CASE DIGEST: PIMENTEL VS. LEB G.R. NO. 230642 & 242954.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

FACTS:

FACTS:

Petitioners in this case assail the unconstitutionality of R.A. 7662 or the Legal Education Reform
Act of 1993 which creates the Legal Education Board. Petitioners particularly seek to declare as
unconstitutional the creation of LEB itself, LEB issuances and memorandums establishing law
practice internship as a requirement for taking the bar based on Sec. 7 (g) of RA 7662, adopting
a system of continuing legal education based on Sec. 2 (2) and Sec. 7 (h) of RA 7662, and
establishing and implementing the nationwide law school aptitude test known as the Philippine
Law School Admission Test or the PhilSAT pursuant to LEB’s power to “prescribe the minimum
standards for law admission” under Sec. 7 (e) of RA 7662. Petitioners principally grounded the
petitions on LEB’s alleged encroachment upon the rulemaking power of the Court concerning
the practice of law, violation of institutional academic freedom, and violation of law school
aspirant’s right to education under the Constitution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the regulation and supervision of legal education belong to the Court. NO

2. Whether the requirement of internship for admission to Bar Examination embodied in LEB
Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 7(g) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional. YES

3. Whether the adoption of system of continuing legal education embodied in LEB Memorandum
pursuant to Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 7(h) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional. YES

4. Whether the establishment of PhilSAT embodied in LEB Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 7(e)
of RA 7662 is unconstitutional. YES

RULING:

Whether the regulation and supervision of legal education belong to the Court. NO
1. NO. Regulation and supervision of legal education had been historically and consistently
exercised by the political departments. The historical development of statutes on education
unerringly reflects the consistent exercise by the political departments of the power to supervise
and regulate all levels and areas of education, including legal education. Legal education is but
a composite of the entire Philippine education system. It is perhaps unique because it is a
specialized area of study. This peculiarity, however, is no reason in itself to demarcate legal
education and withdraw it from the regulatory and supervisory powers of the political branches.

Two principal reasons militate against the proposition that the Court has the regulation and
supervision of legal education:
First, it assumes that the court, in fact, possesses the power to supervise and regulate legal
education as a necessary consequence of its power to regulate admission to the practice of law.
This assumption, apart from being manifestly contrary to the history of legal education in the
Philippines, is likewise devoid of legal anchorage.

Second, the Court exercises only judicial functions and it cannot, and must not, arrogate upon
itself a power that is not constitutionally vested to it, lest the Court itself violates the doctrine of
separation of powers. For the Court to void RA 7662 and thereafter, to form a body that
regulates legal education and place it under its supervision and control, as what petitioners
suggest, is to demonstrate a highly improper form of judicial activism.

As it is held, the Court’s exclusive rule making power under the Constitution covers the practice
of law and not the study of law. The present rules embodied in the 1997 Rules of Court do not
support the argument that the Court directly and actually regulates legal education, it merely
provides academic competency requirements for those who would like to take the Bar.
Furthermore, it is the State in the exercise of its police power that has the authority to regulate
and supervise the education of its citizens and this includes legal education.

Whether the requirement of internship for admission to Bar Examination embodied in

LEB Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 7(g) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional. YES
2. YES. This requirement unduly interferes with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to
promulgate rules concerning the practice of law and admissions thereto. The jurisdiction to
determine whether an applicant may be allowed to take the bar examinations belongs to the
Court. Under Sec. 7(g), the power of the LEB is no longer confined within the parameters of
legal education but now dabbles on the requisites for admissions to the bar. This is direct
encroachment upon the Court’s exclusive authority to promulgate rules concerning admissions
to the bar and should, therefore, be struck down as unconstitutional.

Whether the adoption of system of continuing legal education embodied in LEB

Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 7(h) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional. YES
3. YES. By its plain language, the clause “continuing legal education” unduly give the LEB the
power to supervise the legal education of those who are already members of the bar. Inasmuch
as the LEB is authorized to compel mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses
and for such duration as the LEB deems necessary, the same encroaches upon the Court’s
power to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar which includes the education of
Lawyer-professors as the teaching of law is considered the practice of law.

Whether the establishment of PhilSAT embodied in LEB Memorandum pursuant to Sec.

7(e) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional. YES
4. YES. Accordingly, the Court recognizes the power of the LEB under its charter to prescribe
minimum standards for law admission. The PhilSAT, when administered as an aptitude test to
guide law schools in measuring the applicant’s aptness for legal education along with such other
admissions policy that the law school may consider, is such minimum standard. However, 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.