CASE DIGEST: PIMENTEL vs. LEB G.R. NO. 230642 & 242954. September 10, 2019

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.

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.

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.

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

RULING: 

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.

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.

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.

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.