Title
In the matter of the petitions for admission to the bar of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Cuan et al.
Case
Decision Date
Mar 18, 1954
Republic Act No. 972, lowering bar exam passing rates, declared unconstitutional for encroaching on judicial power, violating separation of powers, and creating arbitrary classifications.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 225920)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Bar Examination Standards and Judicial Practice
    • Under Rule 127, section 14, Rules of Court, a candidate must obtain a general average of 75% in all subjects, without falling below 50% in any subject, to pass the Bar.
    • Since 1946 the Supreme Court, noting varying difficulty and grading strictness, admitted below-75% averages by way of resolution:
      • 1946: 72% (August and November)
      • 1947: 69%
      • 1948: 70%
      • 1949: 74%
      • 1950–1953: restored to 75%, but 74% was deemed equivalent by resolution
  • Legislative History of Republic Act No. 972
    • Senate Bill No. 12 (1951) sought to reduce the passing average to 70% retroactive to 1946; the President vetoed it after an adverse Supreme Court comment.
    • Senate Bill No. 371 (1953) revised the standard:
      • 70% for 1946–1951 exams; 71% for 1952; 72% for 1953; 73% for 1954; 74% for 1955 examinations; no grade below 50%; partial credit for 75% in any subject.
      • Became Republic Act No. 972 on June 21, 1953, by presidential inaction during an election year.
  • Post-Enactment Petitions and Court Review
    • From 1946–1953, 12,230 took the exams; 5,421 passed under existing rules; 1,168 failed within the percentage bands later covered by RA 972.
    • Of these 1,168, 1,094 stood to benefit under RA 972; 604 filed petitions for admission or grade reconsideration.
    • The Supreme Court first reviewed pending motions for paper revision—none succeeded—and then set a hearing solely on the constitutionality of RA 972.

Issues:

  • Whether RA 972’s retroactive reduction of passing averages invades the Supreme Court’s exclusive judicial power to admit to the Bar.
  • Whether Congress, under Const. Art. VIII, § 13, may repeal, alter, or supplement Rules of Court to compel admission of determinate individuals.
  • Whether RA 972 constitutes arbitrary or unreasonable class legislation in violating equal protection.
  • Whether Article 2 of RA 972 is void for lacking inclusion in the Act’s title, contrary to Const. Art. VI, § 21.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.