Oscar B. Pimentel, et. al. vs. Legal Education Board, G.R. No.

230642
Francis Jose Jean L. Abayata, et. al. vs. Hon. Salvador Medialdea G.R. No. 242954,
September 10, 2019
Penned by J. Reyes, Jr.

Reporter: Toledo, Alexandrhea

Facts:
This is a consolidated case which the petitioners assail the unconstitutionality of R.A. 7662 or
the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 which creates the Legal Education Board (LEB) on the
principal grounds of encroachment upon the rule-making power of the Court concerning the
practice of law; violation of institutional academic freedom; and violation of a law school
aspirant’s right to education. On the same grounds, these petitions also seek to declare as
unconstitutional the LEB issuances establishing and implementing the nationwide law school
aptitude test known as the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT).

Issues and Ruling:

1. Whether the regulation and supervision of legal education belong to the Court.

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.

Two principal reasons militate against the proposition that the Court has the regulation and
supervision of legal education:

First, it assumes that the Court 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.

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

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. 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.

3. Whether the adoption of a system of continuing legal education embodied in LEB

Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 7(h) of R.A. 7662 is unconstitutional.

Yes. By its plain language, the clause “continuing legal education” unduly gives 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.

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

7(e) of R.A. 7662 is unconstitutional.

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.