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.