Case Digest (Resolution)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Cunanan et al., 94 Phil. 534, Resolution March 18, 1954, the Supreme Court En Banc, Diokno, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners were unsuccessful bar-examination candidates from 1946–1953 who sought admission to the Philippine Bar after the enactment of Republic Act No. 972 (enacted June 21, 1953). Under the existing Rules of Court (Rule 127, Sec. 14), a bar candidate must obtain a general average of 75% with no grade below 50% in any subject. The Court’s own practice, however, had varied the effective passing averages in the immediate postwar years (72% in Aug./Nov. 1946, 69% in 1947, 70% in 1948, 74% in 1949), while 75% was re‑established from 1950 onward.
After these shifting practices generated claims of unfairness, Congress considered legislative reforms. Senate Bill No. 12 (1951) proposing to reduce the passing average retroactively to 70% was vetoed by the President after the Supreme Court—by a divided expression of views—advised against it. Congress later passed a revised measure, Senate Bill No. 371, which became R.A. No. 972 (the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953”) when the President allowed it to lapse into law. R.A. No. 972 retroactively lowered the required general average for specified years (70% for 1946–Aug. 1951; graduated increases in subsequent years) and included an Article 2 deeming any 75% in a subject since July 4, 1946 as permanently passed for future averaging.
Following enactment, many unsuccessful candidates filed motions or petitions in the Supreme Court invoking R.A. No. 972 to obtain admission; others whose motions for revision were pending relied on the Act. The Court first reviewed pending motions for reconsideration and found no basis to change grades; it then set a hearing limited to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 972. After full briefing and oral arguments (and consideration of extensive memoranda and amici), the Court—by vote of eight members—issued the present Resolution adjudica...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Republic Act No. 972, insofar as it retroactively reduces the passing marks and commands the admission of specified past unsuccessful bar candidates, violate the Constitution by usurping the Supreme Court’s judicial function to admit members of the bar?
- Is Republic Act No. 972 an invalid class legislation or arbitrary classification in violation of constitutional equality principles?
- Does Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 violate the Constitution’s title requirement (Section 21(1), Article VI) and thus render the Act void?
- If parts of R.A. No. 972 are unconstitutiona...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)