

Friday, September 27, 2019

Unconstitutionality of the PhiLSAT

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court to question the legality of the Philippine Law
School Admission Test (PhiLSAT). The main issue is whether the admission test violates
separation of powers.

Separation of powers dictates that government branches not interfere with the other or others in
their discharge of their functions. Whether or not the regulation of law schools is within the sole
power and prerogative of the Supreme Court is an issue yet to be passed upon.

Another issue is academic freedom. The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that, "Academic
Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning."

The institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide and
adopt its aims and objectives, and to determine how these objections can best be attained, free
from outside coercion or interference, save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for
some restraint. The essential freedoms subsumed in the term "academic freedom" encompass the
freedom of the school or college to determine for itself: (1) who may teach; (2) who may be
taught; (3) how lessons shall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study. (G.R. No.
183572)

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen asked Solicitor General Calida: “What is the state’s interest in
interfering with law schools’ decision on who they want to take?”

Calida explained that the basis for PhiLSAT is to improve the quality of the bar and bench as
stated in Section 2 of RA 7662.

“The State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system, require proper
selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship
and continuing legal education,” Calida said quoting Section 2 of the law.

Leonen noted that based on Calida's response the state-administered law admission exam “may
become unconstitutional“ as it interferes with a function tasked to the SC — to improve the
quality of the bar and the bench.

The justice furthered: “Congress cannot tell the SC how it is going to admit people to the Bar.”

He ordered Calida to expound on his justification in their memoranda.

Leonen, during his interpellation of the petitioners earlier on Tuesday, also zeroed in how the
centralized law admissions exam may infringe on academic freedom.

https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2019/09/unconstitutionality-of-philsat.html
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING

FOR THE PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993."

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to uplift the
standards of legal education in order to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-
solving, and decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession; to impress on
them the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable
partner of the Bench in the administration of justice and to develop social competence.

Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system,
require proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal
apprenticeship and continuing legal education.

Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal education in the
Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives:

(1) to prepare students for the practice of law;

(2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of
the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society;

(3) to train persons for leadership;

(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the
improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the
light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and
in other countries.

(b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives:

(1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various fields
and of legal institutions;

(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate
and apply the law effectively, as well as to allowthem to have a holistic approach
to legal problems and issues;

(3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and

decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal
problems of the present and the future;
 (4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful
employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic
professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for continuing
study and self-improvement;

(5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession; and

(6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their
profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.

Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of this
Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board,
attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports.

The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former justice of the
Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular members: a representative of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association of Law
Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a representative
from the law students' sector. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports,
or his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board.

With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman and regular
members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines and members of the
Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the practice of law, as well
as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or recognized law school.

Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The Chairman and regular members of the Board
shall be appointed by the President for a term of five (5) years without reappointment from a list
of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with prior authorization from the Supreme Court, by the
Judicial and Bar Council, for every position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and
the representative of the IBP shall hold office for five (5) years, the representatives of the PALS
and the PALP, for three (3) years; and the representative from the ranks of active law
practitioners and the representative of the law students' sector, for one (1) year, without
reappointment. Appointments to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpire portion of the term
of the predecessor.

The Chairman and regular members of the Board shall have the same salary and rank as the
Chairman and members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions: Provided, That their
salaries shall not be diminished during their term of office.

Section 6. Office and Staff Support. - The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall
provide the necessary office and staff support to the Board, with a principal office to be located
in Metropolitan Manila.
The Board may appoint such other officers and employees it may deem necessary in the
performanceof its powers and functions.

Section 7. Powers and Functions. - For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act, the
Board shall havethe following powers and functions:

(a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent with the
provisions of this Act;

(b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and functions
as herein enumerated;

(c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among others,
the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the faculty, the library and
other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher
learning;

(d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;

(e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and
compensation of faculty members;

(f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for
admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and such other courses of
study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges under the different levels of
accreditation status;

(g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law
student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or firm or
legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period that the Board
may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the Board
shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation and the specifications of
such internship which shall include the actual work of a new member of the Bar.

(h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board may
provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such
duration as the Board may deem necessary; and

(i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations necessary for
the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act.

Section 8. Accreditation of Law Schools. - Educational institutions may not operate a law school
unless accredited by the Board. Accreditation of law schools may be granted only to educational
institutions recognized by the Government.
Section 9. Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The Board may withdraw or
downgrade the accreditation status of a law school if it fails to maintain the standards set for its
accreditation status.

Section 10. Effectivity of Withdrawal or Downgrading of Accreditation. - The withdrawal or

downgrading of accreditation status shall be effetive after the lapse ofthe semester or trimester
following the receipt by the school of the notice of withdrawal or downgrading unless, in the
meantime, the school meets and/or upgrades the standards or corrects the deficiencies upon
which the withdrawal or downgrading of the accreditation status is based.

Section 11. Legal Education Fund. - There is hereby created a special endowment fund, to be
known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be under the control of the Board, and
administered as a separate fund by the Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest the same
with due and prudent regard to its solvency, safety and liquidity.

The Legal Education Fund shall be established out of, and maintained from, the amounts
appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixty percent (60%) of the
privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994; and from such donations, legacies,
grant-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for the purposes of this Act.

Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal Education Fund shall be
used exclusively for the purposes of this Act, including support for faculty development grants,
professorial chairs, library improvements and similar programs for the advancement of law
teaching and education in accredited law schools.

The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose, an amount not
exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall be utilized.

The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and regulations for the
collection, administration and utilization of the Fund.

Section 12. Coverage. - The provisions of this Act shall apply to all schools and colleges of law
which are presently under the supervision of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.
Hereafter, said supervision shall be transferred to the Board. Law schools and colleges which
shall be established following the approval of this Act shall likewise be covered.

Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) is hereby
authorized to be charged against the current year's appropriation of the Contingent Fund for the
initial expenses of the Board.

To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated annually, under the budget
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, the amount of Ten Million Pesos
(P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years effective Fiscal Year 1994.

Section 14. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or the
application thereof to any person, circumstance or transaction is held invalid, the validity of the
remaining provisions of this Act and the applicability of such provisions to other persons,
circumstances and transactions shall not be affected thereby.

Section 15. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executie orders, rules and regulations,
issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act is hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

Section 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the
completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1993/ra_7662_1993.html
 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

TO: EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR MEDIALDEA (x)

2nd Floor, Mabini Hall, Malacañang
J.P. Laurel Street, San Miguel, Manila

LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD (x)

Ground Floor, Philippine Red Cross Building
C.P. Garcia Avenue, UP Diliman Campus
Diliman, Quezon City

GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, on March 12, 2019, adopted a resolution in the above-entitled
cases, to wit:
G.R. No. 230642 (Oscar B. Pimentel, Errol B. Comafay, Jr., Rene B. Gorospe, Edwin R.
Sandoval, Victoria B. Loanzon, Elgin Michael C. 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 Dula T. Nicolas, Irene
A. Tolentino, and Aurea I. Gruyal, Petitioners, v. Legal Education Board, as Represented by its
Chair, Hon. Emerson B. Aquende, and LEB Member Hon. Zenaida N. Elepaiio, Respondents;
Attys. 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, Intervenors; April D. Caballero, Jerey C. Castardo, MC
Wellroe P. Bringas, Rhuffy D. Federe, Conrad Theodore A. Matutino, and numerous others
similarly situated, St. Thomas More School of Law and Business, represented by its President
Rodolfo C. Rapista, for himself and as Founder, Dean, and Professor, of the College of Law,
Judy Marie Rapista-Tan, Lynnart Walford A. Tan, Ian M Enterina, Neil John Villarico as law
professors and as concerned citizens, Petitioners-Intervenors); and G.R. No. 242954 (Francis
Jose Lean L. Abayata, Gretchen M. Vasquez, Sheenah S. Ilustrismo, Ralph Louie Salaño, Aireen
Monica B. Guzman, Delfino Odias, Jr., Daryl Dela Cruz, Claire Suico, Aivie S. Pescadero, Niña
Christine De/a Paz, Shemar K. Queniahan, Al Jay T. Mejos, Rocellyn L. Daiio, Michael Adolfo,
Ronald A. Atig, Lynnette C. Lumayag, Mary Chris Lagera, Timothy B. Francisco, Sheila Marie
C. Dandan, Madeline C. Dela Peña, Darlin R. Villamor, Lorenzana L. Llorico, and Jan Ivan M
Santamaria, Petitioners, v. Hon. Salvador Medialdea, Executive Secretary, and Legal Education
Board, herein represented by its Chairperson Emerson B. Aquende, Respondents.) - Acting on
the prayer for injunctive relief and after the conduct of the oral arguments on March 5, 2019, the
Court RESOLVED to ISSUE a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, effective
immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, enjoining the respondents and
all persons acting in their behalf and/or under their direction from enforcing and implementing
LEB Memorandum Circular No. 18 dated June 8, 2018. Those who have not taken the PhilSAT
prior to the beginning of the Academic Year 2018 to 2019, or who have taken the PhilSAT but
did not pass, or are honor graduates in college with no PhilSAT Exemption Certificate, or honor
graduates with expired PhilSAT Exemption Certificates may now be allowed to conditionally
enroll as incoming freshmen law students under the same terms as LEB/ Memorandum Order
No. 11, series of 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, You, respondents, your agents, representatives, or persons acting in your
place or stead, are hereby commanded and directed to cease and desist from implementing the
Legal Education Board (LEB) Memorandum Circular No. 18 dated June 8, 2018, effective
immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2019marchdecisions.php?id=130
 It seems that what former University of the Philippines College of Law Dean Merline M.
Magallona noted resonates today:

What gives compelling direction to law schools, however, is the nature of the bar examinations,
which has the effect of tailoring the curriculum content, the method of teaching, and the operational
objectives of the law schools to the singular demand of giving the correct answers in the qualifying
examinations largely recalled from memory […]. Still the gravitational pull of the bar examinations
redirects the resources of law schools away from meaningful reforms opened by the new policies and
standards and they simply operate on the pragmatism of making it in these examinations. […] As
constituted now, it has become a bottleneck in the need to release the potential of legal education. 1

1
The Philippine law Journal Centennial Issue, Theodore Te’s “Legal Education in the Philippines: Confronting the
issue of relevance and responsiveness”: A Commentary by Gwen Garcia – De Vera., p. 683.