Pimentel et. al, Petitioner, versus Legal Education Board, Respondent.

=
[G.R. Nos. 230642, 242954 & A.M. No. 20-03-04-SC Nov. 9, 2021]
ZALAMEDA, J.

DOCTRINE
Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution states that “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in
all institutions of higher learning.” It includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself,
its aims and objectives, and how to attain the free from outside coercion or interference save
possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.

FACTS
R.A. No. 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act of 1993) created the Legal Education Board
(LEB), an executive agency which was made separate from the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS), but attached thereto solely for budgetary purposes and
administrative support.

Acting pursuant to its authority to prescribe the minimum standards for law schools, the
LEB issued a Memorandum Order (LEBMO No. 7-2016) which requires all those seeking
admission to the basic Law course to take and pass a nationwide uniform law school admission
test, known as the PhiLSAT. It was designed to measure the academic potential of the
examinee to pursue the study of law. Exempted from the PhiLSAT requirement were honor
graduates who were granted professional civil service eligibility and who are enrolling within two
years from their college graduation.

Days before the scheduled conduct of the first-ever PhiLSAT on April 16, 2017,
Petitioners filed their Petition for Prohibition principally seeking that R.A. No. 7662 be declared
unconstitutional and that the creation of the LEB be invalidated together with all its issuances,
most especially the PhiLSAT, for encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Court
concerning admissions to the practice of law.

OSG Comments
Procedurally, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the LEB, assails the
propriety of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition on the ground that R.A. No. 7662 is a
legislative act and not a judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial function. It also claims that the
Congress is an indispensable party to the petitions.

Substantively, the OSG contends that the Court’s power to regulate admission to the
practice of law does not include regulation of legal education. The OSG urges that the PhiLSAT
is no different from the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) which the Court already
upheld as a valid exercise of police power in the seminal case of Tablarin v. Gutierrez.

ISSUE/S
WoN the state sponsored PhiLSAT violates institutional freedom

RULING

Yes. The state sponsored PhiLSAT violates institutional freedom.

Section 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution states that “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in
all institutions of higher learning.” It includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself,
its aims and objectives, and how to attain the free from outside coercion or interference save
possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. The essential freedom
subsumed in the term “academic freedom” encompasses the freedom to determine for itself on
academic grounds: (1) Who may teach; (2) What may be taught; (3) How it shall be taught; (4)
Who may be admitted to study.

The 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.

Certain LEB issuances which exceed the powers granted under its charter should be nullified for
being ultra vires. The provisions of the PhiLSAT that effectively and absolutely exclude
applicants who failed to pass the PhiLSAT from taking up a course in legal education, thereby
restricting and qualifying admissions to law schools, are unconstitutional for being manifestly
violative of the law schools’ exercise of academic freedom, specifically the autonomy to
determine for itself who it shall allow to be admitted to its law program.

In mandating that only applicants who scored at least 55% correct answers shall be admitted to
any law school, the PhiLSAT actually usurps the right and duty of the law school to determine
for itself the criteria for the admission of students and thereafter, to apply such criteria on a
case-by-case basis. It also mandates law schools to absolutely reject applicants with a grade
lower than the prescribed cut-off score and those with expired PhiLSAT eligibility. The token
regard for institutional academic freedom comes into play, if at all, only after the applicants had
been “pre-selected” without the school’s participation. The right of the institutions then is
constricted only in providing “additional” admission requirements, admitting of the interpretation
that the preference of the school itself is merely secondary or supplemental to that of the State
which is antithetical to the very principle of reasonable supervision and regulation. The law
schools are left with absolutely no discretion to choose its students at the first instance and in
accordance with its own policies, but are dictated to surrender such discretion in favor of a
State-determined pool of applicants, under pain of administrative sanctions and/or payment of
fines.

Similar to the NMAT, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is only one of the several criteria
for evaluation for law school admission. It is just one of the methods that law schools may use to
differentiate applicants for law school. The PhiLSAT, as presently crafted, employs a totalitarian
scheme in terms of student admissions. This leaves the consequent actions of the applicant-
student and the school solely dependent upon the results of the PhiLSAT.

The Court partially nullifies LEBMO No. 7-2016 insofar as it absolutely prescribes the passing of
the PhiLSAT and the taking thereof within two years as a prerequisite for admission to any law
school which, on its face, directly counter to institutional academic freedom. The rest of LEBMO
No. 7-2016, being free from any taint of unconstitutionality, should remain force and effect.