 88 76 68 74 59 73. Gen. Severo E. Tabaque. 73 82 72 93 76 57 68 54 71.. Macairog L. and those who had MRP. Ruperto M. Trinidad. F. Suarez.05 493. Santos.85 494. 75 72 75 74 73 76 71 70 73. indicated by the initials 476. Tobias. Tando. 64 79 77 80 80 53 70 65 70.

Manuel M. 1953 70 71 79 65 72 54 66 80 70 1949 72 68 68 75 75 72 60 75 69. Arsenio s.95 14. others invoked the provisions of 1951 70 77 65 79 66 52 70 50 66. Placido. Jesus S. Isidro 1950 68 78 70 75 69 70 58 69 67.4 MRD-1951 68 59 72 55 69 65 75 75 69. Rodulfa.7 1953 57 74 68 68 76 52 71 76 66.8 1950 59 80 67 77 62 80 71 57 67.1 1951 70 60 61 65 77 64 67 81 67.8 1950 35 65 40 75 63 57 27 49 45 1952 70 77 65 79 66 52 70 50 66. Santos.65 1950 57 65 51 69 54 85 56 84 60. Sulpicio M.85 15. 1948 39 69 82 75 76 72 55 50 63. Manuel N.05 10. Constantino MRD-1949 60 70 82 79 70 69 60 80 69.8 6.25 1952 62 76 54 82 72 77 66 65 66.9 1951 64 71 58 65 68 70 75 71 66. 16.9 MRD-1948 50 64 76 66 66 69 60 52 63. Sanchez.5 1951 65 62 75 60 73 57 75 71 66. Blanco.55 1951 60 64 55 70 68 52 70 75 62. 17.75 1950 71 80 62 75 75 81 55 92 69.3 1952 70 71 67 78 67 75 71 70 70. Lucito A. Montano.7 13. MRD-1949 47 66 78 64 71 86 65 85 68 1951 61 60 58 60 70 63 75 64 64. 5. 1946 63 53 69 76 75 76 57 69 66. Salvador H.65 1953 70 73 74 70 81 56 69 71 71..75 1952 68 53 68 67 58 56 75 64 65.3 1953 78 64 66 68 81 50 71 78 70.5 MRD-1949 69 70 76 73 76 71 55 60 68.65 1951 65 76 58 55 59 63 75 72 64. 3. Agapito B. 1952 67 80 51 69 69 77 73 53 66. Baldo. 1949 65 75 72 75 60 75 55 85 66.4 Republic Act No.65 MRD-1949 67 56 69 75 72 77 60 75 68 1950 60 71 55 67 67 75 56 89 68. A list of those candidates separating those who filed mere 1952 75 75 75 62 75 70 60 66 70.4 12. Amao. Sevilla.1 1951 70 59 55 60 68 57 78 67 65. Jose B. Ducusin. Maraña.4 7.85 1952 70 75 69 83 59 53 74 75 68.22 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. PAMINTUAN 1946 68 67 76 76 73 73 49 50 66. 1952 65 79 60 72 73 51 75 86 67.15 1953 65 67 78 74 75 62 69 80 70.4 motions for reconsideration (56) from those who invoked the aforesaid Republic act. Sr. Mateo 1951 67 60 70 65 68 56 75 66 67. with regards to the examinations of 1953. Condeno.3 1953 73 71 70 65 78 64 65 78 70. 972. 1950 25 75 45 75 45 52 46 71 46.1 8. Rementizo. Juan T. Garcia.9 1951 68 57 48 60 91 66 55 75 64. while some candidates--85 in all-- presented motions for reconsideration of their grades. Juan J. Olegario Ga. Filemon S. is as follows: 11.4 1952 75 64 70 81 76 55 61 75 69.2 Finally.35 18. 4.35 MRD-1949 75 75 70 75 77 76 60 90 72. Santos.05 1952 65 68 75 84 72 59 73 57 69. Peña. 2.1 9.75 1953 PETITIONERS FOR RECONSIDERATION . Luna. Macario C.

8 26. de 66 78 75 81 77 55 73 69 71. Lugtu. Land Merc.35 35. 24.8 20. Narciso 70 95 81 78 67 66 67 73 72.95 10.75 11. Angela P. 68 76 76 84 77 57 77 83 73. Buhay. Calautit.75 8.1 1. Santiago P. Baldo. Alejandro Q. 67 70 75 85 87 54 71 80 72. Crim. Alcantara. Pedro N. Alfredo A. Navarro. Rem. 67 70 75 85 87 54 71 80 72. Formilleza. Domingo B. 70 73 86 58 79 50 71 78 72.5 13.45 39. Gregorio M. Figueroa. Gen.9 17. Ramos. Bacaiso. Fernandez. Miguel L.4 2. 77 71 60 71 79 62 68 72 69. Severino 80 74 64 89 81 56 68 82 72. Bala. 57 74 68 68 76 52 71 76 66. 65 76 70 61 79 68 75 72 71. 75 71 84 65 70 60 65 70 71.35 3.2 9. 38.05 3. 37.4 33. Solomon B.75 7.9 4. Felipe L. 70 76 66 75 85 73 71 75 72.6 56.2 54. Olegario A. Garcia. Antonio E. Bernardo M. Muñoz. Alejandro. Floriano U. Burgos. Renovilla. Narciso 70 71 73 59 73 74 81 77 73.9 PETITIONERS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO.05 50.65 11. Maloles. de 60 61 47 77 69 50 67 77 60. Ala. Nodado. Fabunan. Andres D. Jr. De 66 66 75 70 77 55 71 82 70. Arellano.7 42. Melocoton. 70 77 80 71 82 62 69 78 73.35 49. Vera. Mariano A. 64 62 75 93 81 52 66 80 70. 70 70 52 81 68 63 59 69 63. 76 75 78 61 72 72 71 79 73. Florencio F.05 30. 78 72 66 54 71 58 72 78 69.45 5. Acenas. Domiciano R. 74 66 73 60 78 63 78 72 72.75 7. Eduardo L. Calixto R. 77 70 76 77 81 62 70 68 73. Sofronio O. Gungon. Gracia. Manuel C. Rem.7 47. Estrellado. 75 80 86 67 74 57 68 76 73. Peralta. Barrios. Margete.25 M. Pol. 23. (Miss) 76 80 86 77 64 74 66 69 73. Dominador C. Arnaiz. 64 82 47 70 82 58 75 82 67 46. Leg. Fernando 63 75 71 62 83 67 70 72 70. Int. Land Merc. Julius G. 71 65 76 68 76 50 75 70 70.7 6. 65 62 71 61 70 56 66 67 66 1. . 73 76 71 91 76 61 74 78 73. 66 76 69 76 74 56 72 68 69. Abdul-Hamid 76 64 67 69 73 59 73 75 70.4 41. Andres. Leovigildo 75 78 76 61 77 50 71 86 72. 68 72 75 73 78 55 69 76 70. 65 75 80 68 79 52 62 78 69. (Miss) 63 70 56 75 68 54 70 77 64. Gutierrez.8 40. Peña. Rabaino. Celestino M. 77 76 68 68 71 51 75 78 70. 75 78 70 61 75 63 66 85 70. 65 75 87 80 81 63 61 80 72.1 Concepcion 32. Cariño. Torrefiel.6 12. Antonio S.5 25. PAMINTUAN Civ. 68 77 66 70 72 59 71 74 69. 79 81 60 75 74 74 76 74 73 51.2 29.9 27.6 Av.85 14. Nestorio B. Pigar. Sulvio P. Venancio Bustos 65 67 67 52 73 64 71 65 67. 70 86 70 75 73 63 73 75 71.1 55. 62 70 78 65 78 56 69 81 69. Abraham I. 70 77 54 62 74 78 75 68 69. Sumaway. Dimapuro 67 73 84 79 77 61 71 74 73. Padula. Sabaot. Fernandez. Maloles. Sisenando B. Feril. Rufino C.23 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Viray. Casuncad. Lukman.95 45. Benjamin La. 73 76 71 91 76 61 74 78 73. 68 69 76 76 70 59 74 67 70. Federico V. 67 79 64 73 82 62 71 74 70. Benjamin R. Enriquez.5 19. Benjamin O. Pedro N.55 16. Benjamin G. Ricardo S. 72 80 89 61 66 37 69 68 70. Pagulayan-Sy. 65 75 87 80 81 63 61 80 72. Mandi. Molina. Fernandez. Rosita S. 70 81 73 78 83 52 72 75 72.15 18. Leg. Rafael B. Casar. Jr.1 10.4 43. Rodolfo P. Estonina. 61 73 82 69 81 68 71 84 73.8 34. 73 70 68 62 82 51 67 77 73. Alcantara.95 53. Ravanera. Alejandro G..55 5. Ylaya.6 8. 65 71 76 75 80 62 83 73 73. Publico. Pedro 65 75 89 68 83 51 70 75 73. Oscar N.85 6. Gregorio 70 73 80 71 75 70 73 78 73. Antonio L. 71 78 84 75 75 61 68 72 73.. Jose M.85 4. 69 73 80 69 82 69 69 79 73.65 22.35 52. Luis N. Armando G. Papas.25 44. Eldo J. Paciano L. 972 21. Buenaventura 80 75 65 75 83 55 73 79 73 12. Pasno. Castañeda. Buhay. Ilejay. Exequiel 67 72 71 75 80 76 75 77 73. Eduardo L. Benjamin C. 66 80 76 58 79 68 77 81 73.1 15. 70 77 74 75 73 50 68 72 69. Edilberto C. Crim. Int. Radaza. Enrique M.7 2. Pol.7 Av.3 36.95 48. Leopoldo R. Asis. de 73 68 75 59 80 51 72 71 71 Civ. 70 75 77 75 78 67 72 73 73. Leon. 70 75 87 78 75 50 68 68 72.05 31. Gapus. Gen.35 9. Celestino R.35 28. 60 67 67 50 70 50 56 75 61. Pelagio y 84 69 76 75 82 50 58 79 72. 70 72 68 69 77 60 76 74 71.

