BANGASAN, Roxanne Angela Claire L.

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 Court has jurisdiction over the Legal Education
2. Whether or not the entire RA 7662 is unconstitutional.

RULINGS:
1. NO, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Legal Education because the Court has not
promulgated any rule that directly and actually regulates legal education. Under the Constitution,
the Court has not promulgated any rule that directly and actually regulates legal education.
Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the Legal Education because regulation and
supervision of legal education is primarily exercised by the Legislative and implemented by the
Executive, and it cannot be claimed by the judiciary.

2. NO, the entire RA No. 7662 is not unconstitutional because the policy of the State is to uplift
the standards of legal education. Under the Constitution, the goal of RA 7662 is to improve legal
education for law students to learn the essential skills and competencies that would make them
not only strive but thrive in the fast-changing world outside the law school. Therefore, the entire
RA No 7662 is not unconstitutional because the Court acknowledges and upholds the authority
of the LEB to carry out the purpose of the law which is in line with the State's constitutional
mandate to promote quality education.
 SENATORS FRANCIS "KIKO" N. PANGILINAN, ET AL. vs ALAN
PETER S. CAYETANO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 238875, 239483, 240954 (March 16, 2021)
FACTS:
The President as the head of the state and as the primary architect of foreign policy can withdraw
from a treaty in keeping with our legal system, if a treaty is considered and proved as
unconstitutional or contrary to provisions of an existing prior statute.
The petitioners, in this case filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus assailed that the
executive's unilateral act of withdrawing from the Rome Statute is unconstitutional.
On the other hand, the respondents claimed that the petition is improper because the acts of the
President complained of were not in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers and that the
Constitution does not expressly require Senate concurrence in withdrawing from a treaty.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute is invalid or ineffective
2. Whether or not the Instrument of Withdrawal is inconsistent with the Constitution.

RULINGS:
1. YES, the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute is invalid. Under the Constitution, no
treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate. Therefore, the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome
Statute is invalid because a treaty's effectivity depends on the Senate's concurrence.
2. YES, the instrument of withdrawal is inconsistent with the Constitution. Under the
Constitution, a state party withdrawing from the Rome Statute must still comply with this
provision. Therefore, the instrument of withdrawal is unconstitutional because the state does not
comply with the provision for withdrawal that is under the Constitution.