[PIMENTEL] CASE NOTES

Baltazar, Guillan Audrey M. | 1LM-3

💡 Case Presentation

In this case of Pimentel, et al. v. Legal Education Board, Petitioners assail the
unconstitutionality of R.A. 7662 or the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 which
creates the Legal Education Board.

Petitioners particularly sought to declare as unconstitutional the creation of LEB

itself, LEB issuances and memorandums establishing law practice internship
as a requirement for taking the bar based on Sec. 7 (g) of RA 7662, adopting a
system of continuing legal education based on Sec. 2 (2) and Sec. 7 (h) of RA
7662, and implementing the PhilSAT pursuant to LEB’s power to “prescribe the
minimum standards for law admission” under Sec. 7 (e) of RA 7662.

Petitioners principally grounded the petitions on LEB’s alleged encroachment upon

the rulemaking power of the Court concerning the practice of law, violation of
institutional academic freedom, and violation of law school aspirant’s right to
education under the Constitution.

The Issue in this case is whether the regulation and supervision of legal education
belongs to the Court.

💡 Ruling

NO. Regulation and supervision of legal education had been historically and
consistently exercised by the political departments.
Two principal reasons militate against the proposition that the Court has the regulation
and supervision of legal education:

First, it assumes that the court, in fact, possesses the power to supervise and
regulate legal education as a necessary consequence of its power to regulate

[PIMENTEL] CASE NOTES 1

 admission to the practice of law. This assumption, apart from being manifestly
contrary to the history of legal education in the Philippines, is likewise devoid of
legal anchorage.

Second, the Court exercises only judicial functions and it cannot, and must not,
arrogate upon itself a power that is not constitutionally vested to it, lest the Court
itself violates the doctrine of separation of powers. For the Court to void RA 7662
and thereafter, to form a body that regulates legal education and place it under its
supervision and control, as what petitioners suggest, is to demonstrate a highly
improper form of judicial activism.

As it is held, the Court’s exclusive rule making power under the Constitution covers the
practice of law and not the study of law. The present rules embodied in the 1997 Rules
of Court do not support the argument that the Court directly and actually regulates legal
education, it merely provides academic competency requirements for those who would
like to take the Bar. Furthermore, it is the State in the exercise of its police power that
has the authority to regulate and supervise the education of its citizens and this includes
legal education.

💡 Provision in Question

R.A. No. 7662 with the following policy statement:

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of

the State to uplift the standards of legal education in order to
prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving,
and decision-making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal
profession; to impress on them the importance, nobility and dignity
of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the
Bench in the administration of justice and to develop social
competence.

Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in

the legal education system, require proper selection of law

[PIMENTEL] CASE NOTES 2

 students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal
apprenticeship and continuing legal education.

R.A. No. 7662 identifies the general and specific objectives of legal education in this
manner:

SEC. 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. -

(a) Legal education in the Philippines is geared to attain the

following objectives:

(1) to prepare students for the practice of law;

(2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession
of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of
society;
(3) to train persons for leadership;
(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice
and the improvement of its administration, the legal system and
legal institutions in the light of the historical and contemporary
development of law in the Philippines and in other countries.

(b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific

objectives:

(1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its
various fields and of legal institutions;
(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to
analyze, articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allow
them to have a holistic approach to legal problems and Issues;
(3) to prepare law students for advocacy, [counseling], problem-
solving and decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal
with recognized legal problems of the present and the future;

[PIMENTEL] CASE NOTES 3

 (4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for
gainful employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training
beyond the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the
desire and capacity for continuing study and self improvement;
(5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal
profession; and
(6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of
their profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.

💡 Fact bank

Petitioners in G.R. No. 230642 argue that R.A. No. 7662 and the PhiLSAT are
offensive to the Court's power to regulate and supervise the legal profession
pursuant to Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution and that the Congress
cannot create an administrative office that exercises the Court's power over the
practice of law. They also argue that R.A. No. 7662 gives the JBC additional
functions to vet nominees for the LEB in violation of Section 8(5), Article VIII of the
Constitution.

The 1987 Constitution departed from the 1935 and the 1973 organic laws in the
sense that it took away from the Congress the power to repeal, alter, or supplement
the rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the
practice of law, and the integration of the Bar and therefore vests exclusively and
beyond doubt, the power to promulgate such rules to the Court, thereby supporting
a "stronger and more independent judiciary.”

Accordingly, the Court's exclusive power of admission to the Bar has been
interpreted as vesting upon the Court the authority to define the practice of law, to
determine who will be admitted to the practice of law, to hold in contempt any
person found to be engaged in unauthorized practice of law, and to exercise
corollary disciplinary authority over members of the Bar.

The act of admitting, suspending, disbarring and reinstating lawyers in the practice
of law is a judicial function because it requires "(1) previously established rules and

[PIMENTEL] CASE NOTES 4

 principles; (2) concrete facts, whether past or present, affecting determinate
individuals; and (3) decision as to whether these facts are governed by the rules
and principles."

[PIMENTEL] CASE NOTES 5