PIMENTEL v LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD

[G.R. No. 230642, September 10, 2019, J.C. REYES, JR., J]

Facts:

RA 7662 “An act providing for reforms in the legal education, creating for the purpose, a legal
education board and for other purposes”

Police power—is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain,
establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State
and its people. ( ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967)

Petitioners are seeking that the RA No. 7662 and PhiLSAT be declared unconstitutional for
encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Court concerning admissions to the practice of
law. They also prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the
LEB from conducting the PhiLSAT.

On March 12, 2019, the Court issued a TRO thus allowing those who have not yet taken the
PhiLSAT or who have taken but did not pass to conditionally enroll as incoming freshman for
the academic year 2019 to 2020.

LEB, subsequently, issued LEBMC No. 27-2019 stating that the PhiLSAT scheduled on April 7,
2019 will proceed and reiterated the requirements that must be complied with for the
conditional enrollment for the academic year 2019 to 2020.

G.R. No. 230642

Petitioners argue that R.A. No. 7662 and the PhiLSAT are offensive to the Court's power to
regulate and supervise the legal profession and that the Congress cannot create an
administrative office that exercises the Court's power over the practice of law. They also
question the constitutionality of the LEB's powers to prescribe the qualifications and
compensation of faculty members and LEB's power to adopt a system of continuing legal
education as being repugnant to the Court's rule-making power concerning the practice of law.
Also, it argues that the PhiLSAT violates the academic freedom of law schools and the right to
education.
Petitioners-in-intervention meanwhile contended that the PhiLSAT violates the right to liberty
and pursuit of happiness of the student-applicants. They posit that the PhiLSAT violates the
equal protection clause as it is an arbitrary form of classification not based on substantial
distinctions. They also argue that the PhiLSAT violates the right of all citizens to quality and
accessible education, violates academic freedom, and is an unfair academic requirement. They
also argue that R.A. No. 7662 constitutes undue delegation of legislative powers.

OSG, in defending the validity of the PhiLSAT, says that said PhiLSAT is the minimum standard
for entrance to law schools prescribed by the LEB pursuant to the State's power to regulate
education. The OSG urges that the PhiLSAT is no different from the National Medical Admission
Test (NMAT) which the Court already upheld as a valid exercise of police power in the seminal
case of Tablarin v. Gutierrez.

Issue:

Whether or not the PhiLSAT constitutes a valid exercise of police power.

(Maraming issues pero ito yung issue specifically about police powers. Extra careful din since
one of the petitioners is Atty. Gorospe)

Held:

YES and NO. The petition is partially granted.

Constitutional:

The Legal Education Board the power to:

 Set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among others,
the qualifications of the members of the faculty without encroaching upon the academic
freedom of institutions of higher learning.
 Prescribe the minimum requirements for admission to legal education and minimum
qualifications of faculty members without encroaching upon the academic freedom of
institutions of higher learning.
Unconstitutional:

The act and practice of the Legal Education Board of

 Excluding, restricting, and qualifying admissions to law schools in violation of the

institutional academic freedom on who to admit.
 Dictating the qualifications and classification of faculty members, dean, and dean of
graduate schools of law in violation of institutional academic freedom on who may
teach.
 Dictating the policies on the establishment of legal apprenticeship and legal internship
programs in violation of institutional academic freedom on what to teach.

Regulation of Legal Education as an exercise of Police Power:

The enactment of education laws, implementing rules and regulations and issuances of
government agencies is an exercise of the State's police power. It is well-within the jurisdiction
of the State, as an exercise of its inherent police power, to lay down laws relative to legal
education, the same being imbued with public interest of which the exercise of police power
over education must merely be supervisory and regulatory.

However, there were certain provisions and clauses of R.A. No. 7662 which, by its plain
language and meaning, go beyond legal education and intrude upon the Court's exclusive
jurisdiction hence, must be struck down.

Moreover, the exercise of the power to supervise and regulate legal education is circumscribed
by the normative contents of the Constitution itself, that is, it must be reasonably exercised.
Reasonable exercise means that it should not amount to control and that it respects the
Constitutionally-guaranteed institutional academic freedom and the citizen's right to quality
and accessible education. Transgression of these limitations renders the power and the exercise
thereof unconstitutional.

The Court recognizes the power of LEB to prescribe minimum standards for law admission. The
PhiLSAT is an aptitude test in measuring the applicants’ aptness. However, said PhiLSAT
presently operates not only as a measure of applicants’ aptitude but it dictates upon law
schools who among the examinees are to be admitted to any law program. When the PhiLSAT is
used to exclude, qualify, and restrict admissions to law schools, as its present design mandates,
the PhiLSAT goes beyond mere supervision and regulation, violates institutional academic
freedom, becomes unreasonable and therefore, unconstitutional.
Supreme Court also stated that LEB issuances which exceed the powers granted under its
charter should be nullified for being ultra vires (beyond one's legal power or authority).

The State may be considered as having properly exercised its police power only if the following
requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public generally; (2) the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals.

Notes from last sem (Atty. Sarangaya)

Case: Pimentel v LEB

 RA 7662- An Act Providing For Reforms In The Legal Education, Creating For The Purpose, A Legal
Education Board And For Other Purposes
 Regulation: Masters of Law for profession, apprenticeship and the like
 Is it constitutional? NO.
 Study of law (Legal Education) ≠ Practice of Law (admission to the Bar)
 Legal education is a mere composite of legal education system in the Philippines (preparatory to the
Practice of Law)
 Contrary to these two reasons:
 It would assume that the Court possesses the power to supervise and regulate Legal Education as
a necessary consequence of its power to regulate the admission to the practice of law.
 Supreme Courts exercises only judicial functions. The authority to regulate is vested in a political
branches of government.

 It’s rule making powers of the practice of law and not the study of law
 It is exclusive upon courts to promulgate rules concerning legal assistance to the underprivileged.
 Legal Apprenticeship as part of curriculum (unconstitutional)– affects the constitutional academic freedom
of law schools
 Four Aspects: who may teach, what may be taught, how, who may be admitted to study.
 What are affected: what may be taught and who may be admitted to study.
 Academic Freedom-impair the rule making power of SC
 NMAT and PHILSAT are different in operations. The latter is sanctioned if they admit someone who did
not pass the exam.
 Reasonable requirement to impose the Master’s and Doctorate requirement but as far as other
requirement pertaining to load and qualifications are violation of constitutional academic freedom.