Republic Act No. 7662 is unconstitutional on the ground that it encroaches the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar and legal assistance to underprivileged, thus violating the doctrine of separation of powers.
Section 5, Par. 5, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has the exclusive power to “ Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law , the x”. (Emphasis supplied) i nteg nteg r ate ated bar, bar, and legal assista assi stance nce to to the under under -pri -pr i vilege vileged d . x x x”. (Emphasis Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Par. 5, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court adopted and promulgated the rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Admission to the practice of law, in its literal and strict sense, is the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to admit candidates to the legal profession through the Bar Examination Committee.1 However, the definition shall not to be understood to limit the scope of such po wer to the exclusion of the regulation of legal education in the Philippines. The reckoning point of the power to admit into the practice of law does not start at the moment of administration over the applications to take the bar examinations, but the regulation of the schools offering legal education as a post graduate course. Section 6, Rule 138 provides that: “No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall sha ll be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied t he Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college , requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, spani sh, history and economics.” (Emphasis supplied)
Section 5, par. 2, of the same rule further provides that: “No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and
1
Ernesto Pineda, Legal Ethics, (Quezon City, Central Book Supply Inc., 2009), 17
social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics ." (Emphasis supplied).
To argue that the power to regulate the admission to the legal profession excludes the regulation of legal education is illogical since it is a preparatory process to the application for the admission itself, as provided for by the rules. It can b e necessarily implied from the expressed powers of the Supreme Court the supervision and regulation law schools and universities for it to ensure that the academic qualifications laid by the Rules are met by the aspirants. It can be inferred that such regulatory power is under the ambit of judicial sphere since the Rules provide for mandatory courses to be taken by the candidates. The aforesaid rule made the universities design their curricula to fit this requirement. Moreover, it is the Supreme Court that has the best standing to overlook the performance of law schools because the products of these institutions will later on be fellow brothers and sisters in the profession. It is an implicit duty of the Supreme Court to see to it that the forthcoming members of the bar are well educated by the recognized institutions. While it is true that the Rules of Court does not provide an express provision that it is the Supreme Court that has regulatory powers of the legal edu cation in the Philippines, such insufficiency or gap does not operate to divest its implied powers or to permit another body to promulgate rules for its performance. Section 1, Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.” Legislative power is essentially the authority under the Constitution to make laws and subsequently to alter, amend and repeal them.2 Congress can enact any law as long as they are not contrary to the Constitution. 3 Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the officers commended with certain powers can only exercise such powers that are expressly given and such other powers as are necessarily implied from the given powers. In the exercise of each po wer, each is supreme in its own sphere. Accordingly, each department is not permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to the others. If one department goes beyond the limits set by the Constitution, its acts are null and void.4 On December 23, 1993, Republic Act No. 7662 was approved. This act seeks to reform the legal education5 and created the Legal Education Board.6 It declared that it is the policy of the state 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 2
Gov’t of the Phils. vs Springer, 50 Phil 259, 1927 De Leon and De Leon Jr., Philippine Constitutional Law: Principles and Cases (Quezon City, Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2012), 4 4 De Leon and De Leon Jr, 10 5 RA No. 7662, Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993." 6 RA No. 7662, Section 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the Department of Education, Cult ure and Sports. xxx 3
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.Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship and continuing legal education.7 Section 3 of RA No. 7226 provides for General and Specific Objective of Legal Education: (a) Legal education in the Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives: (1) to prepare students for the practice of law; (2) to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of society; (3) to train persons for leadership; (4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in the light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the Philippines and in other countries. (b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives: (1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various fields and of legal institutions; (2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze, articulate and apply the law effectively, as well a s to allow them to have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues; (3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal problems of the present and the future; (4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for continuing study and self-improvement; (5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession; and (6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.
7
RA No. 7662, Section 2
Section 7 of the same law provides for the powers and functions of the Legal Education Board: For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Act, the Board shall have the following powers and functions: (a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Act; (b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and functions as herein enumerated; (c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account, among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of t he faculty, the library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning; (d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation; (e) to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum quali fications and compensation of faculty members; (f) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, and such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and colleges under the different levels of accreditation status; (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. (h) to adopt a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and (i) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act.
