Page 1 of 2

08 March 2019

VILLARUZ, JOHN ROEL S.

LEGAL FORMS
3A-JD4

The oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Legal Education Board

(LEB)
On 04 March 2019, the Supreme Court En Banc conducted an oral
argument regarding to the petition filed by Pimentel et. al. questioning the
constitutionality of the Legal Education Board (LEB). Fortunately, I
witnessed the same personally.
The petitioners particularly challenged the Philippine Law School
Admission Test (Philsat) averring that it is the Supreme Court and not the
LEB that should administer a law school entrance exam. According to the
petitioners, there is an encroachment of judicial power of the Supreme
Court. They also claim that the 1987 Philippine Constitution grants only the
Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules on the admission to the
practice of law, which they contend includes the legal education because
according to them, the latter a preparatory process to the practice of law.
Attorney Comafay, Jr., one of the petitioners who argued told
Associate Justice Jose Reyes, Jr., the ponente of the case that the LEB should
be abolished because it was created by an unconstitutional law.
Attorney Rapista, Dean of St. Thomas More, School of Law and
Business in their petition argued that the Memorandum comprising the
Philippine Law School Admission Test (Philsat) is violative to the academic
freedom. According to him, many of the law students currently enrolled to
their school are prevented from pursuing their law studies because they
flunked to the test. These law students according to him are excelling with
their law studies. Dean Rapista added that because of the Philippine Law
School Admission Test (Philsat) the enrollees of the School of Law reduced.
Attorney Tumulak, who is a fresh bar passer and the counsel for the
law students’ group contended that they are not against to the idea of law
school admission test, but to the LEB for not being answerable to the
Supreme Court.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio told to Attorney Tumulak
that the only problem that the latter raised is they do not want the LEB to
conduct the law school admission test and want the court to regulate it
because it is their constitutional duty to administer the law school
admission test. The Senior Associate Justice concluded that the court have
been in dereliction of their duty since 1935 up to the present which
unfortunately affirmed by the lady lawyer. Attorney Tumulak proposed
the creation of the body that can regulate the test which is under the
supervision of the court.
Former Dean Sedfrey Candelaria of the Ateneo Law School and one
of the amicus curiae said that the proposal of the petitioner that the court
 Page 2 of 2
08 March 2019

will be the one to administer the said examination is impractical because

there are more than one hundred law school in the state.
Meanwhile, Associate Jardeleza warned the petitioners of what they
are praying for because according to him if the court will be the one who
will exercise the power to administer law school test, the court may be have
a higher standard than to what the LEB have.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen on the other hand discussed
academic freedom. He discusses his opinion in a philosophical way. He
said that, the Philippine Law School Admission Test (Philsat) itself may
infringe upon academic freedom, particularly the right of law schools to
determine who they can teach or who will be admitted.