1951. shall be 20. Montano. 20 per cent. Jacobo. the President There are the unsuccessful candidates totaling 604 directly affected by this resolution. Viray. Criminal Law. 70 80 76 67 72 69 72 79 72. The only average of 70 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject. 14 and 16 of Rule 127 of the Rules of Court.4 It seems to be unfair that unsuccessful candidates at bar examinations should be compelled to repeat even those subjects which they have previously 26. 78 64 66 68 81 50 71 78 70. Plomantes. signed by seven Justices while three chose to refrain from making any and one took no part. the foregoing subjects shall be given the following in no more that three installments. In condition imposed is that a candidate. 76 73 76 73 80 58 68 83 73. Rafael F. Manuel M. Marcos 73 67 74 58 68 70 76 71 71. One part of this amendment As will be observed from Annex I. The proposed amendment is as follows: time that he reviewed and passed the firs subjects.094. he need not be examined in said 70 per cent in 1948. on this plan. 71 73 77 76 81 59 72 74 73. (Arts.9 25. Jose A.6 allowed to take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office. another examination in any subject in which they have obtained a rating of 70 so as presently to be able to practice the legal profession and adequately . Mangubat. he must have obtained a general continue taking the Bar examinations every year in succession. Legal persons to the practice of law. Macalindong. although failing to pass the examination. Passing average. 12 which was this proposed system is that although it makes it easier and more convenient intended to amend Sections 5. 73 71 70 65 78 64 65 78 70. Reyes. Admission and oath of successful applicants.9 being: 24. Ruperto G. Eulogio J. This would per cent. Antonio M. PAMINTUAN 13. maintaining the prescribed 75 per cent since subject in his next examination. 70 73 74 70 81 56 69 71 71. Juan R. presumed and presupposed that he possesses the knowledge and proficiency Taxation. The Rules 27. he shall have forgotten the principles and theories contained in those subjects and remembers only those of the one or two subjects that he had last reviewed and passed. he shall lose the benefit of having already passed some subjects (1952) and shall be required to the examination in all the subjects. the Court said: The Enactment of Republic Act No. — In order that a candidate may be deemed to possible because there is nothing in the law which requires a candidate to have passed the examinations successfully. 16. 8. but raising to 75 per cent those who obtained 74 per cent since 1950. Social Legislation. 74 per cent in 1949. No. International Law. The one or two subjects so as to insure passing them. 972 The next amendment is of section 14 of Rule 127. This caused on the installment plan. Grospe.6 22. 72 79 86 78 60 61 75 70 73. Santos.05 examination. however. Sevilla. 9. 65 67 78 74 75 62 69 80 70. 70 71 79 65 72 54 66 80 70 passed. 21. by the time that he has amendments embrace many interesting matters. 67 77 79 79 74 72 68 77 72. Reyes. 5 per cent. 12 having been approved by Congress on May 3. the portion pertinent to the matter before us 23. 14. 68 75 78 66 79 61 69 82 71. The comment was Adding 490 candidates who have not presented any petition. requested the comments of this Tribunal before acting on the same. Ramos. 5 per cent. 76 76 75 74 76 50 72 76 72. 69 per cent in 1947. for the candidate because he may in an examination prepare himself on only concerning the admission of attorneys-at-law to the practice of the profession. in the Senate of the Philippines of Bill No. 65 78 83 60 76 75 70 70 72. Villavicencio.45 below 50 per cent in any examination held after the 4th day of July. but there is no limitation as to the time or relative weights: Civil Law.2 With the bill was an Explanatory Note. but those referring to sections 14 and passed the last required subjects.65 who has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar. 70 70 78 61 80 74 62 70 71. Vicente E. 16. Eugenio R. The trouble with the introduction in 1951. Constantino P." 29.3 17. This is not the case in any other government examination. This is a sort of passing the Bar Examination 1950. 5 number of years intervening between each examination taken. Unsuccessful candidates shall not be required to take in the law and the knowledge of all law subjects required in bar examinations. Santos. Mercantile Law. this Court reduced to 72 per cent the passing general provides that if a bar candidate obtains 70 per cent or higher in any subject. average in the bar examination of august and November of 1946. Remedial Law. 12). or 19. one or two or three subjects at a time. Rivera. 1946. 12. it is to be Ethics and Practical Exercises.24 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. 69 68 83 83 73 62 62 70 71 per cent or higher and such rating shall be taken into account in determining their general average in any subsequent examinations: Provided. Reinerio L. Galema. With regards to the matter that interests us. must pass the examination determining the average. Macario C.2 due credit for any subject which he has previously passed with a rating of 75 per cent or higher.25 Senate Bill No. This is highly SEC. 5 per cent. 5 per cent.75 SEC. 4 and 5. Political Law. which may be several years away from the 16 immediately concern us. Nestor R. they reach a total of 1. 78 75 70 67 69 77 64 77 73. 10 per cent.05 of Court have therefore been amended in this measure to give a candidate 28. Santiago R. When a person is so admitted. 15 per cent.6 That if the candidate fails to get a general average of 70 per cent in his third 15. Salvador H. Manuel M. Land Registration and Mortgages. defeat the object and the requirements of the law and the Court in admitting 10 per cent. — Any applicant who has obtained a general average of 70 per cent in all subjects without falling 18. Garcia. 14. 20 per cent.

