G.R. No. 230642, September 10, 2019
OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, HON. EMERSON B. AQUENDE, AND LEB MEMBER HON. ZENAIDA N. ELEPAÑO, RESPONDENTS; ATTY. ANTHONY D. BENGZON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-IN-INTERVENTION; APRIL D. CABALLERO, ET AL., PETITIONERS-INTERVENORS; [G.R. No. 242954] FRANCIS JOSE LEAN L. ABAYATA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, EMERSON B. AQUENDE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7662, which created the Legal Education Board (LEB), and its various issuances, primarily on the ground of violation of academic freedom. The petitions questioned the LEB’s powers, including its authority to set standards for law school accreditation, prescribe minimum qualifications for faculty and admission requirements (such as the Philippine Law School Admission Test or PhiLSAT), prescribe basic curricula, establish a law practice internship as a Bar requirement, and adopt a system of continuing legal education. The Court, through the ponencia, declared certain provisions and LEB issuances unconstitutional.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the powers of the LEB under R.A. No. 7662 and its exercise thereof violate the academic freedom of law schools, and whether the Court’s review should be limited to the PhiLSAT requirement or extend to the entirety of the LEB’s statutory powers and actions.

RULING

Justice Caguioa, in his Separate Concurring Opinion, concurred with the ponencia’s disposition. He emphasized that the Court’s review should not be limited to the PhiLSAT issue but should encompass the entirety of R.A. No. 7662 and the LEB’s issuances, as the petitions questioned the entire law and the substantive issues were expanded during oral arguments to cover the LEB’s powers regarding accreditation standards, faculty qualifications, admission standards, and basic curricula. He agreed that the Court has the duty to settle the disputes given the serious allegations of constitutional infringement.
The opinion affirmed that academic freedom, enshrined in the Constitution, includes the right of institutions to decide who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. While the State has the power to reasonably supervise and regulate educational institutions, such regulation must be reasonable. Justice Caguioa evaluated the LEB’s powers and their exercise through the lens of academic freedom, identifying several LEB issuances beyond those in the ponencia as arbitrary, unreasonable, and thus null and void for violating academic freedom. He concurred with the ponencia’s declaration that the LEB’s powers to set accreditation standards, minimum faculty qualifications, and admission requirements (Sections 7(c) and 7(e) of R.A. 7662) are constitutional, but its powers to establish a law practice internship as a Bar requirement and to adopt a system of continuing legal education (Sections 7(g) and 7(h)) are unconstitutional for encroaching upon the Court’s rule-making powers.