G.R. No.

170338             December 23, 2008

Pimentel v. Legal Education Board,

Abayata v. Medialdea and Legal Education Board

FACTS:

The congress passed the R.A. 7662 or the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993
into law because of the poor performance of law students in the bar
examinations.
Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7662 and the creation of
LEB or the LEGAL EDUCATIONAL BOARD.
They alleged that the requirement of taking the PhilSat be declared invalidated
for interfering with the power of the court concerning admissions to the practice
of law and the student’s admission into law school.

ISSUE:

Whether the PhilSat is unconstitutional and is in violation of the academic

freedom of the faculty and the students

RULING:

Yes, PhiLSAT presently operates not only as a measure of an applicant's

aptitude for law school. The PhiLSAT,as a pass or fail exam, dictates upon law
schools who among the examinees are to be admitted to any law program. When
the PhiLSAT is used to exclude, qualify, and restrict admissions to law schools,
as it sets the score to which students have to acquire to be allowed to enroll in
the Law program. The PhiLSAT goes beyond mere supervision and regulation,
violates institutional academic freedom, becomes unreasonable and therefore,
unconstitutional.

The institutional academic freedom of law schools to determine for itself who to
admit pursuant to their respective admissions policies is merely protected. In
turn, the recognition of academic discretion comes with the inherent limitation
that its exercise should not be whimsical, arbitrary, or gravely abused. In this
case, R.A. No. 7662 goes beyond legal education and intrude upon the Court's
exclusive jurisdiction to declare rules.