Case Digest (G.R. No. 230642)
Facts:
- Multiple petitioners, including Oscar B. Pimentel, contested the constitutionality of provisions in Republic Act No. 7662 (RA 7662) and actions by the Legal Education Board (LEB).
- Respondents were LEB Chair Hon. Emerson B. Aquende and member Hon. Zenaida N. Elepaño.
- The case was consolidated with another petition by Francis Jose Lean L. Abayata against Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and the LEB.
- Petitioners argued that the LEB's imposition of the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) and other regulations infringed on the academic freedom of law schools and the Supreme Court's authority over legal education and the practice of law.
- On November 9, 2021, the Supreme Court declared certain provisions of RA 7662 unconstitutional while upholding others.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Invalidation of LEBMO No. 7-2016: The Court declared LEBMO No. 7-2016 unconstitutional and vacated all related LEB issuances.
- LEB's Jurisdiction: The Court upheld the LEB's jurisdiction over legal education.
- PhiLSAT Requirement: The PhiLSAT requirement was declared unconstitutional for violating academic freedom.
- Optional PhiLSAT: The Court's ruling rendered the PhiLSAT optional.
- Permanent TRO: The Court made permanent the TRO from March 12, 2019, allowing law schools to decide on the admission of conditionally admitted students.
- Invalidation of LEBMO Sections: The Court invalidated Sections 15, 16, and 17 of LEBMO No. 1-2011.
- No Cogent Reason to Amend/Reversal: The Court found no reason to amend or rev...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- State Interest: The Court acknowledged the State's interest in improving legal education to meet global standards.
- Reasonable Exercise of Police Power: The exercise of police power must be reasonable and should not infringe on acade...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 230642)
Facts:
The case involves multiple petitioners, including Oscar B. Pimentel and others, who challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7662 (RA 7662) and the actions of the Legal Education Board (LEB). The LEB, represented by its Chair, Hon. Emerson B. Aquende, and LEB member, Hon. Zenaida N. Elepaño, were the respondents. The case was consolidated with another petition filed by Francis Jose Lean L. Abayata and others against the Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and the LEB. The petitioners argued that the LEB's imposition of the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) and other regulations infringed on the academic freedom of law schools and encroached upon the Supreme Court's authority over legal education and the practice of law. The Supreme Court's decision on November 9, 2021, addressed these issues, declaring certain provisions of RA 7662 unconstitutional while upholding others.
Issue:
- Whether the entirety of RA 7662 and LEBMO No. 7-2016 should be invalidated on the ground of unconstitutionality.
- Whether the LEB's jurisdiction over legal education was correctly upheld.
- Whether the requirement to pass the PhiLSAT or have a valid certificate of exemption within two years prior to application in law school, along with the imposition of a passing score of 55%, is unconstitutional for violating the academic freedom of law schools.
- Whether the Court's ruling rendered the PhiLSAT optional.
- Whether the Court erred in making permanent the TRO it issued on March 12, 2019, where regular admission of students who were conditionally admitted and enrolled is left to the discretion of the law schools.
- Whether the Court erred in invalidating Sections 15, 16, and 17 of LEBMO No. 1-2011.
- Whether there is a cogent reason to amend or reverse the Court's declaration as to the unconstitutionality of the LEB's issuances relating to the minimum requirem...