Case Summary (G.R. No. 230642)
Key Individuals and Context
• Petitioners (G.R. No. 230642): Oscar B. Pimentel, Errol B. Comafay Jr., Rene B. Gorospe, Edwin R. Sandoval, Victoria B. Loanzon, Elgin M. Perez, Arnold E. Cacho, Al Conrad B. Espaldon, Ed Vincent S. Albano, Leighton R. Siazon, Arianne C. Artugue, Clarabel Anne R. Lacsina, Kristine Jane R. Liu, Alyanna Mari C. Buenviaje, Iana Patricia D. Nicolas, Irene A. Tolentino, Aurea I. Gruyal—law professors, lawyers, taxpayers, aspirants.
• Petitioners (G.R. No. 242954): Francis Jose Lean L. Abayata, Gretchen M. Vasquez, Sheenah S. Ilustrismo, Ralph Louie S. SalaaO, Aireen Monica B. Guzman, Delfino Odias, Daryl Dela Cruz, Claire Suico, Aivie S. Pescadero, Niaa Christine Dela Paz, Shemark K. Queniahan, Al Jay T. Mejos, Rocellyn L. DaAo, Michael Adolfo, Ronald A. Atig, Lynette C. Lumayag, Mary Chris Lagera, Timothy B. Francisco, Sheila Marie C. Dandan, Madeline C. Dela PeAa, Darlin R. Villamor, Lorenzana Llorico, Jan Ivan M. Santamaria—law students who failed to pass or take the PhiLSAT.
• Respondent: Legal Education Board (LEB), an executive agency attached to DepEd for budgetary purposes, chaired by Hon. Emerson B. Aquende, with regular members drawn by a JBC list.
• Respondent-in-Intervention (G.R. No. 230642): Anthony D. Bengzon et al.—lawyers opposing the petitions.
• Respondent-in-Intervention (G.R. No. 242954): Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, LEB represented by its Chairperson Emerson B. Aquende.
Key Dates
• December 23, 1993: Republic Act No. 7662 (“Legal Education Reform Act of 1993”) enacted under the 1987 Constitution.
• June 2010: LEB became fully operational.
• December 29, 2016: LEB issued Memorandum Order No. 7, Series 2016, creating the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT).
• April 16, 2017: First PhiLSAT administered in seven cities; passing rate initially set at 55% then adjusted to 45% in consideration.
• 2017–2018: LEBMO No. 11-2017 allowed conditional admissions for applicants who missed or failed the first PhiLSAT.
• October 5, 2018: LEBMC No. 18-2018 discontinued conditional admissions for academic year 2018–2019.
• February 2018: Petition for Prohibition (G.R. No. 230642) filed.
• January 2019: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (G.R. No. 242954) filed.
• March 5, 2019: Oral arguments held.
• March 12, 2019: Court issued TRO permitting conditional admissions under LEBMO No. 11-2017.
• September 10, 2019: En Banc decision rendered.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. XIV, Secs. 1–5 (right to quality and accessible education; reasonable State supervision and regulation; academic freedom; right to select a profession subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission requirements)
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) (Supreme Court power to promulgate rules on admission to the practice of law)
• Republic Act No. 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act of 1993), Sec. 7(e) (power to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty members), Sec. 7(g) (law practice internship requirement), Sec. 7(h) (continuing legal education)
• LEB Memorandum Order No. 7-2016 (establishing PhiLSAT) and related LEB issuances (Nos. 11-2017, 18-2018)
Legislative Charter and Objectives
• RA 7662 declares State policy to uplift standards of legal education to prepare students for the practice of law, instill ethics, and strengthen the dignity of the legal profession.
• General objectives include preparing students for practice, increasing social awareness, and fostering leadership.
• Specific objectives cover broad knowledge of law fields, research abilities, advocacy training, specialized competence, continuing learning, and ethical conduct.
Creation and Powers of the LEB
• LEB created as a separate executive agency attached to DECS/DepEd solely for administrative support.
