Reaction Paper In Re Oral Arguments Of Constitutionality Of Leb.docx

Leonora Armi Dianne M. So JD - Legal Forms

Atty. Zarate

Reaction Paper Re: Oral Arguments of the Constitutionality of Legal Education Board (LEB)

Last March 5, 2019, Supreme Court held an oral argument on the validity of the Legal Education Board (LEB). Two cases where consolidated by the High Court, wherein the latest case was initiated by a group led by Francis Jose Abayate, which was consolidated in an earlier suit filed by former retired Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Oscar Pimentel. Atty. Errol Comafay Jr., who represented the petitioners, challenge the constitutionality of the creation of LEB through Republic Act 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act) and would like to invalidate the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT). They said that admission to legal education is part of the practice of law which should be solely under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. On the part of respondent, Solicitor General Jose Calida, representing the Legal Education Board, pointed out that admission to law school is different from admission to the practice of law. The controversy started because of the implementation of Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT) among all Universities and Colleges who offer Legal Education, to qualify students in their academic potential to study law. PhilSAT test students’ abilities to be admitted to the law school. With this implementation, failure of would-be-law students to pass the said examination would be a hindrance for them to be accepted in Law School. Petitioners argued that with this implementation, it encroaches upon the vested power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law as it imposed an additional requirement for the practice of law, administered by an agency (LEB) not answerable directly to Supreme Court. Although as pointed out by Solicitor General Jose Calida, admission to law school is entirely different and that Supreme Court in its existence, never regulate the legal education. Under the Constitution, the power to regulate education is a vested power of the Executive body and not the Judiciary. It is important to note that Court is clad with the power of promulgating rules when it comes to the practice of law but Legal Education Board (LEB) is shield with police power to regulate admission to the study of law and both should not overlap with each other.

The argument of petitioners should be given a good stand because it affects the Constitutional right of freedom of education as it hinders those who seek knowledge to study law. Although it is correct to say that academic freedom is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the State by setting minimum standards to admission to study of law, it becomes unreasonable the moment that it prevents those who would like to study law and can pay for it. People should be allowed to study all areas that they want if it is from their own money and not a burden to the public. Congress cannot tell the Judiciary the requirements for the admission to the law school because even Justice Leonen quoted that who are they to say what it good for law school. The intention of Legal Education Board in uplifting the standard of legal education through the implementation of the national qualifying examination would be unconstitutional and a grave abuse of discretion if it involves exclusion. The right to know cannot be barred by law. Even if the admission to law school would be vested to Supreme Court, still such qualifying exam should not be a hindrance to acquiring knowledge to study of law. It is well-settled that admission to study of law is different from admission to the practice of law. Admission to the study of law is a constitutional freedom for everyone who aspires to seek knowledge of law. It is in the power of High Court to scrutinize or evaluate who are qualified to the practice of law.