The Supreme Court is being asked to nullify the Philippine Law School Admission Test (“PhilSAT”) imposed by the Legal Education Board (LEB). The PhilSAT is a one-day, nationwide aptitude exam to measure communications and language proficiency, critical thinking skills, and verbal and quantitative reasoning.
By way of background, Republic Act No. 7662 created the LEB in 1993 principally “to administer the legal education system in the country.”
On Dec. 29, 2016, the LEB issued Memorandum Order No. 7, s. 2016 (MO 7-2016) requiring the passing of the PhilSAT before applicants can enroll in the basic law courses beginning in the academic year (AY) 2016-2017. It exempted honor graduates who had enrolled in these courses within two years from their college graduation.
On April 16, 2017, the first PhilSAT was held. Thereafter, on April 20, 2017, the LEB issued Memorandum Order No. 11, s. 2017 (MO 11-2017) permitting those who were unable to take the test “for justifiable or meritorious reasons” to enroll conditionally for the AY 2018-2019. PhilSAT was again held in September 2017 and April 2018.
On June 8, 2018, the LEB issued Memorandum Order No. 18 s. 2018 (MO 18-2018) barring the enrollment in AY 2018-2019 of those who have not taken or who failed the PhilSAT, or of honor graduates who have no exemption certificates issued by the LEB or whose exemption certificates have expired.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 7662 and the said MOs, mainly for infringing the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to “[p]romulgate rules concerning… admission to the practice of law…”
They argue that to practice law, the Rules of Court requires merely: (1) a bachelor’s degree in the arts or sciences as a pre-law course, (2) a four-year law degree (3) from a government-recognized law school (4) where the applicant passed the subjects of civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation, and legal ethics, and (5) hurdled the bar exam given by the Court.
In turn, the LEB maintains that while the Court is constitutionally empowered to regulate the practice of law, the Executive Branch is authorized to regulate legal education.
It also posits that if the Charter intended to empower the Court to control legal education, it would have mandated the regulation of legal education as a judicial power. In short, admission to the practice of law is the Court’s constitutional power, while legal education is the Executive’s policy-prerogative that, constitutionally, is beyond judicial review.
Last March 12, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order barring the enforcement of MO 18-2018 and allowed those who have not taken or failed the PhilSAT to be conditionally enrolled for the AY 2018-2019 “under the same terms as” MO 11-2017. I think this TRO is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to the enrollees in the event the petition is eventually granted.
Instead of taking sides in this live case, let me just say that improving legal education has long been an aspiration of the Court. For example, in “BM 1161 — Proposed Reforms in the Bar Examinations” (June 8, 2004), the Court en banc — when I was still an incumbent — referred to the LEB’s four reform proposals, including a “Mandatory Law School Admission Test.”
To be fair, the LEB — though created in 1993 — was formally organized only in 2009 when its members were appointed. Since then, however, the LEB, to the best of my knowledge, had not responded to this referral before imposing the PhilSAT. My point is that cooperation and coordination are better than unilateral action.
I am confident that the petitioners, many of whom I know, are similarly minded to cooperate and end the tragedy of having only an average of 25 percent passing rate in the bar exam. Yes, despite their four years of pre-law and another four years of law proper, only one out of every four bar exam takers pass. Either they do not have the talent and aptitude, or their law schools failed to educate and train them.
At bottom, I hope that instead of battling over constitutionality, the Court, the LEB and the petitioners will cooperate, agree on and pursue a common legal education reform agenda.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@ hotmail.com