On September 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that while the Legal Education Board (LEB) has the power to set minimum standards for law schools, it cannot impose measures that infringe upon the academic freedom of these institutions; this decision affirmed the right of law schools to determine their admission policies and curricula, striking down specific LEB orders that were deemed excessively controlling and exclusionary. This ruling ensures that law schools retain autonomy over key aspects of their academic programs, balancing the State’s interest in quality legal education with institutional freedoms.

Balancing Quality and Freedom: Can the State Dictate Law School Admissions?

This case stems from a challenge to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7662, the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993, which created the Legal Education Board (LEB), as well as several LEB issuances, specifically those relating to the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT). Petitioners argued that R.A. No. 7662 and the PhiLSAT requirements encroached upon the Supreme Court’s rule-making power concerning admissions to the practice of law, violated institutional academic freedom, and infringed upon law school aspirants’ right to education. The central legal question revolves around the permissible extent of State intervention in legal education and its impact on the academic freedom of law schools and the educational rights of individuals.

The Supreme Court, in resolving the consolidated petitions, addressed several key issues, including the remedies of certiorari and prohibition, the requisites for judicial review, jurisdiction over legal education, and the LEB’s powers under R.A. No. 7662. The Court acknowledged the State’s power to supervise and regulate legal education but emphasized that this power must be exercised reasonably and with due regard to academic freedom. Police power was explored, with the Court holding that the enactment of education laws is an exercise of police power, but that such supervisory and regulatory exercise must not amount to control.

The Court examined whether the LEB’s powers under R.A. No. 7662 improperly encroached upon the Court’s jurisdiction over the practice of law. It was argued that the LEB’s powers, particularly regarding law admission, law practice internship, and continuing legal education, infringed upon the Court’s exclusive authority. The Court ultimately concluded that the LEB’s powers to regulate legal education do not extend to regulating the practice of law, distinguishing between the study of law and admission to the bar.

SEC. 7. Powers and Functions. – For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act, the Board shall have the following powers and functions:

(g) to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar, which a law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such accreditation and the specifications of such internship which shall include the actual work of a new member of the Bar.

The Court found that certain provisions of R.A. No. 7662 and related LEB issuances were unconstitutional, including Section 3(a)(2) on increasing awareness among members of the legal profession, Section 2 on legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education, and Section 7(g) on law practice internship as a requirement for taking the bar. These provisions were deemed to encroach upon the Court’s authority to regulate the practice of law. However, it upheld the LEB’s power under Section 7(e) to administer an aptitude test like the PhiLSAT as a minimum standard for law admission, but emphasized that this power must be exercised in a way that respects the academic freedom of law schools and the right to education.

The Court also considered the tension between the supervisory and regulatory powers of the State and the academic freedom of educational institutions. It stressed that the State’s power must be reasonably exercised and cannot amount to control, emphasizing that academic freedom includes the right of institutions to determine who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. Institutional academic freedom was further discussed, with reference to the internal conditions for institutional academic freedom.

The right to education was also considered, emphasizing the constitutional mandate to protect and promote quality education and make it accessible to all. The Court noted that the right to receive higher education is not absolute and is subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. However, it stressed that the standards for entrance to law school and the standards for accreditation must be fair, reasonable, and equitable.

In the context of the PhiLSAT, the Court declared certain provisions of LEBMO No. 7-2016 unconstitutional, specifically those prescribing the passing of the PhiLSAT and the taking thereof within two years as a prerequisite for admission to any law school. These provisions were deemed to run directly counter to institutional academic freedom. However, the Court upheld the LEB’s authority to initiate and administer an aptitude test, such as the PhiLSAT, as a minimum standard for law admission, as long as it functions as a guide rather than an exclusionary measure. The decision underscored the necessity of balancing the State’s interest in improving legal education with the academic freedom of law schools and the right to education.

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Legal Education Board (LEB) exceeded its authority by imposing regulations, particularly the PhiLSAT, that infringed upon the academic freedom of law schools and the right to education.
What is academic freedom, according to the Supreme Court?	Academic freedom includes the right of educational institutions to decide who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study, free from undue external interference.
What is the PhiLSAT?	The PhiLSAT is the Philippine Law School Admission Test, a standardized aptitude test designed to measure a prospective law student’s readiness for legal education.
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the PhiLSAT?	The Court ruled that the LEB could administer the PhiLSAT as a guide, but could not mandate it as a prerequisite for admission, as it infringed upon the law schools’ academic freedom.
What is the State’s role in legal education after this ruling?	The State has the power to reasonably supervise and regulate legal education to protect public interest, but this power must not amount to control and must respect academic freedom.
Which specific LEB issuances were declared unconstitutional?	Specifically, the Court struck down provisions of LEBMO No. 7-2016 and LEBMC No. 18-2018 that made passing the PhiLSAT a strict requirement for law school admission.
What is the difference between regulating and controlling education?	Regulation involves setting standards and ensuring compliance, while control involves managing, dictating, overruling, or prohibiting, which is beyond the State’s constitutional power.
What did the Court say about continuing legal education?	The Court held that the LEB’s power could not be extended to mandate continuing legal education for practicing lawyers, as that falls under the Supreme Court’s authority.
What is the impact of this ruling on law schools?	Law schools retain autonomy in setting admission policies and curricula, but are also subject to reasonable supervision and regulation by the LEB, which must be exercised without infringing on academic freedom.

This Supreme Court decision seeks to balance the State’s interest in maintaining quality legal education with the autonomy of law schools to make their own academic decisions and shape their unique educational environments, ensuring that legal education remains both rigorous and accessible.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Pimentel, et al. vs. Legal Education Board, G.R. No. 230642 and G.R. No. 242954, September 10, 2019