Pimentel vs LEB (en banc)

G.R. No. 230642. November 09, 2021

ZALAMEDA, J.

FACTS: The Congress passed Republic Act No. (RA) 7662 and introduced
certain reforms to the legal education system, including the creation of the Legal
Education Board (LEB) with the power to, among others, prescribe minimum
standards for law school admission and law school accreditation. These reforms,
however, were met with resistance, on constitutional grounds, from those who seek
to impart, as well as those who strive to acquire, legal knowledge.

On December 10, 2019, the Court En Banc, through former Associate Justice
Jose C. Reyes, Jr., rendered a Decision upholding the jurisdiction of LEB over legal
education. Also included in the aforementioned decision is the declaration that
Section 7 (c) and (e) of R.A. 7662 as CONSTITUTIONAL and Section 2, par. 2,
Section 3(a)(2), Section 7(g) and Section 7(h) as UNCONSTITUTIONAL for
encroaching upon the power of the Court. Other LEB issuances were also declared
unconstitutional for being ultra vires. As such, the respondents filed a joint Motion for
Reconsideration.

Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the jurisdiction of LEB over legal education as established
under Republic Act No. 7662, constitutes a valid exercise of the State's police
power.

2. Whether or not the mandatory requirement of passing the PhiLSAT as an

admission requirement for entry into law school unconstitutional.

Ruling/s:

1. Yes. The Court reiterates that the authority to supervise and regulate legal
education is lodged with the political departments, as exercised through
regulatory measures enacted through the police power of the State. In the
case of legal education, the legislature, through Section 4 of RA 7662, created
the LEB to carry out the purpose of the law of uplifting the standards of legal
education in the country. The Court respectfully disagrees with the proposition
that RA 7662 and the entire concept of LEB, are unconstitutional for intruding
on the academic freedom of law schools and the universities and colleges to
which they belong. However, the Court cautions anew that the State's
exercise of its authority over legal education extends only to reasonable
supervision and regulation, not control. As such, Chief Justice Gesmundo
affirms the authority of the State, through the LEB, to supervise and regulate
law schools, but subject to the latter's academic freedom.

2. Yes. As explained by the Court in its Decision, the PhiLSAT, together with the
additional requirement to pass the same, or have an unexpired certificate of
exemption, are arbitrary and ultra vires in nature; hence, unconstitutional. The
comparison between PhiLSAT and NMAT is flawed. Unlike NMAT, where the
Board of Medicine (BME) establishes a cut-off score for the National Medical
Admission Test (NMAT) in consultation with the Association of Philippine
Medical Colleges, PhiLSAT's passing score of 55% was determined solely by
the Legal Education Board (LEB) without providing a clear rationale.
Therefore, the Court declared the entire LEBMO No. 7-2016, which gave birth
to PhiLSAT, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.