It can be gleaned in the foregoing provisions of RA No. 7662 that there exist constitutional infirmities. Under the declaration of policies in Section 2, the State " shall undertake appropriate reforms
in the legal education system, r equire the proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools and require apprenticeshi p and continuing legal education .” The declaration of policies expressly provides that the Legal Education Board created by Congress through RA No. 7662, has the
power to exercise supervision over legal education in the Philippines. Moreover, Section 7 provides for the functions of the Legal Education Board namely (i.) prescribing minimum standards of law
admission and (i i.) adopting a system of continuing legal education and, for that purpose, the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in such courses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary . The Supreme Court has the power to regulate legal education, as it is necessarily implied from its express power to administer the admission to the practice of law. The Rules of Court took effect on 1964 and it can be concluded that the supervision over the legal education is long before established as a judicial function. The Legal Education Board was created only in 1993 by virtue of RA No. 7662 and it effectively encroached the constitutionally vested power to the Supreme Court. Regarding the continuing legal education, which embraces the education of already members of the legal profession, Section 5, paragraph 5, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution expressly vests power to the Supreme Court to regulate such. The act of the Congress of passing RA No. 7662, thus creating of the Legal Education Board, violated the doctrine of separation of powers as it encroached the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Section 3 provides to increase awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of the society. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules on legal assistance to the underprivileged. At this point, RA No. 7662 again violated the doctrine of separation of powers. Likewise, such motivation is erroneous because RA No. 7662 primarily seeks to reform legal education to be provided to would be applicants to the admission to the practice of law and not to those who are alread y members of the bar. On September 4, 2001, almost eight years after RA No. 7662 was approved into law, the Supreme Court en banc released a resolution regarding the Final Draft of the Proposed Amendments to R.A. 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act of 1993).8 The explanatory note of the aforementioned Bar Matter pointed out the possible constitutional issues enclosed in RA 7226 and the proposed amendments on certain provisions to bend the probable infirmities. The issue in this development is whether the resolution operates as a ratification, on the part of the Supreme Court, of RA No. 7662 to make it a valid one. To reiterate, legislative power is vested by the Constitution on the Congress and such power includes the power to alter, amend or repeal a law. The Supreme Court cannot make a law valid by means of a Bar Matter because it was not vested the power to legislate. The resolution would not activate as a shield of RA no. 7662 from issues of regarding its constitutionality. The resolution itself admitted that certain provisions encroaches the powers of the Supreme Court on promulgating rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar and legal assistance to under privileged. An excerpt o f the resolution provides: Thus, under the declaration of policies in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7662, the State "shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal education system, require
8
B.M. No. 979-B., RE: LEGAL EDUCATION, September 4, 2001
the proper selection of law students, maintain quality among law schools and require apprenticeship and continuing legal education. The concept of continuing legal education encompasses education not only of law students but also of members of the legal profession. Its inclusion in the declarati on of policies implies that the Legal Education Board shall have jurisdiction over the education of persons who have finished the law course and are already licensed to practice law. Viewed in the light of Section 5, paragraph 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution that vests the Supreme Court with powers over the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, said portion of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7662 risks a declaration of constitutional infirmity. In the same vein Section 3 provides as one of the objectives of legal education increasing "awareness among members of the legal profession of the needs of the poor, deprived and oppressed sectors of the society." Such objective should not find a place in the law that primarily aims to upgrade the standard of schools of law as they perform the task o f educating aspiring lawyers. Section 5, paragraph 5 of Article VIII of t he Constitution also provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules on "legal assistance to the underprivileged" and hence, implementation of Republic Act No. 7662 might give rise to infringement of a constitutionally mandated power. Apparently in consonance with said expressed, albeit offensive, policy and objective of Republic Act No. 7662, Section 7 thereof includes the following as functions of the Legal Education Board: (a) prescribing minimum standards of law admission [paragraph e] and (b) adopting "a system of conti nuing legal education" and, for that purpose, "the Board may provide for the mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers i n such courses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary" [paragraph h]. Again, these functions encroach upon the Supreme Court's powers under Section 5, paragraph 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution. Aside from its power over the Integrated Bar of the Phili ppines, the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law.
Despite the efforts of the Supreme Court en banc to salvage RA No. 7662 by virtue of a proposed amendment, the legislature did not amend the law. Assuming arguendo that RA No. 7662 is amended in the similar fashion as the proposed amendment by the Supreme Court en banc, RA No. 7622 shall still be declared unconstitutional. The ver y act of the legislature of enacting a law infringing the powers of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar and legal assistance to the under privileged is violative of the Constitution — creating a body to fill in the shoes of the Supreme Court to take over the regulation of long -established judicial functions.