In other words. the unsuccessful candidates in the 1946. This provision constitutes class legislation. question to be carefully and seriously considered. Said provision also sets a bad involves legal implications. despite their non-admission Section 5 provides that any applicant who has obtained a general average of to the Bar by the Supreme Court because they failed to obtain a passing 70 per cent in all subjects without failing below 50 per cent in any subject in general average in any of those years. the subsequent amendment or even repeal of said law or rule may not affect the final decision. We should The same provision undertakes to revoke or set aside final resolutions of the not lose sight of the fact that after every bar examinations. We believe that the present system of effect says that a candidate not accepted. the Supreme Court impliedly regards him as AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR EXAMINATIONS FROM a person fit. shall be allowed to take failed in the bar examination. As one member of the Court privilege to those who have failed in the examinations for admission to other remarked during the discussion. 1947. The provision under Supreme Court's resolution denying and rejecting the petitions of those who consideration would have the effect of revoking the Supreme Court's may have obtained an average of 70 per cent or more but less than the resolution denying and rejecting the petitions of those who may have failed to general passing average fixed for that year. benefiting as it does specifically one group of persons. and even rejected by the Court to requiring a candidate to obtain a passing general average with no grade in be its officer because he was unprepared. 1951. by admitting to practice precisely a special class who have any examination held after the 4th day of July. But this would not competent and qualified to be its officer. engineering. Moreover. the bill was returned to the Congress of the Philippines. or resolution already promulgated. We have already stated in our comment on the next preceding amendment namely. reversing and revoking the petitions for reconsideration of those who have failed. PAMINTUAN render the legal service required by prospective clients. namely. that this is another important aspect of the admission to the practice of law. however. any subject below 50 per cent is more desirable and satisfactory. Conversely. the Supreme Court equally and in Congress assembled: impliedly considered and declared that he was not prepared. 1948. We repeat. . the Supreme Court Supreme Court made in accordance with the law then in force. It is clear that this question obtain the passing average fixed for that year. shall be allowed to take provision is not only prospective but retroactive in its effects. Consequently. undeserving and unqualified.25 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. The present amendment giving hold true of the candidates who may have obtained a passing grade on any retroactivity to the reduction of the passing general average runs counter to five subjects eight years ago. Bar candidates find serious fundamental objections. and this phase of the amendment if finally enacted precedent in that the Government would be morally obliged to grant a similar into law might have to go thru a legal test. It should be passes the corresponding resolution not only admitting to the Bar those who noted that after every bar examination the Supreme Court passes the have obtained a passing general average grade. It requires nevertheless and in spite of all. 1946. including the Supreme Court. when a court renders a decision or professions such as medicine. in the sense of revoking or rendering it void and of no effect. xxx xxx xxx The President vetoed the bill on June 16. but it was not repassed by 2/3 vote of each House as prescribed by section 20. and subscribed the corresponding oath of office. This any examination held after the 4th day of July. and prepared in all required legal subjects at the time of serve as its officer. we have serious legal doubts. that of section 16 of Rule 127. When a Bar candidate is admitted to the Bar. and the all these acts and resolutions of the Supreme Court and practically and in last two subjects the present year. architecture and certified public promulgate a resolution or order on the basis of and in accordance with a accountancy. who obtained not less than 70 per cent in any examination since the year 1946 without failing below 50 per cent in any subject. 75 per cent to 70 per cent to govern even in the future. 1946. will be admitted to the Bar. to elevate amendment provides that any application who has obtained a general average the standard of the legal profession and maintain it on a high level. Instead Bill No. This is not of 70 per cent in all subjects without failing below 50 per cent in any subject in achieved. As to the validity of making such reduction retroactive. certain law or rule then in force. must be admitted and allowed by this Court to one to be all around. This I am fully in accord with the avowed objection of the bill. article VI of the Constitution. stating the following: We now come to the last amendment. another three subjects one year later. but also rejecting and corresponding resolution not only admitting to the Bar those who have denying the petitions for reconsideration of those who have failed. order. ready. the bill contains provisions to which I and subscribe the corresponding oath of office. 1949 and 1950 that we are not exactly in favor of reducing the passing general average from bar examinations. competent and qualified to be its officer. The present obtained a passing general average but also rejecting and denying the amendment would have the effect of repudiating. 371 was presented in the Senate. It reads as follows: Another aspect of this question to be considered is the fact that members of the bar are officers of the courts. when it 1946 UP TO AND INCLUDING 1953 refused and denied admission to the Bar to a candidate who in any year since 1946 may have obtained a general average of 70 per cent but less than that Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines required for that year in order to pass.

all who possess a common disability. any exact Court and were fully aware of the insurmountable difficulties and handicaps one-half or more of a fraction. This bill shall take effect upon its approval. 286 U. The problem in the last immediately after the Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the analysis is one of legislative policy. . It permits them when there are below 50 per cent. and Provided. shall be considered as one and included as part which they were unavoidably placed. These bar candidates for who this bill oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar. for 1952 bar examination. 431). constitutionally. in any bar examination after July 4. In order to cure the apparent arbitrary fixing of passing grades and to give satisfaction to all parties concerned.26 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. 3. 53 Sup. The special grade. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 14. He considered the bill a class legislation. That for the purpose of this Act. finally. shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding took the Bar examination in 1947. This bill has all the earmarks of a corrective statute which always retroacts to the extent of the care of correction only as in this case from 1946 when the In this will we eliminated altogether the idea of having our Supreme Court Supreme Court first deviated from the rule of 75 per cent in the Rules of Court. in good conscience. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. correct because Congress is merely 1953 bar examinations. S. 74 per cent supplementing what the Supreme Court have already established as in 1955 bar examinations without a candidate obtaining a grade below 50 per precedent by making as low as 69 per cent the passing mark of those who cent in any subject. If so. assumed the supervision as well as the administration of the study of law which was objected to by the President in the Bar Bill of 1951. the correcting statute must examination. That 75 should be enacted. however. 70 per cent. Rule 127 of the The President in vetoing the Bar Bill last year stated among his objections that Rules of Court. 73 percent. E. Thus in 1956 the passing mark will be restored correcting statute may be as narrow as the mischief. with a wide margin of discretion conceded insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of to the lawmakers. Rensier. the bar examination. for 1953 bar conditions affect the members of a class. Ed. The constitution does not with the condition that the candidate shall not obtain in any subject a grade of prohibit special laws inflexibly and always. The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing special evils with which the general laws are incompetent to cope. For 1946 to 1951 bar conditions which must be cared for by new laws. it shall be considered as a simple curative act or corrective statute which Congress has the power to enact. The requirement SEC. . if not improved from those years preceding the last world war. is not. For the foregoing purposes the approval of this bill is earnestly recommended. or classification. This contention. Only in the case of plain abuse will there be revision by the students who took up law soon after the liberation. 77 the preparation of our students as well as the available reading materials will L. vs. 1015. 74 per cent. 1946 up to the August 1951 Bar examination". and for 1955 apply to all alike. 199 Ind. The Supreme Court has been Park Co. considered themselves as having passed the bar per cent passing general average shall be restored in all succeeding examination on the strength of the established precedent of our Supreme examinations. (Fountain its previous decisions of the passing mark. . it is proposed in this bill a gradual increase in the general averages Another case penned by Justice Cardozo: "Time with its tides brings new for passing the bar examinations as follows. without giving due consideration to the rights already accrued or vested in the bar SEC. is the tremendous handicap which students during the years public purpose will sustain the special form. If this bill would be enacted. for 1954 bar examination. N. 1945 shall be deemed to have passed in or in effect. and there must be a This is a revised Bar bill to meet the objections of the President and to afford "natural" and substantial differentiation between those included in the class another opportunity to those who feel themselves discriminated by the and those it leaves untouched. 95. 71 per cent. (In Williams vs. of a "valid classification" as against class legislation. It is believed that by 1956 court. Sometimes the condition affect only a few. . any bar candidate who obtained a general average of 70 per the bill would admit to the practice of law "a special class who failed in the bar cent in any bar examinations after July 4. We believe that such precedent cannot of the next whole number. PAMINTUAN SECTION 1. was still enforced and without being inconsistent with the principles such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in of their previous resolutions. altering the passing mark from 69 in 1947 to 74 in 1951. or could not have been altered. Ct. Provided. by the Supreme Court. attribute. computing the passing general average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take. 72 per cent. When a class is accepted by the Court as Supreme Court from 1946 to 1951 when those who would otherwise have "natural" it cannot be again split and then have the dissevered factions of the passed the bar examination but were arbitrarily not so considered by altering original unit designated with different rules established for each. 72 per cent in the however. is very expressed in the following American Jurisprudence: With the following explanatory note: A valid classification must include all who naturally belong to the class. 2. If so. examinations. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject candidates who took the examination when the precedent was not yet altered. 465 (1926). 73 per cent in the 1954 bar examinations. 36. (1932) be under normal conditions. 71 per cent in the 1952 bar examinations. Sometimes the new examinations.

