PIMENTEL VS LEB

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 seek the creation of the LEB
be declared invalidated together
the its’ issuances and
memorandums,
especially the PhilSat, for
encroaching upon the rule making
power of the court concerning
admissions
to the practice of law.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the PhilSat is
unconstitutional.
RULING:
1. 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 its
present design mandates, the
PhiLSAT goes beyond mere
supervision and regulation,
violates
institutional academic freedom,
becomes unreasonable and
therefore, unconstitutional.
The State's inherent power to
protect public interest by
improving legal education is
neither emasculated
nor compromised. Rather, 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.
The power to 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 is settled as
belonging exclusively to the
Court, certain
provisions and clauses of R.A.
No. 7662 which, by its plain
language and meaning, go beyond
legal
education and intrude upon the
Court's exclusive jurisdiction
suffer from patent
unconstitutionality and
should therefore be struck down.
PIMENTEL VS LEB
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 seek the creation of the LEB
be declared invalidated together
the its’ issuances and
memorandums,
especially the PhilSat, for
encroaching upon the rule making
power of the court concerning
admissions
to the practice of law.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the PhilSat is
unconstitutional.
RULING:
1. 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 its
present design mandates, the
PhiLSAT goes beyond mere
supervision and regulation,
violates
institutional academic freedom,
becomes unreasonable and
therefore, unconstitutional.
The State's inherent power to
protect public interest by
improving legal education is
neither emasculated
nor compromised. Rather, 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.
The power to 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 is settled as
belonging exclusively to the
Court, certain
provisions and clauses of R.A.
No. 7662 which, by its plain
language and meaning, go beyond
legal
education and intrude upon the
Court's exclusive jurisdiction
suffer from patent
unconstitutionality and
should therefore be struck down.
PIMENTEL VS LEBFACTS:
The congress passed the R.A. 7662 or the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 into law because of
thepoor performance of law students in the bar examinations.Petitioners questioned the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 7662 and the creation of LEB or the LEGALEDUCATIONAL
BOARD.They seek the creation of the LEB be declared invalidated together the its’ issuances and
memorandums,especially the PhilSat, for encroaching upon the rule making power of the court
concerning admissionsto the practice of law.

ISSUE:1. Whether the PhilSat is unconstitutional.

RULING:1. 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 anylaw program. When the PhiLSAT is used to exclude, qualify, and restrict admissions to law
schools, as itspresent design mandates, the PhiLSAT goes beyond mere supervision and
regulation, violatesinstitutional academic freedom, becomes unreasonable and therefore,
unconstitutional.The State's inherent power to protect public interest by improving legal education is
neither emasculatednor compromised. Rather, the institutional academic freedom of law schools to
determine for itself whoto admit pursuant to their respective admissions policies is merely protected. In
turn, the recognition ofacademic discretion comes with the inherent limitation that its exercise
should not be whimsical,arbitrary, or gravely abused.The power to 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 is
settled as belonging exclusively to the Court, certainprovisions and clauses of R.A. No. 7662 which,
by its plain language and meaning, go beyond legaleducation and intrude upon the Court's exclusive
jurisdiction suffer from patent unconstitutionality andshould therefore be struck down.