GONZALGO REZIE F.

BUCL JD - 1

ESSAY ON: THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF PHILSAT UNDER LEBMO NO. 7 VIS-À-VIS

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NMAT UNDER DO 52, S. 1985 

While the law recognizes the important role of the government agencies in
uplifiting the standards of education in preparation for the professional world and is
within the supervisory and regulatory compentence of the state, at the same breadth,
the right to education and academic freedom of the citizens is equally significant. The
Legal Education Board and the Board of Medicine are examples of these government
agencies. The former oversees the system of Legal education and the latter study the
conditons affecting the practice of medicine. Both are cloathed with authority to issue
resolutions, memorandum orders and regulations as an exercise of the State’s police
power, however such is not absolute.

Controversies stemmed from the issuance of LEBMO NO. 7 by the Legal

Education Board, which required those seeking admission to the basic law course
to pass Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT) was struck down by the
Supreme Court, on September 10, 2019 decision. On the other hand the Board
Resolution No. 19 that witheld registrations as physicians issued by the Board of
Medicine was upheld in connection with the importance of the National Medical
Admission Test (NMAT) before practicing the medical profession.

In the case of PRC vs. De Guzman, The Board of Medicine’s duty to issue
Certificates of Registration as Physicians and as well as the right of the students to be
registered as such was contested when the above resolution witheld the registration as
physicians of all the examinees from the Fatima College of medicine. The examinees
where charged with immoral conduct because their scores are far-fetched higher and
oddly close to each other. Until the moral and mental fitness of the students is
ascertained, the issuance of certificate is put on hold. Furthermore, although the court
recognize the constitutional right to select a profession, it may be still regulated as an
exercise of police power. “Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned
professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an
examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation takes
particular pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public from the potentially
deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice
medicine.” 1 On that note, to be allowed to practice medicine, the applicant must prove
that he satisfies all the prescribed requirements by law. In the absence of showing that
such qualifications are met, the students cannot be said to have passed the medical
examinations. It divest them the privilege to practice the profession.

The National Medical Admission Test was declared a prerequisite for admission in
all medical schools nationwide as pursuant to the Medical Act of 1959. It can be
gleaned from the case that it was developed to filter out incompetency to those who
are aspiring for a medical degree. It cannot be gainsaid to be oppressive against the
rights of the students given the nature the demand of quality technical skills of the
profession.

In a different circumstance, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Pimentel vs.
LEB, tha the memorandum order No.7 issued by LEB is unconstitutional. However, to
put context first, the petitioners in this case contends that the PhilSAT encroaches with
the constitutional rule making prerogative of the Court to regulate and supervise the
legal profession, the right of all citizens to quality and accessible education, academic
freedom, and is an unfair academic requirement. Furthermore, due process is also
violated as it interferes with the right of every person to select a profession or course of
study. The court pointed out several substantive issues in the case. However, this essay
will deal with referrence to the supervision and regulation of legal education as an
exercise of police power only. To be valid, it should be for the interest of the general
public, and the means employed to attain such purpose must be reasonable and not
unduly oppresive.

As it was enunciated in the case, “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 .”2 It is clear therefore, that the
requirement of PhilSAT, as a means of state’s regulatory power in relation to academic
freedom is opressive as the former stifles the latter. While the letters of the admission

1
PRC vs De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21 2004
2
Oscar B. Pimentel, et al. v. Legal Education Board and Jose Lean L. Abayata, et al. v. Hon. Salvador Medialdea and Legal
Education Board, September 10, 2019
test was for a noble purpose, it must be read in conjuction with the right of every
citizen to select a profession and the right to a fair and equal admission to education.

With respect to the exercise of the Police power, a comparison with the cases
mentioned above, specifically between the resolution emphasizing the importance of
taking NMAT issued by the Board of Medicine and the memorandum order by the Legal
Education Board creating the PHILSAT as the uniform admission test for law schools,
constitutionality is inclined with the former not just because it concerns deadly
consequences if not maintained but also because the latter defeats the well established
notion that the authority to uplift the quality of education through minimum standards
must merely be supervisory and regulatory.

In conclusion, when the exercise of the regulatory powers do not transgressed

the limitations guaranteed by the constitutionally vested rights, it is a legitimate
exercise of the such. With that, it is also equally important to keep in mind that it is still
the delicate art of balancing the power of the government and the freedom of the
governed that must be controlling and shall prevail over any power.