the passing grades. After the original list of 1947 successful bar candidates had been The right to admit members to the Bar is. the the rule-making power of Congress. 20. however. 371. in addition to the original list of successful bar of powers. concurring and dissenting: candidates those having a general average of 73 per cent or more but below 75 per cent were included. and lies invoking the precedents set by this Court in 1947 and 1948. 12 passed by Congress in May.. all those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more.) RICARDO PARAS PARAS. It is only this power (to promulgate amendments to the rules) that petitions for reconsideration. 1946. To say that uniformly denied. Numerous flunkers in the bar examinations held subsequent to 1948. Upon motion for reconsideration.. Why should Without much debate. not the exercise of the discretion to admit for the year 1947 the Court in effect made 69 per cent as the passing average.' This passing mark has always been adhered to. because lawyers are members of the Court and only this Court should be 69 per cent were allowed to pass by resolution of July 15. 1947. and because it is discriminatory. the original list of they lost in the polls. 1946. 127. 1954 and 1955 be allowed to have the privilege The President again asked the comments of this Court. 1946 the list first released containing the names of successful candidates covered only those who obtained a general average of 75 per cent or more. together. the revised bill was passed by Congress as above transcribed. 12 candidates with general averages ranging from 72 to 73 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of December 18. (Sgd. with the information that. are within the scope of the legislative power. which endorsed the following: of a lower passing grade. in order that a bar candidate "may be The President allowed the period within which the bill should be signed to pass without deemed to have passed his examinations successfully. Thus the rules on the holding of examination. all candidates with a general average of of this Court. The power to admit is judicial in the sense that discretion is used in is candidates. by virtue of which it became a law on June 21. the qualifications of the year 1948. successful candidates included only those who obtained a general average of 75 per cent or more. etc. 1953 (Sec. the power to determine when a candidate has made or has not made the required grade is judicial. No reasoning is necessary to show that it is an arrogation of the Court's judicial authority and discretion. general average of 75 per cent in all subjects. 974). This power should be distinguished from the power to promulgate rules which irrespective of the grades in any one subject and irrespective of whether they filed regulate admission.) PABLO ANGELES DAVID mean exercise of the privilege and discretion judged in this Court. but. and 74 per cent in 1955 should be considered as having passed the examination. I vote that the act in toto be declared unconstitutional. VI. without being noticed perhaps. with respect to Senate Bill No. In the examinations of November. It may be mentioned in passing that 1953 was an election year. were allowed to pass by resolution of April 28. subject. 1948. upon motion for reconsideration. exercise. but said motions were beyond the scope of the congressional prerogative of amending the rules. 1948. 1951. and for or not to admit. the exclusive privilege released. with certain exception presently to be specified. and this amounted. is given in the Constitution to the Congress. and on motion for reconsideration. filed motions for reconsideration I hold that the act under consideration is an exercise of the judicial function. and that both the President and the author of the Bill were candidates for re-election. 1949. This would indicate that in the original list of successful LABRADOR. contained in the first indorsement of the undersigned dated June 5. to an applicants. without falling below 50 per cent in any Constitution) numbered 972 (many times erroneously cited as No.27 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. 1951. while those taking earlier or later are not? Respectfully returned to the Honorable.J. It is a mandate to the Senator tribunal to pass candidates for different years with grades lower than the passing mark. J. 70 per cent. 19 Separate Opinions candidates with a general average of 72 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of March 31. and has always been. whose general averages mostly ranged from 69 to 73 per cent. those taking the examinations in 1953. 73 per cent in 1954. Art. and lies completely with this Court. because it is not embraced within Manila. is to . Bill No. Thus. because it is an undue interference with the power members of the Court are taking the same views they expressed on Senate of this Court to admit members thereof. dissenting: Under section 145 of Rule of Court No. C. candidates who obtain a general average of 72 per cent in 1953. With respect to the bar allowed to determine admission thereto in the interest of the principle of the separation examinations held in August. the Acting Executive Secretary. to the Assistant Executive Secretary. however. PAMINTUAN (Sgd. he must have obtained a vetoing it. With reference to the bar examinations given in August. It is furthermore objectionable as discriminatory. But amendment of section 14 of Rule 127.

