At the 2019 Legal Education Summit, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Justice Leonen's insights aimed to elevate the

ate the quality of legal education

Leonen emphasized several key roles and duties of law schools as in the country by focusing on integrity, justice, and practical skills,
academic institutions. Here are the main points he highlighted: preparing students to meet the challenges of a modern society.

1. Provision of Knowledge and Skills: Law schools have the

primary responsibility of providing comprehensive education to
their students. They must ensure that the curriculum covers not
only theoretical aspects of the law but also practical skills
needed for effective legal practice.

2. Promotion of Social Justice: Justice Leonen stressed the

importance of incorporating social justice into the law school
curriculum. Students should be educated about justice and
human rights issues and should be encouraged to commit to fair
and just treatment of all individuals.

3. Development of Critical Thinking: Law schools must foster

students' critical thinking and analytical skills. Students should
learn to analyze legal issues, construct strong arguments, and
make fair decisions based on law and morality.

4. Formation of Moral and Ethical Character: A crucial duty of law

schools is to build a solid moral and ethical foundation in their
students. They should provide training and courses that help
students develop high standards of integrity and ethical behavior
in their profession.

5. Engagement with the Community and Society: Law schools

should actively engage with the community and society. They
should participate in initiatives that promote public welfare and
collaborate with organizations to improve access to justice and
legal services.

6. Curriculum Review and Improvement: Law schools should

continuously review and improve their curricula to address the
evolving needs of society. This ensures that their education
remains current and effective in preparing students for the
practical realities of legal practice.
Title: GARCIA vs. THE FACULTY ADMISSION COMMITTEE, LOYOLA ISSUE/S:
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY [G.R. No. L-­‐40779]
1. Whether the petitioner is deemed to possess a right to
be respected by the respondent in terms being denied
re-­‐admission?
Date: Nov. 28, 1975
2. Whether the Faculty Admission Committee had to
Petitioner: Epicharis T. Garcia authority to bar the petitioner from continuing her
studies in their institution?
Respondent/s: The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School
of Theology (Fr. Antonio B. Lambino) RULE/S:
ARTICLE XIV
FACTS: SEC. 1 The State shall protect and promote the right of all
citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take
1. Petitioner has been barred from being allowed re-­‐admission appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
into the respondent school, which is a seminary for the SEC. 5 (2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
priesthood in collaboration with the Ateneo de Manila institutions of higher learning.
University. Petitioner was taking her studies leading to an M.A. ANALYSIS:
in Theology at the time, but was no longer allowed to enroll in
1. Due to the fact that the respondent school the
the Academic Year of 1975-­‐1976.
petitioner was enrolling to was a seminary for
2. Petitioner contends that the reason behind the respondent’s
priesthood and for men, the most she could claim for
refusal to re-­‐admit her (as stated in a letter from the
is a privilege, and not a right. Furthermore, she was
respondent), which is due to the fact that her frequent
admittedly enrolling into a course that was not for the
questions and difficulties that were slowing down the progress
priesthood. Besides, even if, for the sake of argument,
of the class, does not constitute valid legal ground for
she was qualified to study for the priesthood, there is
expulsion for they neither present any violation of any of the
still no duty on the part of the respondent to admit her
school’s regulation, nor are they indicative of gross
for the discretion to accept or reject qualified
misconduct. She was advised to enroll in the University of
applicants still lies on the respondent school.
Santo Tomas Graduate School (Ecclesiastical Faculty), where
she will have to take up Philosophy (4-­‐5 years, compared to 2 2. Also, taking into consideration Sec. 5 of Art. XIV, the
years in Ateneo) before she will be allowed to take Theology. aforementioned discretion is backed by the
She was, however, allowed to take some courses for credit, Constitution.
free of charge, during the summer sessions of the respondent CONCLUSION:
school in 1975, but was not acknowledged to be enrolled in any Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
degree program.
3. Petitioner then filed for a writ of Mandamus to compel the
respondent to allow her admission.
Principles of Academic Freedom as Reflected in the Case: discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or other
protected categories.
1. Autonomy in Academic Decision-Making:
o Application: The Court would have examined whether
o Principle: Academic institutions, including universities
there was any discriminatory intent or impact in the
and theological schools, have the right to make
denial of Garcia’s application, ensuring that decisions
independent decisions regarding admissions,
were made based on legitimate academic criteria.
curriculum, and faculty without undue interference.
5. Limits of Judicial Review:
o Application: The Court likely affirmed the Loyola School
of Theology's right to set and apply its own admissions o Principle: Courts respect the expertise of academic
criteria without external pressure, provided these criteria institutions and limit their review to ensuring that
align with their institutional mission and policies. decisions comply with legal standards and institutional
policies.
2. Respect for Institutional Policies:
o Application: The Court would have limited its review to
o Principle: Institutions are entitled to enforce their
whether there was any legal or procedural violation in the
policies and criteria for admissions and other academic
admission decision, rather than second-guessing the
matters, reflecting their educational objectives and
institution's academic judgments.
values.

o Application: The Court would have reviewed whether the

Faculty Admission Committee adhered to its published
policies and standards when making its decision about
Garcia’s application.

3. Procedural Fairness:

o Principle: Academic decisions should be made following

fair procedures, including providing clear reasons for
decisions and allowing for review or appeal processes.

o Application: The Court might have assessed whether the

process followed by the Faculty Admission Committee
was fair and transparent, and whether Garcia had been
given an adequate explanation or opportunity to contest
the decision.

4. Non-Discrimination:

o Principle: Academic institutions must ensure that their

admissions and other decisions are free from