OSCAR PIMENTEL, ET. AL vs LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, ET AL.

G.R. No. 230642 (September 10, 2019)

FACTS:
On December 23 1993, the Congress passed into law the R.A. No. 7662 with a policy 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.
Days before the scheduled conduct of the first-ever PhiLSAT on April 16, 2017, the petitioners
together with their co-petitioners filed their Petition for prohibition principally seeking that R.A.
No. 7662 be declared unconstitutional and that the creation of the LEB be invalidated together
with all its issuances, most especially the PhiLSAT in order to prevent from conducting the said
test and prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the LEB from
conducting the PhiLSAT.
On March 12, 2019, the Court issued a TRO enjoining the LEB from implementing LEBMC No.
18-2018 wherein they allowed those who have not taken the PhiLSAT, did not pass the PhilSat,
or without PhiLSAT, or honor graduates with expired PhiLSAT Exemption Certificates to
conditionally enroll as incoming freshmen law students for the academic year 2019 to 2020
under the same terms as LEBMO No. 11-2017.
Respondents prayed to declare the PhilSAT as valid and further contend there is no reason to
invalidate the PhilSAT since it is similar to the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT)
which was declared constitutional.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the remedies of certiorari and prohibition in the said case are correct.
2. Whether or not the case at hand fulfills the requisites of judicial review.

RULINGS:
1. YES, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition in this case are CORRECT because certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues. Under the
Rules of Court, writs of certiorari and prohibition correct only errors of jurisdiction of judicial
and quasi-judicial bodies. Therefore, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition in this case are
correct because writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction
committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial
or ministerial functions but also to set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
2. YES, the case at hand fulfills the requisites of a judicial review because the petitions raise an
actual controversy. Under the Rules of Court, the Judicial power includes not only the duty of the
courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, but it is also their duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of government. Therefore, the case at hand fulfills the requisites of a judicial review because an
actual case or controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial determination.