shall be allowed to pass. 1953 a hearing on said petitions. final resolutions of the Supreme Court refusing to admit to the practice of law the Republic Act No. 972 certainly is not an ex post facto enactment. shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or constitutional sense of the word. were invited to argue or submit memoranda as amici curiae. are subject to revision by this Court per cent in any examinations after July 4. in the matter All discussions in support of the proposition that the power to regulate the admission to of classification. would Numerous candidates who had taken the bar examinations previous to the approval of impair obligations and contracts or vested rights or would deny due process and equal Republic Act No. is unconstitutional. because bar examinations and the admission to the subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing in any practice of law. it is sufficient to state that. subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter litigants that have already been vested or acquired in virtue of decisions of courts. or merely for the empty purpose of creating appearances of separation and equality . Republic Act No. because it sets aside the paid by bar applicants. and procedure in all courts. specially on motions for Under Republic Act No." mark during said period. In virtue of the resolution of July 6. and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes and are adjudication prohibited by the Constitution is essentially aimed at protecting rights of declared Rules of Court. Montemayor. the Congress. supplement the rules concerning pleading. this Court held curative statute intended to correct certain obvious inequalities arising from the on July 11. if there is any interference at and shall not diminish. provides as follows: the classification adopted in the Act reflects good legislative judgment derived from the facts and circumstances then brought out. and (4) the equal division among the examiners of all the admission fees examinations held prior to its approval. practice. authorized representatives of bar associations. not and modify the same. interference in judicial on pleading. speaking for the people. 1953. (3) the publication of the bar examiners before the holding of the The opponents of Republic Act No.28 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. and this has 1952 bar examinations. 1946 up to August 1951. 72 per cent in 1953 bar examinations. except only when they would be ex post facto. This second bill was allowed to become a law. Court mass or separate petitions. after public hearings where law deans and professors. unlike justiciable cases. among others. It is no more subsequent examinations. It is the practice of law is inherently judicial. Said Act also provides said matters happen to be entrusted. the Congress passed another bill similar to the previous that the power of the Supreme Court and the Congress to regulate the admission to the bill vetoed by the President. 1946. alter or supplement said rules. and members of the bar. resolutions on the which. chose to repass the bill first vetoed by him. argued lengthily pro or con. and in doing so the President gave due respect to the will of the Congress power. in the subject and examination after July 4. In the second place. and the practising attorneys. provisions in the first bill regarding (1) the supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court of the study of law. alter. than the function of other examining boards. the reason alleged for said hearing being that some doubt Neither can it be said that bar candidates prior to July 4. rejection of bar candidates do not have the finality of decisions in justiciable cases where the Rules of Court expressly fix certain periods after which they become executory and unalterable. 972 in so far as it against. in so far as it covers bar examination. The existing laws all. In my opinion this view is erroneous. it is a mere averages prescribed therein. 71 per cent in the at any time. In 1953. On the other hand. Tuason. without obtaining a admission to the practice of law may be deemed as a judicial function only because grade below 50 per cent in any subject. it is one expressly sanctioned by the Constitution. and we can fairly suppose that governed by the Constitution which in Article VII. Reyes. and denies to no one the under and by virtue of said Act. while the Supreme Court has the power to examination held after July 4. are being discriminated had "been expressed on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. do not affect opposing litigants. the Congress has the view of an unfavorable comment of Justices Padilla. practice. section 13. for the reduction of the passing general average from 75 per cent to 70 per cent. by the President by merely not signing it within the required various petitioners. (2) the inclusion of Social Legislation and Taxation as new bar subjects. Little intelligence is necessary to see Bautista and Jugo. increase or modify substantive right. retroactive laws are not prohibited by the Constitution. presidents of bar associations. 1946. because we no longer have any record of those who might have failed before affects past bar examinations and the matter" involved "a new question of public the war. apart from the circumstance that 75 per cent had always been the passing interest. any bar candidates who obtained a general average of 70 reconsiderations filed by flunkers in any give year. filed with this protection of the law. are immaterial. Resolutions on bar matters. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading. 1946. and law graduates appeared and admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. Besides. There is no judicial function involved. 972. with the important difference that in the later bill the practice of law is concurrent. to that any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject in any the Supreme Court. and procedure. In the first place. 972 and failed to obtain the necessary passing average. were eliminated. praying that they be admitted to the practice of law does not impair any obligation and contract or vested rights. retroactive to any bar Under this constitutional provision. PAMINTUAN In the year 1951. At any rate. 972 argue that this Act. 972. 73 per cent in the 1954 been the practice heretofore. practice. The obvious reason is that bar examinations and bar examinations. thereby resulting in a legislative encroachment upon the judicial period. approved a bill providing. and the admission to the As regards the alleged interference in or encroachment upon the judgment of this Court practice of law. upon the allegation that they have obtained the general right to due process and equal protection of the law. The Congress shall have the power to repeal. power to repeal. This bill was vetoed by the President mainly in promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade by the Legislative Department. 972. regardless of the period within which the motion were filed. It may also be that there are no pre-war bar candidates similarly situated as those benefited by Republic Act No. the reasonableness must be determined by the legislative body. and 74 per cent in the 1955 bar examinations. because the subject is now proper to recall that the Congress held public hearings. under the Constitution and our Rules of Court. especially adoption by this Court of different passing general averages in certain years.

subject. as do the members of this Court. PAMINTUAN among the three branches of the Government. . concurring and dissenting: Without fear of contradiction. It is a mandate to the the judgment of the legislators. because lawyers are members of the Court and only this Court should be before the date of the resolution. of legislative enactments. PARAS. 127. I am inclined to accept Republic Act No. arbitrary beyond the scope of the congressional prerogative of amending the rules. will not be allowed to practice law. 972 cannot be assailed on the ground that it is unreasonable. But and the Congress have concurrent power to regulate the admission to the practice of the power to determine when a candidate has made or has not made the required grade law. I vote that the act in toto be declared unconstitutional. and we are bound to assume that the legislators. authority and discretion. 1954 and 1955 be allowed to have the privilege To say that the admission of the bar candidates benefited under Republic Act 972 is of a lower passing grade. he must have obtained a a democracy. To say that or capricious.. in the Under section 145 of Rule of Court No. Anyway. are within the scope of the legislative power. not go to the extent of admitting that the Congress. because during the examinations held in August is given in the Constitution to the Congress. we and 74 per cent in 1955 should be considered as having passed the examination. the qualifications of supposed to be in force. It is only this power (to promulgate amendments to the rules) that section 14 of Rule 127 retroactively. where we can and should only hope that the right men are put in the right general average of 75 per cent in all subjects. whose general average is below 80 per cent. dissenting: I would. I hold that the act under consideration is an exercise of the judicial function. As already stated. should be more qualified to make an appraisal. and lies completely with this Court. for the 1947 bar examinations and 70 per cent for the 1948 examinations. the exclusive privilege 14 of Rule 127 by reducing the passing average to 70 per cent. etc. A law would be objectionable and unconstitutional if. with certain exception presently to be specified.J. in the exercise of its rule- making power conferred by the Constitution. 1948 allowed to allowed to determine admission thereto in the interest of the principle of the separation pass all candidates who obtained a general average of 69 per cent or more and on of powers. since this is a matter that is addressed to mean exercise of the privilege and discretion judged in this Court. namely. effective several years of this Court. exercise. other. Indeed. may act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. representing the people who elected them. average. to their oath of office. This Court in many instances had doubted the propriety tribunal to pass candidates for different years with grades lower than the passing mark. the rule-making power of Congress. in order that a bar candidate "may be same way that this Court may not do so. in the exercise of its concurrent power to repeal. Needless to say. said section (fixing the general average at 75 per cent) was or not to admit. 972 has not produced Wherefore. it would provide that those who have been admitted to the bar after July 4. when this Court on July 15. 1946. since this Court had already adopted as passing averages 69 per cent candidates who obtain a general average of 72 per cent in 1953. for instance. while those taking earlier or later are not? against public interest. We are thus left in the situation. is to assume that the matter of whether said Act is beneficial or harmful to the general public was not considered by the Congress. On the question of public interest I may observe that the Congress. and yet it has consistently refrained from nullifying them No reasoning is necessary to show that it is an arrogation of the Court's judicial solely on that ground. Republic Act No. or supplement the Rules of Court regarding the admission to the practice of law.29 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. incidental to deemed to have passed his examinations successfully. I think the Supreme Court. LABRADOR. 972 is constitutional and should therefore be a case involving two parties and decided by the Court in favor of one and against the given effect in its entirety. Thus the rules on the holding of examination. without falling below 50 per cent in any places in our Government. had taken all the of this Court to admit members thereof. that the latter may validly pass a retroactive rule fixing the passing general is judicial. is to should not inquire into the wisdom of the law. because it is not embraced within the Congress held public hearings. C. may pass a resolution amending section The right to admit members to the Bar is. the statute will not affect the previous resolutions passing bar candidates who had obtained the general average prescribed by section 14 of Rule 127. I hold that Republic Act No. alter. because said statute would then destroy a right already acquired under previous resolutions of this Court. not the exercise of the discretion to admit 1947 and August 1948. Separate Opinions the bar admission of those whose general averages were from 75 to 79 per cent. circumstances into account before passing the Act. The power to admit is judicial in the sense that discretion is used in is April 28. and has always been. It is furthermore objectionable as discriminatory. 1949 those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more. J. In stands to reason. and lies Republic Act No. however. Why should those taking the examinations in 1953. the passing grades. if we are to admit that the Supreme Court applicants. 972 as an expression of the will of the people through their duly elected representatives. This power should be distinguished from the power to promulgate rules which irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration. and because it is discriminatory. it in effect amended regulate admission.' This passing mark has always been adhered to.. because it is an undue interference with the power loyal. 73 per cent in 1954.