• Composition: Chairman and four regular members appointed by the President from a Judicial and Bar Council list.
• Powers (Sec. 7): administer the system (7(a)); supervise law schools (7(b)); set accreditation standards (7(c)); accredit schools (7(d)); prescribe minimum standards for law admission and faculty qualifications (7(e)); prescribe basic curricula (7(f)); require law practice internship (7(g)); adopt continuing legal education for lawyers (7(h)); and other ancillary functions (7(i)).
• Accreditation (Secs. 8–10): Law schools must be accredited to operate; LEB may downgrade or withdraw accreditation.
LEB Memoranda and Introduction of PhiLSAT
• 2011: LEB issued Memorandum Order No. 1-2011 (Policies and Standards of Legal Education) covering accreditation, admission prerequisites, curriculum framework, faculty qualifications, library facilities, grading, and sanctions for non-compliance.
• 2016: LEBMO No. 7-2016 introduced PhiLSAT, a nationwide law school admission test measuring communications skills, critical thinking, and reasoning.
– Administered under LEB supervision at least once a year (later twice a year), fee initially P1,500, then P1,000.
– Passing score set at 55% of correct answers.
– Passers receive a Certificate of Eligibility; score valid for two years.
– Mandatory for admission to any law school; no applicant may enroll as first-year student without passing the PhiLSAT.
– Honor graduates with professional civil service eligibility enrolling within two years are exempt.
– Law schools may impose additional admission requirements but must not admit PhiLSAT non-passers.
– Sanctions for violating LEBMO No. 7 include closure, phase-out, downgrading, and fines up to P10,000 per infraction.
Development and Implementation of the Nation-Wide Admission Test
• April 16, 2017: First PhiLSAT held in seven pilot cities (Baguio, Manila, Legazpi, Cebu, Iloilo, Davao, Cagayan de Oro).
– Out of 8,074 examinees, 6,575 passed.
– Passing grade adjusted to 45% by way of consideration for the pilot implementation.
• May 2017: LEBMO No. 11-2017 allowed applicants who missed or failed the first PhiLSAT to apply for Conditional Admission under undertaking to pass the next scheduled exam.
• September 23, 2018: Fourth PhiLSAT administered after LEBMC No. 18-2018 clarified that Conditional Admission was discontinued for AY 2018–2019.
• April 7, 2019: Fifth PhiLSAT held despite TRO; LEBMC No. 27-2019 reestablished Conditional Enrollment terms under LEBMO No. 11-2017.
Petitions and Issues Presented
• G.R. No. 230642: Petition for Prohibition filed by law professors, lawyers, taxpayers, and aspirants, principally seeking to invalidate RA 7662 and all LEB issuances, especially PhiLSAT, for encroaching on the Court’s rule-making power over the practice of law, violating academic freedom and right to education.
• G.R. No. 242954: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition by law students who failed or missed PhiLSAT, challenging RA 7662 or in the alternative, the constitutionality of PhiLSAT for infringing on the Court’s exclusive power over admission to practice, and on academic freedom, due process, equal protection, and right to choose a course of study.
• Common Prayer: TRO/preliminary injunction to suspend implementation of PhiLSAT / related LEB issuances.
Procedural Considerations and Judicial Review
• Remedies of Prohibition and Certiorari under Rule 65 are proper to correct grave abuse of discretion by any government instrumentality under the Court’s expanded jurisdiction (Art. VIII, Sec. 1, par. 2 of the Constitution), including acts of Congress or the Executive, when there is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Requirements for justiciability (ripeness and standing) are satisfied:
– Actual controversy between petitioners (students, professors, aspirants, schools) and respondents (LEB) over implementation of LEBMO Nos. 7, 11, LEBMC No. 18 and RA 7662.
– Petitioners sufficiently allege direct injury by virtue of mandated test and its consequences on admission or enrollment; institutional petitioners allege curtailed discretion in admissions and reduced enrollments.
– Standing of students and schools recognized; citizen-petitioners also granted standing on issues of broad public interest.
Substantive Grounds: Jurisdiction over Legal Education
• The Court has no primary jurisdiction over legal education: historic statutory and constitutional provisions assign the supervision and regulation of education, including legal education, to the Executive (DepEd/MECS/CHED) and Legislative Branches.
• Court’s exclusive rule-making power under Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) is limited to rules on admission to the practice of law, inclusion in the Bar (a distinct post-graduate and professional dignity), and integration of the Bar and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
• The Rules of Court (Rules 138, 138-A, 139-A, 139-B) concern the practice of law, admission to Bar examinations, legal clinical programs (Rule 138-A) and Bar integration, not the study of law or law school curricula.
State’s Power of Reasonable Regulation vs Academic Freedom
• 1987 Constitution (Art. XIV, Sec. 4(1)): "The State . . . shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions." Reasonable supervision is "external governance" only and must not become State control.
• Academic Freedom (Art. XIV, Sec. 5(2)): "Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning . . ." Four essential freedoms: who may teach; what may be taught; how it shall be taught; who may be admitted to study.
• Right to Education and Right to Choose Profession (Art. XIV, Secs. 1 & 5(3)): "The State shall protect and promote the right . . . to quality education . . ."; "Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements ."
The PhilSAT Requirement
• LEBMO No. 7-2016, pars. 1-2: policy to improve quality of legal education; test design is one-day aptitude test measuring communications, lan
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 230642)
Procedural History
- Two petitions under Rule 65 (Prohibition, Certiorari) were filed to invalidate RA 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act of 1993) and LEB issuances, especially PhiLSAT orders.
- G.R. No. 230642: Petition for Prohibition seeking TRO against PhiLSAT; intervenors joined.
- G.R. No. 242954: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition by applicants who failed or could not take PhiLSAT; sought TRO.
- The cases were consolidated and heard en banc; TRO issued March 12, 2019, allowing conditional enrollment under prior rules.
Legislative and Regulatory Background
- RA 7662 created the Legal Education Board (LEB) to uplift legal education, set admission standards, accredit and supervise law schools, prescribe curricula and faculty qualifications, and adopt continuing legal education.
- In 2016–2018, LEB issued:
- LEBMO No. 7–2016: PhilSAT requirement—one‐day aptitude test, 55% cut‐off, mandatory for law school admission, P1,500 fee, penalties for noncompliance.
- LEBMO No. 11–2017: Transition rules allowing conditional enrollment for those who missed first exam.
- LEBMC No. 18–2018: End of conditional admissions, strict enforcement of PhilSAT.
Factual Background
- PhilSAT tests communications/language proficiency, critical thinking, verbal & quantitative reasoning.
- Passing PhilSAT (55%) is required for admission to any basic law course; honor graduates with civil service eligibility are exempt.
- Law schools may add other admission criteria but may not waive PhilSAT.
- Non‐compliant schools face administrative sanctions (closure, phase-out, fine).
- PhilSAT offered annually, later biannually; first‐year examinee pass rate: 81.4% (April 2017), then ~56–61% in subsequent tests.
Issues
- Jurisdiction: Does the Supreme Court or the LEB have primary authority to regulate legal education admissions?
- Academic Freedom: Do LEB's PhilSAT‐related issuances and other orders unreasonably impair law schools’ right to determine who may be admitted and how courses are taught?
- Police Power: Are PhilSAT and the admission standards a reasonable exercise of the State’s power to supervise and regulate educational institutions?
- Separation of Powers: Do Sections 7(g) (internship requirement) and 7(h) (continuing legal education for lawyers) unconstitutionally infringe on the Court’s exclusive power over the practice of law?
Petitioners’ Contentions
- RA 7662 and PhiLSAT orders invade the Court’s rule-making power over admission to the practice of law (Art. VIII