https://dennieidea.wordpress.

com/2014/10/07/in-re-cunanan-case-digest/comment-page-1/

IN RE CUNANAN

94 PHIL. 534

FACTS:

Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act
to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955.”

Section 1 provided the following passing marks:

1946-1951………………70%

1952 …………………….71%

1953……………………..72%

1954……………………..73%

1955……………………..74%

Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.

Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to
have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general average in
subsequent bar examinations.”

ISSUE:

Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.

RULING:

Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per its
title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent
system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the
fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.

As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in
force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the following reasons:

1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had
inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice
of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The
rules laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the
judgment of the court on who can practice law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.

As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to declare it void. Moreover,
the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions
denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter,
supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
http://jeffdavid-casedigests.blogspot.com/2009/08/legal-profession-in-re-cunanan.html

Aug 24, 2009

Legal Profession- In re: Cunanan

Resolution Cunanan, et. al

18March1954

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar of unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Cunanan
et. al petitioners.

In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as R.A. 972 popularly
known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a general ave of 75%
in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any subject, although for the past few exams the passing grades were
changed depending on the strictness of the correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70%
1949-74%, 1950-1953 – 75%).

Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and feeling
that they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentages
lower than those admitted to the bar went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill no. 12, but was vetoed by
the president after he was given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the senate then approved senate bill no.
372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then became law on June 21, 1953

Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from
insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public interest
since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession, as evidenced
by their failure in the exams.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have on the legal profession and the administration of justice, the
S.C. would seek to know if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.
An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of the law that should be developed
constantly and maintained firmly.
The Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring, and reinstating
attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C. equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the
practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the constitution recognizes continue to reside in this court.
Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law seeks to “cure” are not the rules set in place by the S.C.
but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the court, and this power is not included in the power granted by the
Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively w/in the judiciary.
Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in
attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution.
3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since the
rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated are considered the bare minimum.)
4. It is a class legislation
5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and being
inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.

HELD:

Under the authority of the court:

1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said law
are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and effect.
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is valid and
shall continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are denied, and all the
candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of below 50% in any
subject are considered as having passed whether they have filed petitions for admissions or not.)

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-re-cunanan-94-phil-534-resolution-18.html

IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954]

Friday, January 30, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes

Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” In
accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had
obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent.

After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its
provisions, while other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the
aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are also others who have sought simply the
reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to individual
petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked
Republic Act No. 972.

Issue: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.

Held: RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from
insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation.

In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and
responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension,
disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.

On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments
of the government.

It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this
Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say,
merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.

Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.

REPUBLIC ACT 6735,

INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ACT

R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution. The Act is a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505
and Senate Bill No. 17. The former was prepared by the committee on Suffrage and
Electoral Reforms of Representatives on the basis of two House Bills referred to it, viz.,
(a) House Bill No. 497, which dealt with the initiative and referendum mentioned in
Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI of the Constitution; and (b) House Bill No. 988, which
dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No. 497, as well as with initiative and
referendum under Section 3 of Article XVII of the Constitution. Senate Bill No. 17
solely, dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or resolutions of
local government units. The Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill
No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently approved on
8 June 1989 by the Senate and by the House of Representatives. This approved bill is
now R.A. No. 6735.