Case Summary (G.R. No. 230642)
Intervention of PALS and Full Ventilation
PALS was allowed to intervene to represent 127 law schools, enhancing stakeholder participation and fuller discussion on academic freedom and LEB regulations, given the case’s nationwide impact on legal education.
Supreme Court vs. LEB Authority
The Court held that the Constitution grants it exclusive rule-making power over admission to the practice of law but does not confer direct supervision of law schools’ academic programs. LEB’s supervisory role under RA 7662 complements but does not supersede the Court’s power, allowing coordinated action without jurisdictional conflict.
Constitutionality of Key RA 7662 Provisions
Upheld as constitutional (1987 Constitution, Article XIV, Section 4[1] – reasonable State supervision):
• Section 7(c) – accreditation standards for law schools (excluding intrusion on academic freedom)
• Section 7(e) – power to prescribe minimum admission requirements and faculty qualifications
Struck down for encroaching on the Court’s power over the Integrated Bar:
• Section 2(2) – inclusion of continuing legal education under Executive control
• Section 3(a)(2) – objective to raise awareness of the poor, infringing Court’s supervisory power over the profession
• Section 7(g) – mandatory law practice internship requirement for Bar eligibility
• Section 7(h) – mandatory continuing legal education for practitioners
PHILSAT and LEBMO No. 7-2016 Invalidated
Entire LEB Memorandum Order No. 7-2016 (Philippine Law School Admission Test) was declared unconstitutional for requiring all applicants to take and pass a State-administered aptitude test, imposing a 55% passing score, conditioning law school admission on such score, and threatening sanctions for non-compliance. Ancillary provisions on test design, fee, schedule, exemptions, reporting, and separability were invalidated as inseparable from the exclusionary scheme.
Invalidity of Related LEB Issuances
The following issuances were held invalid where they replaced Commission on Higher Education Special Orders with LEB Certification letters, thus unduly hampering law schools’ graduation processes:
• LEB Memorandum Circular No. 6-2017
• LEB Resolution No. 2012-02
• LEB Resolution No. 2012-06
Faculty Qualifications and Apprenticeship Rules
Consistent with the main Decision, assorted LEB Memoranda prescribing master’s degree requirements for law faculty and detailed protocols for legal apprenticeship and internships were reaffirmed as unconstitutional intrusions on law schools’ academic freedom in determining who may teach and what may be taught.
Partia
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 230642)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners in G.R. No. 230642: Oscar B. Pimentel, Errol B. Comafay, Jr., Rene B. Gorospe, Edwin R. Sandoval, Victoria B. Loanzon, et al.
- Petitioners in G.R. No. 242954: Francis Jose Lean L. Abayata, Gretchen M. Vasquez, Sheenah S. Ilustrisimo, Ralph Louie Salaao, et al.
- Respondents: Legal Education Board (LEB) represented by its Chair Hon. Emerson B. Aquende and LEB member Hon. Zenaida N. Elepaoao; Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea
- Respondents-in-Intervention in G.R. No. 230642: Attorneys Anthony D. Bengzon, Ferdinand M. Negre, Michael Z. Untalan, Jonathan Q. Perez, Samantha Wesley K. Rosales, Erika M. Alfonso, Krys Valen O. Martinez, Ryan Ceazar P. Romano and Kenneth C. Varona
- Petitioners-Intervenors in G.R. No. 230642: Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); St. Thomas More School of Law and Business, Inc.
- A.M. No. 20-03-04-SC: Letter-Motion by PALS seeking clarification on the status and treatment of the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT)
Statutory and Regulatory Background
- Republic Act No. 7662 (1993) created the LEB to uplift standards of legal education via:
• supervising and accrediting law schools
• prescribing minimum standards for admission, faculty qualifications and compensation
• setting basic curricula
• establishing law practice internships and continuing legal education - LEB issuances at issue:
• LEB Memorandum Order (LEBMO) No. 1-2011 (admission requirements, faculty and program standards)
• LEBMO No. 7-2016 (administration of a nationwide PhiLSAT with a 55% passing score, 2-year validity)
• LEB Memorandum Circular (LEBMC) No. 6-2017; LEB Res. No. 2012-02; LEB Res. No. 2012-06 (requirements for graduation certification)
• LEBMC No. 18-2018 (reitenant PhiLSAT prerogative) and LEBMC No. 52-2020 (conditional admissions advisory)
Factual and Procedural Chronology
- March 12, 2019: Temporary restraining order enjoined LEB from implementing LEBMC No. 18-2018
- September 10, 2019: En Banc Decision partially granted petitions, upholding LEB’s jurisdiction but striking down on constitutional grounds certain provisions of RA 7662 and LEBMO No. 7-2016 (notably Section 9)
- February 27, 2020: PALS filed A.M. No. 20-03-04-SC letter-motion for clarification on PhiLSAT status
- June 16, 2020: Court treated letter as Motion for Leave to Intervene; required PALS to file petition-in-intervention
- August 28, 2020: PALS petition-in-intervention filed; consolidated with GR Nos. 230642 & 242954
Issues
- Whether RA 7662 and LEBMO No. 7-2016 must be invalidated in their entirety or only in part
- Whether the LEB’s jurisdiction and exercise of police power over legal education is constitutional
- Whether the PhiLSAT requirement (passing score, mandatory taking within two years) unconstitutionally encro