In the examinations of November. 1953 a hearing on said petitions. In the first place." candidates. and procedure. to examination after July 4. all candidates with a general average of had "been expressed on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. and (4) the equal division among the examiners of all the admission fees examinations held prior to its approval. all those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more. alter. while the Supreme Court has the power to view of an unfavorable comment of Justices Padilla. specially on motions for per cent in any examinations after July 4. 972. upon the allegation that they have obtained the general candidates with a general average of 72 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by averages prescribed therein. 972 and failed to obtain the necessary passing average. 70 per cent. in the subject and constitutional sense of the word. There is no judicial function involved. after public hearings where law deans and professors. because it sets aside the paid by bar applicants. This would indicate that in the original list of successful on July 11. This bill was vetoed by the President mainly in Under this constitutional provision. the Congress. In virtue of the resolution of July 6. This second bill was allowed to become a law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade invoking the precedents set by this Court in 1947 and 1948. among others. and on motion for reconsideration. to an governed by the Constitution which in Article VII. however. and members of the bar. are immaterial. After the original list of 1947 successful bar candidates had been memoranda as amici curiae. but said motions were and shall not diminish. subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. Court of the study of law. and for the practice of law is inherently judicial. 19 under and by virtue of said Act. argued lengthily pro or con. and in doing so the President gave due respect to the will of the Congress power. PAMINTUAN With reference to the bar examinations given in August. the reason alleged for said hearing being that some doubt released.30 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. presidents of bar associations. or In the year 1951. are subject to revision by this Court 1952 bar examinations. approved a bill providing. shall be allowed to pass. but. speaking for the people. retroactive to any bar examination held after July 4. In my opinion this view is erroneous. because the subject is now the year 1948. for the reduction of the passing general average from 75 per cent to 70 per cent. the Congress passed another bill similar to the previous power to repeal. alter or supplement said rules. and the admission to the averages mostly ranged from 69 to 73 per cent. final resolutions of the Supreme Court refusing to admit to the practice of law the Republic Act No. increase or modify substantive right. and the practising attorneys. The obvious reason is that bar examinations and grade below 50 per cent in any subject. cent or more. 12 candidates with general averages ranging from 72 to 73 per cent were raised to 75 per cent by resolution of Numerous candidates who had taken the bar examinations previous to the approval of December 18. 972 in so far as it 69 per cent were allowed to pass by resolution of July 15. Reyes. is unconstitutional. 1949. without being noticed perhaps. irrespective of the grades in any one subject and irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration. The Congress shall have the power to repeal. filed with this containing the names of successful candidates covered only those who obtained a Court mass or separate petitions. Said Act also provides admission to the practice of law may be deemed as a judicial function only because that any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject in any said matters happen to be entrusted. practice. With respect to the bar affects past bar examinations and the matter" involved "a new question of public examinations held in August. practice. Little intelligence is necessary to see bill vetoed by the President. in so far as it covers bar examination. Upon motion for reconsideration. and this amounted. under the Constitution and our Rules of Court. 71 per cent in the reconsiderations filed by flunkers in any give year. Resolutions on bar matters. 73 per cent in the 1954 at any time. upon motion for reconsideration. this Court held resolution of March 31. 1946. 1948. regardless of the period within which the motion were filed. were eliminated. rejection of bar candidates do not have the finality of decisions in justiciable cases where the Rules of Court expressly fix certain periods after which they become Under Republic Act No. especially candidates those having a general average of 73 per cent or more but below 75 per authorized representatives of bar associations. Thus. (3) the publication of the bar examiners before the holding of the The opponents of Republic Act No. without obtaining a been the practice heretofore. section 13. on pleading. 1953. All discussions in support of the proposition that the power to regulate the admission to for the year 1947 the Court in effect made 69 per cent as the passing average. (2) the inclusion of Social Legislation and Taxation as new bar subjects. 1946. were invited to argue or submit cent were included. 72 per cent in 1953 bar examinations. were allowed to pass by resolution of April 28. 1946. whose general pleading. any bar candidates who obtained a general average of 70 executory and unalterable. The existing laws uniformly denied. thereby resulting in a legislative encroachment upon the judicial period. 1947. practice. the Congress has the Bautista and Jugo. with the important difference that in the later bill the that the power of the Supreme Court and the Congress to regulate the admission to the provisions in the first bill regarding (1) the supervision and regulation by the Supreme practice of law is concurrent. supplement the rules concerning pleading. filed motions for reconsideration practice of law. Tuason. provides as follows: amendment of section 14 of Rule 127. 972 argue that this Act. Montemayor. In 1953. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning Numerous flunkers in the bar examinations held subsequent to 1948. and this has bar examinations. 1946 the list first released Republic Act No. the original list of subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing in any successful candidates included only those who obtained a general average of 75 per subsequent examinations. promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law. 1946. chose to repass the bill first vetoed by him. 1946 up to August 1951. and law graduates appeared and admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or the Supreme Court. 1948. by the President by merely not signing it within the required various petitioners. praying that they be admitted to the practice of law general average of 75 per cent or more. in addition to the original list of successful bar interest. and procedure in all courts. because bar examinations and the admission to the . and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes and are declared Rules of Court. resolutions on the which. and 74 per cent in the 1955 bar examinations. 972.

Justices Fernando Jugo and Felix Bautista Angelo 1947 and August 1948. 2 In 1946 and 1947. It may also be that there are no pre-war bar candidates circumstances into account before passing the Act. do not affect opposing litigants. In stands to reason. not go to the extent of admitting that the Congress. and Hon. In October. Guillermo F. except only when they would be ex post facto. the classification adopted in the Act reflects good legislative judgment derived from the facts and circumstances then brought out. because we no longer have any record of those who might have failed before the Congress held public hearings. Moran resigned and law. Chief Justice. 972 has not produced given effect in its entirety. is to assume that the matter of whether said Act is beneficial or Neither can it be said that bar candidates prior to July 4. said section (fixing the general average at 75 per cent) was were appointed to t he Court. since this Court had already adopted as passing averages 69 per cent not prohibited by the Constitution. pass all candidates who obtained a general average of 69 per cent or more and on resigned. for instance. I hold that Republic Act No. To say that the admission of the bar candidates benefited under Republic Act 972 is against public interest. and denies to no one the of legislative enactments. Justice average. Hon. At any rate. Sabino 14 of Rule 127 by reducing the passing average to 70 per cent. 1946. may act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In 1951. in the by the Legislative Department. not merely for the empty purpose of creating appearances of separation and equality Wherefore. in the matter may observe that the Congress. Besides. in the exercise of its rule. and Hontiveros. it is a mere solely on that ground. or supplement the Rules of Court regarding the As regards the alleged interference in or encroachment upon the judgment of this Court admission to the practice of law. would for the 1947 bar examinations and 70 per cent for the 1948 examinations. Hon. Moran. 1948 allowed to Marcelino R. 972 as proper to recall that the Congress held public hearings. Ho. Anyway. it in effect amended 1949. resigned. Hon. retired. if there is any interference at same way that this Court may not do so. whose general average 1Designed as Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners vice Mr. Cesar making power conferred by the Constitution. Pablo. the war. It is no more Republic Act No. Pedro Tuason. as Justice Perfecto had died. Justice Padilla was returned to the Tribunal. namely. Hon. when this Court on July 15. as Justice Briones section 14 of Rule 127 retroactively. Republic Act No. Ricardo Paras. incidental to all. unlike justiciable cases. It is more qualified to make an appraisal. are being discriminated harmful to the general public was not considered by the Congress. 972 is constitutional and should therefore be among the three branches of the Government. if we are to admit that the Supreme Court Angelo were appointed to the Court. however. 972. effective several years Padilla. 972 certainly is not an ex post facto enactment. Felicisimo R. it is one expressly sanctioned by the Constitution. a case involving two parties and decided by the Court in favor of one and against the other. As already stated. arbitrary than the function of other examining boards. because during the examinations held in August resigned. I would. In 1953. Justice is below 80 per cent. Hon. then destroy a right already acquired under previous resolutions of this Court. In 1948. 972 cannot be assailed on the ground that it is unreasonable. 1949 those who obtained a general average of 70 per cent or more. and yet it has consistently refrained from nullifying them right to due process and equal protection of the law. apart from the circumstance that 75 per cent had always been the passing loyal. PAMINTUAN practice of law. as do the members of this Court. alter. Indeed. the bar admission of those whose general averages were from 75 to 79 per cent. Chief Justice Manuel V. Without fear of contradiction. Republic Act No. Justices before the date of the resolution. A law would be objectionable and unconstitutional if. I think the Supreme Court. curative statute intended to correct certain obvious inequalities arising from the adoption by this Court of different passing general averages in certain years. retroactive laws are or capricious. and we can fairly suppose that an expression of the will of the people through their duly elected representatives. 1946. 1950. This Court in many instances had doubted the propriety does not impair any obligation and contract or vested rights. Feria retired . will not be allowed to practice law. Court and Justice Sabino Padilla was appointed Secretary of Justice. Needless to say.31 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. and we are bound to assume that the legislators. Carlos Hilado. should be of classification. because said statute would Roman Ozaeta. Briones. On the other hand. I am inclined to accept Republic Act No. against. the judgment of the legislators. Hon. interference in judicial a democracy. litigants that have already been vested or acquired in virtue of decisions of courts. Associate Justices. where we can and should only hope that the right men are put in the right adjudication prohibited by the Constitution is essentially aimed at protecting rights of places in our Government. Gregorio Perfecto. since this is a matter that is addressed to protection of the law. Manuel V. Manuel C. representing the people who elected them. Ho. Justice Roman Ozaeta was returned to the April 28. and Justice and the Congress have concurrent power to regulate the admission to the practice of Ozaeta had resigned. Montemayor and Alex. Felicisimo Feria. On the question of public interest I similarly situated as those benefited by Republic Act No. In the second place. it would provide that those who have been admitted to the bar after July 4. Hon. may pass a resolution amending section Bengzon. had taken all the mark during said period. it is sufficient to state that. in the exercise of its concurrent power to repeal. as Justice Perfecto Jugo and Felix Bautista supposed to be in force. the members of the Supreme Court were Hon. We are thus left in the situation. that the latter may validly pass a retroactive rule fixing the passing general Justice Ricardo Paras was appointed Chief Justice. the reasonableness must be determined by the legislative body. In June. we impair obligations and contracts or vested rights or would deny due process and equal should not inquire into the wisdom of the law. Jose Hontiveros. to their oath of office. Reyes took the place of Justice Hilado. the statute will not affect the previous resolutions passing bar candidates who had obtained the general average prescribed by section 14 of Rule Footnotes 127. irrespective of whether they filed petitions for reconsideration.

to carry out the purposes of this Act. 1971 and perforce must include all lawyers. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) measure was signed by President Ferdinand E. It will suffice. 3 and all parties were thereafter A resolution of these issues requires. such sums as may be necessary for the same purpose shall be included January 9. 2. 1973 in the annual appropriations for the Supreme Court. therefore. 4 integration. Thereafter. 5262 of the Court. opinions. There is thus sufficient basis as well as ample material upon which the Court On December 1." The appear in the Roll of Attorneys. PAMINTUAN Republic of the Philippines the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to SUPREME COURT raise the standards of the legal profession. This law provides as follows: Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity SECTION 1. 1972. comments and observations of the rank and file of the Philippine PER CURIAM: lawyer population relative to Bar integration. This requires membership and financial support (in reasonable amount) In 1970.32 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. 1962. Bar integration." (2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional? The petition in Adm. 1972. a statement of the meaning of Bar granted leave to file written memoranda. out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated. improve the Manila administration of justice. Act 6397. 1971. the with power to do so: the State. sentiments. Within two years from the approval of this Act. the Commission on Bar Integration1 submitted its Report dated may decide whether or not to integrate the Philippine Bar at this time. for this purpose. Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. Marcos on September 17. and "consistently with the views and counsel received from its [the Commission's] Board of The following are the pertinent issues: Consultants. SEC. arguments in favor of as well as in opposition to the petition were orally expounded before the Court. RESOLUTION The Report of the Commission abounds with argument on the constitutionality of Bar integration and contains all necessary factual data bearing on the advisability (practicability and necessity) of Bar integration. In September. giving recognition as far as possible and (3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time? practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar associations. after due hearing. thus: Since then. Also embodied therein are the views. at the outset. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated. 3. On August 16. took effect on the same day as Rep. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. as well as a proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission and presented to them by that body in a national Bar plebiscite. the Court has closely observed and followed significant developments relative to the matter of the integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction. as well as the overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar" — that "this Honorable Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as (1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar? soon as possible through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. 3277 entitled "An Act Providing The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names for the Integration of the Philippine Bar. and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. to adopt the concept given by the Commission on Bar Integration on pages 3 to 5 of its Report. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration of the Philippine Bar. signifies Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the setting up by Government authority of a national organization of . EN BANC SEC. convinced from preliminary surveys that there had grown a strong nationwide of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law sentiment in favor of Bar integration. IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. Case No. November 30. with the "earnest recommendation" — on the basis of the said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. Written oppositions were admitted. Congress passed House Bill No. and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Court. the Court created the Commission on Bar and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar.

improve the administration officers. but is a mere legislative (3) Discharge. learning. rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar. which traditionally cannot defend itself except officer of the court. In providing that "the Supreme Court may adopt judges and prosecuting officers. fully and properly. justice and the Rule of Law. (14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful country-wide involvement of the lawyer population in the solution of the Integration of the Bar will. impartiality and Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of independence. will "raise the standards of the legal profession." Indeed. within its own forum. and assist it to maintain its integrity. public service and set up lawyer reference services throughout the country so that the conduct. on the importance of preventive legal advice. its responsibility in the disciplining declaration that the integration of the Bar will promote public interest or. the exercise of its power. and on and the functions and duties of the Filipino lawyer. pleading. the Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in (1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of Law. (3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members. and obligations. and promulgate minimum fees thereto. and make reports and recommendations thereon. "to promulgate rules concerning pleading. (2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of (8) Provide placement services. more and/or removal of incompetent and unworthy judges and prosecuting specifically. 13 of the Constitution. PAMINTUAN the legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an (4) Shield the judiciary. through their own organized action and (5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and prosecuting participation. (9) Distribute educational and informational materials that are difficult to obtain in many of our provinces. officers. Sec. practice and procedure. among other things." Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's inherent power. (12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal research. the legal profession to: Anent the first issue." . pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court. (6) Encourage and foster legal education. (4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood. and establish legal aid offices and integrity. law profession throughout the country. jurisprudence. and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public. (6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law. (10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal education for practising attorneys in order to elevate the standards of the (5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law.33 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. of justice. and the admission to the practice of law. under Article VIII. from the assaults that politics and self-interest may level at it. poor may not lack competent legal service. and ensures. (7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive (13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal rights and adjective law. the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession. and procedure in all courts. and (8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively. The purposes of an integrated Bar. the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court's (2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of tyrannical constitutional authority over the Bar. and publish information relating (11) Enforce rigid ethical standards. professional competence. in general. schedules. lawyers. reform. practice. are: (7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased (1) Assist in the administration of justice. integration fosters cohesion among lawyers. and break up any monopoly of local practice maintained through influence or position. make it possible for multifarious problems that afflict the nation.

The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the Bar is that the regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. to regulate the Bar. clothed with public interest. the administration of justice. collective action. a privilege. in order to further the State's legitimate interest moreover. If the Court has inherent power to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar. the most efficient means of doing so is A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation. The body compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual Judicial Pronouncements. functions of the State. PAMINTUAN Resolution of the second issue — whether the unification of the Bar would be Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which constitutional — hinges on the effects of Bar integration on the lawyer's constitutional he is not already a member. duty to pay dues in reasonable amount. It would not be possible 1. Bar includes the authority to integrate the Bar. it is far and just that the exercise of that privilege be regarded as a proper subject of legislative regulation and control. therefore. and on the nature of the dues he passed the Bar examinations. The issue therefore. and takes part in one of the most important subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the lawyers. it follows that as an incident to regulation. — The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege. elevating the educational and ethical standards of the Bar to the end of improving the quality of the legal service available to the people. not The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning: involuntary membership in any other aspect. dues. and to the nation.34 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. Commission on Bar Integration pages 44 to 49 of its Report: Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. The legal profession has long been interest. violative of his constitutional freedom to associate (or the corollary right not to associate). may require that the not only to his client. — These public responsibilities can best be discharged through 2. but also to his brethren in the profession. Freedom of Association. no organized body can operate effectively without For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not incurring expenses. The doctrine of implied powers To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is not necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction. regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public Moreover. the inherent power of the Supreme Court to regulate the responsibilities. Constitutionality of Bar Integration He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. as an officer of the court. it is fair and just that all attorneys be mean that the Court levies a tax. — Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice The greater part of Unified Bar activities serves the function of of law. membership in the Unified Bar imposes only the put in issue. such compulsion is justified as an exercise of — Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public the police power of the State. He became a member of the Bar when rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech. because a lawyer owes duties in elevating the quality of professional services. but there can be no collective action without an organized body. Regulatory Fee. to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent discussion made by the a member. it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. the Courts have upheld their constitutionality. by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers while the purpose of a tax is revenue. All that integration actually does is exacted from him. In all cases where the validity of Bar integration measures has been Otherwise stated. to push through an Integrated Bar program without means to defray the concomitant expenses. The public interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs . required to contribute to the support of such organized body. is a question of compelled financial support of group activities. given existing Bar conditions. to the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the courts. and. The Supreme Court. Assuming that Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar.

of the 13. after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the exercise of regulatory power by the Court. it is not unfair. ACCORDINGLY. and enable the Bar to discharge its of the Bar at this time — requires a careful overview of the practicability and necessity public responsibility fully and effectively. and vastly improved the administration The objection would make every Governmental exaction the material of justice. they will receive these clearly indicate an overwhelming nationwide demand for Bar integration at this benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed. 662 will give the members of the Bar a new system which they hitherto (or 4.555 (or 96. young and old." within the context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines. and 157 (or 1. become an impersonal Bar. by proper work. hereby ordains the integration of the Bar of the Philippines in integration has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved discipline among the accordance with the attached COURT RULE. has become an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal To resolve the third and final issue — whether the Court should ordain the integration profession. a total of eighty (80) local Bar association and lawyers' groups all over the Philippines have submitted resolutions and other expressions of unqualified 4. it established. (2) greater influence and ascendancy of the Bar. and to the A lawyer is free. the Bar will affect his freedom of speech. at the time Bar integration takes of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar effect.090 lawyers from all over the archipelago who have turned in their immoral. by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article In many other jurisdictions. (3) better and from his required payment of annual dues. and discharge their public time. PAMINTUAN the inconsequential inconvenience to a member that might result members of the Bar. and because it is a new regulation in exchange for new Integration. because it will apply arguments adduced in Adm. The conscientious objector. 1973. effective lobbying will not be possible. responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have been able to do in the past. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass equally to all lawyers. it is difficult to understand integration have failed to materialize in over fifty years of Bar integration experience in why it should become unconstitutional for the Bar to use the England. Fair to All Lawyers. Freedom of Speech. Because the requirement to pay dues is a valid The Court is fully convinced. as well as the advantages and disadvantages of Bar integration. however. local Bar associations will be weakened. Bar VIII of the Constitution. it is not retroactive. Finally.51 per cent) voted against it. even though such views be from the unification of the Philippine Bar. to voice his views on any public. of any other end condemned by his conscience as irreligious or a total of 15.855 (or 93. if his liberties were to be thus compiled by the Commission on Bar integration show that in the national poll recently extended.5 All have not had and through which. as he has always been. might refuse to contribute taxes in furtherance of war or of conducted by the Commission in the matter of the integration of the Philippine Bar. while not a single local Bar association or lawyers' group has expressed opposed position thereto.45 per cent) voted in favor of Bar integration. In addition. endorsement and/or support for Bar integration. would not nullify or adversely cliquism will be the inevitable result. on the other hand.35 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. 14. the Court.04 per cent) are non- Government. commital.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof. while above the powers and the compulsion of the agencies of only 378 (or 2. (8) more cohesive profession. For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote measures Government authority will dominate the Bar. The right of private judgment has never yet been exalted individual responses. No less than these salutary consequences are envisioned and in fact expected subject in any manner he wishes. notably in England.06 per cent) are non-committal. Canada and the United States. none of the abuses or evils feared has arisen. (6) 3. and 285 (or 2. Even the income tax would be suspect. and (9) better and more effective discharge by the Bar of its obligations and responsibilities to its members. energized the Bar's responsibilities to the public. Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to practice law It is noteworthy.802 Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising because individual lawyers who cast their plebiscite ballots on the proposed integration Court although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation. (5) elimination of unauthorized practice. (7) establishment of an official status for the Bar. to the courts. avoidance of costly membership campaigns. improve the administration of justice. it is not unequal. In all the jurisdictions where the Integrated member's dues to fulfill the very purposes for which it was Bar has been tried. effective on January 16. that the integration of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly constitutional and benefits. legally unobjectionable. Upon the other hand. Canada and the United States. to which said member is opposed. The objection would carry us to lengths that have never been dreamed How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar integration? The official statistics of. has restored public confidence in the Bar. 12. of a "free speech" issue. more meaningful participation of the individual lawyer in the activities of the Integrated Bar. . Case No. enlarged professional consciousness.80 per cent) vote against it. it Rule drafted by the Commission. that these and other evils prophesied by opponents of Bar upon membership in the Integrated Bar. opposed to positions taken by the Unified Bar. and politics will intrude into its affairs. it has been variously argued that in the event of integration. (4) greater Bar facilities and services.

1973.. Villarin. Makasiar. Diokno. PAMINTUAN Concepcion. The Lawphil Project . 4 The Petitioners and the Negros Occidental Bar Association submitted memoranda in favor of Bar integration. Zaldivar. Teehankee. Castillo. the Camarines Sur Bar Association and the Manila Bar Association. Carag. Ex-Senator Tecla San Andres Ziga. the petition represented the unanimous consensus of 53 Bar Associations (from all over the Philippines) reached in convention at the Far Eastern University Auditorium in Manila on June 23. Panuncialman). Law Center Director Crisolito Pascual.. Roy. U. Footnotes 1 Created by Supreme Court Resolution of October 5. Makalintal. 1970 "for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of the integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction.36 (IN RE: CUNANAN 94 PHIL 534 Pages 1 to 31) (IN RE: IBP 49 SCRA 22 Pages 32 to 36) PAULA BETINA O. and Leo A. Senator Jose J. Fernando. 2 Filed on July 11.Arellano Law Foundation . Jose P.J. Jr. while the Manila Bar Association submitted a memoranda opposing Bar integration. 1962. and San Beda Law Dean and Constitutional Convention Delegate Feliciano Jover Ledesma (Members). 3 Written oppositions were submitted by Attys. Atty. Fructuoso S. Cesar Fajardo and Vicente L. JJ. Eugenio Villanueva. 5 All figures are as of January 8. Antonio and Esguerra. C. retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Conrado V. Roman Ozaeta. Sanchez. Supreme Court Associate Justice (then Court of Appeals Presiding Justice) Salvador V. Arcega. Barredo. the Camarines Norte Lawyers League. P. Esguerra." the Commission is composed of Supreme Court Associate Justice Fred Ruiz Castro (Chairman). 1962 (by a Committee composed of Jose W. concur.