Facts:

Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” In
accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates
who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent. 

After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar
invoking its provisions, while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending
also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are also others who have
sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. 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.

Issue:
WON RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid? 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to
1953; Albino Cunanan et. al petitioners. 

In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as
R.A. 972 popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” Generally a candidate is deemed
passed if he obtains a general ave of 75% in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any subject,
although for the past few exams the passing grades were changed depending on the strictness
of the correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-
1953 – 75%).

Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by
the S.C., and feeling that they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who
obtained averages of a few percentages lower than those admitted to the bar went to congress
for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill no. 12, but was vetoed by the president after he was given
advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the senate then approved senate bill no. 372
embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then became law on June 21,
1953

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.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have on the legal profession and the
administration of justice, the S.C. would seek to know if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.
 An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of the law that
should be developed constantly and maintained firmly.
 The Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting, suspending,
disbarring, and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly
judicial. 
 The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C. equal responsibilities
concerning the admission to the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which
the constitution recognizes continue to reside in this court.
 Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law seeks to “cure” are not the rules
set in place by the S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the court, and this
power is not included in the power granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively w/in
the judiciary.
 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.

HELD:

Under the authority of the court:

1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952
and all of art. 2 of the said law are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force
and effect.
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the
law (1953- 1955) is valid and shall continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates
who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are denied, and all the candidates who in the
examination of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of below 50% in
any subject are considered as having passed whether they have filed petitions for
admissions or not.)