Generally, only lawyers may teach in a law school.

The definition of the

practice of law is defined in the case of Cayetano v. Monsod

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill."
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/sep1991/gr_100113_1991.html

By the given definition, the act of teaching law falls under the meaning of the
practice of law. Teaching of law requires the knowledge, training, and
experience for it to be done right.

It would do well for the Court to remind respondents that, in view of the
broad definition in Cayetano v. Monsod, lawyers when they teach law are
considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike professors in other
disciplines and more than lawyers who do not teach law, respondents are
bound by their oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession.
Thus, their actions as law professors must be measured against the same
canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar
as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined with the fact
that they are lawyers.

What are less well-known, but very thought-provoking, are the opinions of
Supreme Court Justices Padilla, Cruz, and Gutierrez who dissented from the
ponencia of Justice Paras in Cayetano v. Monsod. Justice Paras remarked that
the dissent of Justice Padilla:

is the traditional or stereotyped notion of law practice, as distinguished

from the modern concept of the practice of law, which modern connotation is
exactly what was intended by the eminent framers of the 1987 Constitution.
Moreover, Justice Padillas definition would require generally a habitual law
practice, perhaps practised two or three times a week and would outlaw say,
law practice once or twice a year for ten consecutive years. Clearly, this is
far from the constitutional intent. (at p. 227; Italics supplied. The dissent is
at pp. 230-233)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/10-10-4-SC.htm

https://obitir.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/cayetano-v-monsod-revisited/