Scribd
Upload
34 views3 pages

Pimentel vs. LEB

Uploaded by

jovani ema
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views3 pages

Pimentel vs. LEB

Uploaded by

jovani ema
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Pimentel vs. LEB, G.R. No.

230642, September 10, 2019

FACTS:
Petitioners in this case assail the unconstitutionality of R.A. 7662 or the Legal Education
Reform Act of 1993 which creates the Legal Education Board. Petitioners particularly
seek to declare as unconstitutional the creation of LEB itself, LEB issuances and
memorandums establishing law practice internship as a requirement for taking the bar
based on Sec. 7 (g) of RA 7662, adopting a system of continuing legal education based
on Sec. 2 (2) and Sec. 7 (h) of RA 7662, and establishing and implementing the
nationwide law school aptitude test known as the Philippine Law School Admission Test
or the PhilSAT pursuant to LEB’s power to “prescribe the minimum standards for law
admission” under Sec. 7 (e) of RA 7662. Petitioners principally grounded the petitions
on LEB’s alleged encroachment upon the rulemaking power of the Court concerning the
practice of law, violation of institutional academic freedom, and violation of law school
aspirant’s right to education under the Constitution.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the regulation and supervision of legal education belong to the Court.
2. Whether the requirement of internship for admission to Bar Examination embodied
in LEB Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 7(g) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional.
3. Whether the adoption of system of continuing legal education embodied in LEB
Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 7(h) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional.
4. Whether the establishment of PhilSAT embodied in LEB Memorandum pursuant to
Sec. 7(e) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional.

HELD:
1. NO. Regulation and supervision of legal education had been historically and
consistently exercised by the political departments. The historical development of
statutes on education unerringly reflects the consistent exercise by the political
departments of the power to supervise and regulate all levels and areas of education,
including legal education. Legal education is but a composite of the entire Philippine
education system. It is perhaps unique because it is a specialized area of study. This
peculiarity, however, is no reason in itself to demarcate legal education and withdraw it
from the regulatory and supervisory powers of the political branches.

Two principal reasons militate against the proposition that the Court has the regulation
and supervision of legal education:

First, it assumes that the court, in fact, possesses the power to supervise and regulate
legal education as a necessary consequence of its power to regulate admission to the
practice of law. This assumption, apart from being manifestly contrary to the history of
legal education in the Philippines, is likewise devoid of legal anchorage.

Second, the Court exercises only judicial functions and it cannot, and must not, arrogate
upon itself a power that is not constitutionally vested to it, lest the Court itself violates
the doctrine of separation of powers. For the Court to void RA 7662 and thereafter, to
form a body that regulates legal education and place it under its supervision and control,
as what petitioners suggest, is to demonstrate a highly improper form of judicial
activism.

As it is held, the Court’s exclusive rule making power under the Constitution covers the
practice of law and not the study of law. The present rules embodied in the 1997 Rules of
Court do not support the argument that the Court directly and actually regulates legal
education, it merely provides academic competency requirements for those who would
like to take the Bar. Furthermore, it is the State in the exercise of its police power that
has the authority to regulate and supervise the education of its citizens and this includes
legal education.

2. YES. This requirement unduly interferes with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to
promulgate rules concerning the practice of law and admissions thereto. The
jurisdiction to determine whether an applicant may be allowed to take the bar
examinations belongs to the Court. Under Sec. 7(g), the power of the LEB is no longer
confined within the parameters of legal education but now dabbles on the requisites for
admissions to the bar. This is direct encroachment upon the Court’s exclusive authority
to promulgate rules concerning admissions to the bar and should, therefore, be struck
down as unconstitutional.

3. YES. By its plain language, the clause “continuing legal education” unduly give the
LEB the power to supervise the legal education of those who are already members of the
bar. Inasmuch as the LEB is authorized to compel mandatory attendance of practicing
lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the LEB deems necessary, the same
encroaches upon the Court’s power to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar
which includes the education of Lawyer-professors as the teaching of law is considered
the practice of law.

4. YES. Accordingly, the Court recognizes the power of the LEB under its charter to
prescribe minimum standards for law admission. The PhilSAT, when administered as an
aptitude test to guide law schools in measuring the applicant’s aptness for legal
education along with such other admissions policy that the law school may consider, is
such a minimum standard. However, the PhilSAT presently operates not only as a
measure of an applicant’s aptitude for law school. The PhilSAT, as a pass or fail exam,
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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy