Facts:
The case originated from the controversies surrounding the implementation of the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) as a mandatory prerequisite for admission into law schools, as established under LEB Memorandum Order No. 7, Series of 2016 (LEBMO No. 7-2016) by the Legal Education Board (LEB). Several petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the policy and various LEB issuances on various grounds, including alleged infringement on the academic freedom of educational institutions and on the power of the Supreme Court over admissions to the practice of law.
Petitioners, comprised of individuals aspiring to enter law school, law professors, and law schools themselves, argued that such LEB mandates encroach upon the power of the Supreme Court and academic freedom by dictating who may be admitted to law schools. They sought the nullification of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7662 (which established the LEB), certain LEB issances, and asked for prohibitory injunctions against their implementation.
The LEB and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the respondents, defended the validity of the PhiLSAT and other related issuances as necessary regulatory measures to uplift the quality of legal education in the Philippines. They argued that these measures were within the LEB’s mandate under RA 7662.
The initial decision of the Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, upholding the validity of some aspects of the law and LEB’s jurisdiction over legal education, but declared certain LEB actions and provisions unconstitutional for infringing on the Supreme Court’s authority and the academic freedom of law schools.
Following the resolution, various motions for reconsideration were filed by both the petitioners and the respondents, along with a new pleading by the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) seeking intervention, questioning particularly the mandatory nature of PhiLSAT and other related issues.
Issues:
1. Whether the entirety of RA 7662 and LEBMO No. 7-2016 should be declared unconstitutional.
2. The jurisdiction of the LEB over legal education.
3. The constitutionality of the mandatory PhiLSAT and the imposition of a passing score as prerequisites for law school admission.
4. The permanence of the TRO against the LEB’s memoranda on PhiLSAT.
5. The validity of LEB’s requirements on qualifications and classifications for faculty members, deans, and graduate schools of law.
6. The constitutionality of certain LEB memoranda and resolutions regarding student certification and reporting.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court, in its resolution, addressed each issue comprehensively:
1. The Court found no cogent reason to invalidate the entirety of RA 7662 but maintained that certain sections of the law and related LEB issuances impinged on the Court’s authority and academic freedom, therefore remaining unconstitutional.
2. It reaffirmed the jurisdiction and authority of the LEB over legal education as exercised through regulatory measures, consistent with the state policy to uplift the standards of legal education.
3. The Court declared the entirety of LEBMO No. 7-2016 unconstitutional, invalidating all related LEB issuances regarding PhiLSAT. It held that while the State could require an admission test, the mandatory nature of PhiLSAT and the imposition of a passing score unduly infringed on the academic freedom of law schools.
4. Due to the invalidation of LEBMO No. 7-2016, the issue concerning the TRO became moot and academic.
5. & 6. The Court also struck down various LEB issuances prescribing qualifications for faculty and certification requirements for students as they exercised control over law schools rather than reasonable regulation.
Doctrine:
The decision established or reiterated the following doctrines:
– The state’s supervisory and regulatory authority over legal education must not encroach upon the Supreme Court’s authority or the academic freedom of law schools.
– Measures that are excessively controlling or violate fundamental freedoms may be deemed unconstitutional even if they aim to uplift educational standards.
Class Notes:
1. Academic Freedom: The right of educational institutions to decide on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.
2. Police Power: The state’s inherent power to regulate for the public welfare, including education, as long as such regulation is reasonable and not violative of constitutional rights.
3. Institutional Academic Freedom vs. State Regulation: While law schools enjoy institutional academic freedom, this does not immunize them from reasonable state regulation meant to ensure the quality of legal education.
Historical Background:
This case underscores the tension between the state’s role in ensuring quality legal education and the autonomy of law schools. It stems from efforts to reform legal education in the Philippines, highlighting the evolving landscape of legal education amidst concerns over educational standards and accessibility.
Leave a Reply