Case Summary (Resolution)
Legislative Response and Enactment of RA 972
After unsuccessful candidates lobbied for relief, Congress passed Senate Bill No. 12 in May 1951 reducing the passing average to 70 per cent retroactive to July 4, 1946. The President vetoed it, citing class legislation and interference with Supreme Court resolutions. Congress then enacted Senate Bill No. 371, substantially reenacting Bill No. 12 (renumbered RA 972) on June 21, 1953 by lapse of time.
Key Provisions of Republic Act No. 972
Section 1 – Retroactive passing averages:
• 70 per cent for 1946–1951 examinations
• 71 per cent for 1952
• 72 per cent for 1953
• 73 per cent for 1954
• 74 per cent for 1955
(Subject grades must not fall below 50 per cent; fractions of 0.5 rounded up.)
Section 2 – Any 75 per cent subject grade since July 4, 1946 counts toward future averages.
Section 3 – Effectivity upon approval.
Post-Enactment Petitions and Grade Review
Following RA 972, 1,168 candidates who had failed 1946–1953 bar exams sought admission. The Court first revisited motions for grade revision but found no grounds to alter scores. Admission under RA 972 would apply equally to all qualified examinees whether or not they filed petitions.
Statistical Impact of RA 972
• 12,230 total examinees (1946–1953)
• 5,421 passed originally
• 1,168 examinees fell within RA 972’s numerical thresholds
• 92 subsequently passed later exams; 586 filed admission or reconsideration motions; 10 benefited under Section 2; total candidates potentially admitted: 1,094 (604 petitioners)
Constitutional Question Framed
The Court limited hearings to the sole issue: Is Republic Act No. 972 constitutional under the 1935 Constitution’s separation of powers and equal-protection guarantees?
Purpose of RA 972 vs. Public Interest
RA 972’s declared objective—remedying examinees’ post-Japanese-occupation handicaps—was deemed inconsistent with public interest. The Court found that reading materials and legal resources were sufficiently abundant since 1945, and that admitting inadequately prepared lawyers poses a social danger and undermines the integrity of the legal profession.
Absence of Favorable Precedent
No Anglo-Saxon or Philippine precedent upheld a statute compelling judicial admission of unqualified applicants. Attempted analogies (e.g., Cooper v. New York) proved inapplicable due to differing constitutional provisions and because those laws merely allowed equivalent evidence of qualifications, not mandatory admission.
Legislative vs. Judicial Power in Bar Admissions
Admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of attorneys are inherently judicial functions entailing application of established rules to individual facts. Although Congress may repeal, alter, or supplement Rules of Court, it cannot directly compel admission—that power remains vested in the Supreme Court, which bears the responsibility for ensuring bar competence.
Class Legislation and Equal Protection
RA 972 created an arbitrary classification by year, benefiting only 1946–1955 examinees who met varying reduced averages while excluding others similarly situated. Such singling-out without a natural, reasonable basis renders the law out of harmony with equal-protection principles.
Retroactivity and Title-Intent Violation
By retroactively annulling prior Supreme Court resolutions, RA 972 effectively substituted its legislative will for judicial judgments—a usurpation of judicial power. Article 2’s provision for permanent installment-style credit system was not germane to the title’s temporal scope and violated the constitutional requirement that titles reflect the law’s contents.
Supreme Court’s Decision on Unconstitutionality
The Supreme Court, by an eight-m
Case Syllabus (Resolution)
Procedural Posture and Background
- Petitioners are unsuccessful bar‐examination candidates from 1946–1953 who invoke Republic Act No. 972 (“Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953”) to obtain admission to the Philippine Bar.
- After motions for reconsideration of their original exam results were uniformly denied, petitioners seek relief solely on the constitutionality and application of RA 972.
- The Supreme Court held a special hearing limited to the question of RA 972’s validity, inviting amici curiae and members of the Bar to submit memoranda.
Statutory and Rule-Making Framework
- Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court (in force since 1950) requires a general average of 75 per cent without falling below 50 per cent in any subject for bar admission.
- Article VIII, sec. 13 of the 1935 Constitution grants:
• Supreme Court power to promulgate rules on pleading, practice, procedure, and admission to the practice of law;
• Congress concurrent power to repeal, alter, or supplement those rules.
Historical Evolution of Passing Marks
- 1946–1949: despite the 75 per cent rule, the Court admitted candidates with averages of 72 per cent (Aug. 1946), 69 per cent (1947), 70 per cent (1948), and 74 per cent (1949).
- 1950–1953: the Court restored the uniform 75 per cent requirement.
- Postwar candidates who scored marginally below the ad hoc passing marks agitated in Congress for legislative relief.
Legislative Enactments and Executive Action
- Senate Bill No. 12 (1951) proposed reducing the passing average to 70 per cent retroactive to 1946; it was vetoed by the President after adverse Court comment.
- Senate Bill No. 371 (1953), substantially similar but omitting controversial supervisory provisions, lapsed into law as RA 972 on June 21, 1953.
- RA 972, Sec. 1: retroactive passing averages from 70 per cent (1946–1951) up to 74 per cent (1955), subject to a 50 per cent minimum per subject; Sec. 2: “75 per cent” in any subj