The Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions of the Legal Education Board (LEB) encroached on the Supreme Court's constitutional power to promulgate rules on the admission to the practice of law. Specifically, the LEB overstepped by requiring all law school applicants to take and pass the PhiLSAT exam and prescribing it as an absolute prerequisite for admission. This infringed on the law schools' academic freedom to determine their own admissions policies and criteria. However, the Court found that an aptitude exam like the PhiLSAT was reasonably related to improving legal education quality, as long it did not become exclusionary or restrict academic freedom. The Court partially nullified the LEB order to the extent it made the PhiLS
The Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions of the Legal Education Board (LEB) encroached on the Supreme Court's constitutional power to promulgate rules on the admission to the practice of law. Specifically, the LEB overstepped by requiring all law school applicants to take and pass the PhiLSAT exam and prescribing it as an absolute prerequisite for admission. This infringed on the law schools' academic freedom to determine their own admissions policies and criteria. However, the Court found that an aptitude exam like the PhiLSAT was reasonably related to improving legal education quality, as long it did not become exclusionary or restrict academic freedom. The Court partially nullified the LEB order to the extent it made the PhiLS
The Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions of the Legal Education Board (LEB) encroached on the Supreme Court's constitutional power to promulgate rules on the admission to the practice of law. Specifically, the LEB overstepped by requiring all law school applicants to take and pass the PhiLSAT exam and prescribing it as an absolute prerequisite for admission. This infringed on the law schools' academic freedom to determine their own admissions policies and criteria. However, the Court found that an aptitude exam like the PhiLSAT was reasonably related to improving legal education quality, as long it did not become exclusionary or restrict academic freedom. The Court partially nullified the LEB order to the extent it made the PhiLS
The Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions of the Legal Education Board (LEB) encroached on the Supreme Court's constitutional power to promulgate rules on the admission to the practice of law. Specifically, the LEB overstepped by requiring all law school applicants to take and pass the PhiLSAT exam and prescribing it as an absolute prerequisite for admission. This infringed on the law schools' academic freedom to determine their own admissions policies and criteria. However, the Court found that an aptitude exam like the PhiLSAT was reasonably related to improving legal education quality, as long it did not become exclusionary or restrict academic freedom. The Court partially nullified the LEB order to the extent it made the PhiLS
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
3. Oscar B. Pimentel, et al. vs. Legal Education Board (G.R. Nos.
230642 and 242954,
September 10, 2019)
FACTS
The Court's Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM), through its Chairperson, Justice Jose C. Vitug, noted several objectionable provisions of R.A. No. 7662 where Section 7(e) giving the LEB the power to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and Section 7(h) giving the LEB the power to adopt a system of continuing legal education and for this purpose, the LEB may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the LEB may deem necessary] encroach upon the Supreme Court's powers under Section 5, paragraph 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution. Aside from its power over the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law.
Among the orders issued by the LEB was Memorandum Order No. 7, Series of 2016 (LEBMO No. 7-2016) pursuant to its power to "prescribe the minimum standards for law admission" under Section 7(e) of R.A. No. 7662.
The policy and rationale of LEBMO No. 7-2016 is to improve the quality of legal education by requiring all those seeking admission to the basic law course to take and pass a nationwide uniform law school admission test, known as the PhiLSAT.
The PhiLSAT is essentially an aptitude test measuring the examinee's communications and language proficiency, critical thinking, verbal and quantitative reasoning. It was designed to measure the academic potential of the examinee to pursue the study of law. Exempted from the PhiLSAT requirement were honor graduates who were granted professional civil service eligibility and who are enrolling within two years from their college graduation.
ISSUES Did the LEB exercise its powers constitutionally?
HELD
The internal conditions for institutional academic freedom, that is, the academic staff should have de facto control over: (a) the admission and examination of students; (b) the curricula for courses of study; (c) the appointment and tenure of office of academic staff; and (d) the allocation of income among the different categories of expenditure.
Reference was also made to the influential language of Justice Frankfurter's concurring opinion in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, describing it as the "business of the university" to provide a conducive atmosphere for speculation, experimentation, and creation where the four essential freedoms of the university prevail: the right of the university to determine for itself on academic grounds (a) who may teach; (b) what may be taught; (c) how it shall be taught; and (d) who may be admitted to study.
Thus far, it is settled that the PhiLSAT, when administered as an aptitude test, is reasonably related to the State's unimpeachable interest in improving the quality of legal education. This aptitude test, however, should not be exclusionary, restrictive, or qualifying as to encroach upon institutional academic freedom. Moreover, in the exercise of their academic freedom to choose who to admit, the law schools should be left with the discretion to determine for themselves how much weight should the results of the PhiLSAT carry in relation to their individual admission policies. At all times, it is understood that the school's exercise of such academic discretion should not be gravely abused, arbitrary, whimsical, or discriminatory.
Instead, the Court takes a calibrated approach and partially nullifies LEBMO No. 7-2016 insofar as it absolutely prescribes the passing of the PhiLSAT and the taking thereof within two years as a prerequisite for admission to any law school which, on its face, run directly counter to institutional academic freedom
Likewise, in imposing that only those with a basic degree in law may be admitted to graduate programs in law encroaches upon the law school's right to determine who may be admitted. For instance, this requirement effectively nullifies the option of admitting non-law graduates on the basis of relevant professional experience that a law school, pursuant to its own admissions policy, may otherwise have considered.
The required general weighted average in the college course suffers the same infirmity and would have been struck down had ·it not been expressly repealed by the LEB because of the PhiLSAT.
It is clear from the plain text of Section 7(g) that another requirement, i.e., completion of a law internship program, is imposed by law for taking the bar examinations. This requirement unduly interferes with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to promulgate rules concerning the practice of law and admissions thereto.
In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, NMAT was upheld because NMAT score is not provided with a threshold which would prevent an applicant from entry into medical school.
