Case Digest (G.R. No. 230642)
Facts:
On September 10, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a landmark en banc decision in consolidated cases G.R. No. 230642 and G.R. No. 242954, arising from Petitions for Prohibition and Certiorari under Rule 65. Petitioners include law professors, practicing lawyers, prospective law students and current law students who failed or could not take the nationwide Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT), as well as St. Thomas More School of Law and Business, Inc., whose reduced enrollment they attribute to PhiLSAT. They challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7662 (the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993), which created the Legal Education Board (LEB), and particularly its issuances prescribing PhiLSAT as an exclusionary prerequisite for admission into any basic law course. Before the Court, the LEB and its Chairperson, Emerson B. Aquende, defended their power to prescribe minimum standards for law admission under Section 7(e) of RA 7662. On March 12, 2019, the Court had iCase Digest (G.R. No. 230642)
Facts:
- Enactment of RA 7662 and Creation of the LEB
- 1993: Congress passes RA 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act) to uplift legal education and prepare students for practice, ethics and social consciousness.
- RA 7662 creates the Legal Education Board (LEB), an executive‐attached body, with powers to administer, supervise and accredit law schools; prescribe admission and faculty standards; require internships and continuing legal education.
- LEB Operations and Issuances
- 2010: LEB becomes fully operational. 2011: LEBMO No. 1–2011 issues policies/standards and a manual regulating: curricula, faculty qualifications, libraries, and administrative procedures for law schools.
- 2016: LEBMO No. 7–2016 establishes the PhilSAT, a nationwide law‐school aptitude test measuring communications and language proficiency, critical thinking, verbal and quantitative reasoning; sets 55 % as cut‐off; makes passing PhilSAT mandatory for first‐year admission; provides P 1,500 fee (later P 1,000); creates Certificate of Eligibility/Grade; exempts certain honor graduates.
- 2017–2018: LEBMO No. 11–2017 allows conditional admission for first‐semester LLB/JD students who missed or failed the April 2017 PhilSAT but agree to retake it; LEBMC No. 18–2018 discontinues conditional admission thereafter.
- Challenges Before the Supreme Court
- April 2017: Petitions filed under Rule 65: G.R. No. 230642 (Prohibition) and G.R. No. 242954 (Certiorari and Prohibition) seeking TROs and invalidation of RA 7662 and LEB issuances, especially PhilSAT.
- Petitioners allege: PhilSAT and RA 7662 usurp the Court’s exclusive rule‐making power on Bar admission, harm academic freedom of law schools and students’ right to education, and violate equal protection and due process.
- Respondents argue: Regulation of legal education is a valid exercise of state police power; LEBMO No. 7 is akin to NMAT; PhilSAT is not exclusionary, law schools may add requirements, and exemptions exist.
- TRO and Procedural Posture
- March 12, 2019: TRO issued allowing conditional admission of students who failed or missed PhilSAT under LEBMO No. 11, pending final adjudication.
- Subsequent memoranda confirm continued PhilSAT administration but preserve conditional‐admission terms for AY 2019–2020. Orals held March 5, 2019.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction: Does the Supreme Court’s exclusive power to promulgate rules on admission to the Bar extend to the regulation and supervision of legal education and law‐school admission?
- Police Power vs. Academic Freedom:
- Is the LEB’s power under RA 7662 to prescribe minimum standards for law‐school admission (Sec. 7(e)) and its exercise by requiring the PhilSAT a constitutional exercise of state police power?
- Do PhilSAT’s features—mandatory administration, 55 % cut‐off, one‐day test, sanctions for noncompliance—unreasonably impair the academic freedom of law schools and the right to select a course of study?
- Bar vs. School Regulation: Do Sections 7(g) (bar‐internship requirement) and 7(h) (mandatory continuing legal education for lawyers) of RA 7662 impermissibly encroach upon the Court’s exclusive rule‐making power over the practice of law and Bar admission?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)