Case Digest (Resolution)
Facts:
In In re: Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953 (Albino Cunanan et al.), the Supreme Court of the Philippines resolved on March 18, 1954 disputes over Republic Act No. 972, the so-called “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” Between 1946 and 1953, the Court itself had varied the 75 % passing average: 72 % in 1946, 69 % in 1947, 70 % in 1948, 74 % in 1949, and returned to 75 % in 1950–53. Unsuccessful candidates who scored just below those admission cutoffs lobbied in Congress and obtained Senate Bill No. 12 in 1951—later vetoed by the President—and then Senate Bill No. 371, which lapsed into law on June 21, 1953 as RA 972. That Act retroactively lowered the general average requirement to 70 % for 1946–51, 71 % in 1952, 72 % in 1953, 73 % in 1954, and 74 % in 1955, without falling below 50 % in any subject, and deemed any 75 % subject grade earned since 1946 as permanently passed. Hundreds of petitions followed: some sought admission under RA 972, oCase Digest (Resolution)
Facts:
- Background and Bar–flunkers’ Act
- Under Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court, an examinee needed a general average of 75 % with no grade below 50 % to pass the bar.
- From 1946–1949 the Supreme Court, by resolution, admitted examinees with lower averages—72 % (1946), 69 % (1947), 70 % (1948), 74 % (1949)—but reinstated 75 % as the minimum from 1950 onward.
- Legislative response and Republic Act No. 972
- Unsuccessful postwar candidates lobbied Congress to lower the passing mark. Senate Bill No. 12 (1951) proposed a retroactive reduction to 70 % but was vetoed by the President.
- Congress then passed Senate Bill No. 371; it lapsed into law as Republic Act No. 972 on June 21, 1953 (no presidential signature).
- Provisions of Republic Act No. 972
- Retroactively set passing averages (no subject
- 70 % for exams July 4, 1946–Aug. 1951
- 71 % for 1952
- 72 % for 1953
- 73 % for 1954
- 74 % for 1955
- Section 2 allowed any subject grade of 75 % (post–July 4, 1946) to carry over to future average calculations.
- Petitions and hearing
- Of 1,094 candidates potentially benefited by R.A. 972, 604 filed motions for reconsideration or petitions for admission. The Court found no grading errors on review.
- The Supreme Court set a focused hearing on the constitutionality of R.A. 972. Bar associations, government lawyers, and private counsels submitted extensive memoranda and oral arguments.
Issues:
- Does R.A. 972 unlawfully usurp the Supreme Court’s judicial power by mandating mass admission to the bar?
- Did Congress exceed its concurrent rule‐making authority (Const., Art. VIII, sec. 13) by effectively annulling final Court resolutions and altering substantive rights?
- Does R.A. 972’s retroactive effect violate due process, impair vested rights, or constitute an inadmissible ex post facto law?
- Is R.A. 972 void class legislation—arbitrary discrimination among exam years without a rational basis?
- Does Section 2 of R.A. 972 fail the constitutional requirement for titles (Art. VI, sec. 21(1)) by covering matters outside the enactment’s subject?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)