IN RE CUNANAN (CASE DIGEST)

MissIdea Uncategorized October 7, 2014 2 Minutes

IN RE CUNANAN

94 PHIL. 534

FACTS:

Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title
of the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and
including 1955.”

Section 1 provided the following passing marks:

1946-1951………………70%

1952 …………………….71%

1953……………………..72%

1954……………………..73%

1955……………………..74%

Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.

Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject
shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in
the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”

ISSUE:

Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.

RULING:

Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the title
of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also
struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and
jurisprudence are not stationary.

As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to
1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the
following reasons:
 1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to
1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of
World War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the
said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may be
admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and
supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only
minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can practice
law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.

As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to
declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not
revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. The
same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules
of admission to the practice of law.

Case 6IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954]In the Matter of the Petitions for
Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL.,
petitioners.Resoluti, 1954onMarch 18Facts: Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly
known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” Inaccordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then
passed and admitted to the bar those candidateswho had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it
to 75 percent. After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for
admission to the barinvoking its provisions, while other motions for the revision of their examination
papers were still pendingalso invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission.
There are also others who havesought simply the reconsideration of their grades without, however,
invoking the law in question. To avoidinjustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the
motions for reconsideration, irrespective ofwhether or not they had invoked Republic Act No.
972.Issue: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.Held:RA No. 972 has for its object,
according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those candidates who sufferedfrom insufficiency of reading
materials and inadequate preparation.In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the
admission, suspension, disbarment andreinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the
profession and their supervision have beenindisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We
have said that in the judicial system from which ourshas been derived, the admission, suspension,
disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in thepractice of the profession is concededly
judicial.On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial
and legislativedepartments of the government.It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant
license for the practice of law belongs exclusivelyto this Court, and the law passed by Congress
on the matter is of permissive character, or as otherauthorities may say, merely to fix the minimum
conditions for the license.Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.