A.

Supervision and Control

1. Supreme Court – Constitution Art. VIII sec. 5 (5)

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:
3. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
1. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
2. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
3. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
4. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
4. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
months without the consent of the judge concerned.
5. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
6. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
7. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

2. Congress – Constitution Art. XII sec. 14 (2) and Art XVIII sec. 10

Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals, managers,
high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall encourage
appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit.

and Art XVIII sec. 10

The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Section 10. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise
provided by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall
remain operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress.

3. In the Matter of the IBP 49 scra 22 (1973)

In Re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973]

16AUG

[Per Curiam]

FACTS:

The Commission on Bar Integration submitted its Report with the “earnest recommendation” — on the basis of the said Report and
the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. 526 of the Court, and “consistently with the views and counsel received from its the
Commission’s Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar” —
that “(the) Honorable (Supreme) Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption and
promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule.” The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration of
the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible and practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar
associations.

ISSUES:
(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?

(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?

(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?

HELD:

YES. On all issues.

RATIO:

The Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the
Constitution, “to promulgate rules concerning x x x the admission to the practice of law.”

The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the
authoritative materials and the mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that
the integration of the Philippine Bar is “perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable,” within the context of contemporary
conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.

The Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, ordained the integration of the Bar of
the Philippines effective January 16, 1973.

4. In re Cunanan 94 Phil 534 (1954)

FACTS

Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. 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, he
must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subject."(Rule 127, sec.
14, Rules of Court).

Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and 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 secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12
which, among others, reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946.

The President requested the views of the court on the bill. Complying with that request, seven members of the court subscribed to
and submitted written comments adverse thereto, and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did not override the
veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371 which is an Act to fix the passing marks for bar examinations from nineteen hundred
and forty-six up to and including nineteen Hundred and fifty-five, embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill.

Republic Act 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 preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law
graduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure in the exams.

After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while
others whose motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional
ground for admission. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration,
irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972. Unfortunately, the court has found no reason to revise their
grades. If they are to be admitted to the bar, it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. 972 which, if declared valid, should be applied
equally to all concerned whether they have filed petitions or not.
ISSUE

Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.

HELD

RA 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 preparation.

In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at
law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said
that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys
at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.

On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the
government.

It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law
passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions
for the license.

Reasons for Unconstitutionality: 1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court. 2.
It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in attempting to do so R.A.
972 violated the Constitution. 3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to
the bar (since the rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated are considered the bare
minimum.) 4. It is a class legislation 5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution
enjoins, and being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.

Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional..