G.R. No. 230642 /G.R. No. 242954/A.M. No. 20-03-04-SC, November 9, 2021
OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD (LEB), ET AL., RESPONDENTS; FRANCIS JOSE LEAN L. ABAYATA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, ET AL., RESPONDENTS; RE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE STATUS AND TREATMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION TEST (PHILSAT)

FACTS

The consolidated cases involve challenges to the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7662 (the Legal Education Reform Act) and its implementing rules, particularly the Legal Education Board Memorandum Order (LEBMO) No. 1-2011, which established the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) as a prerequisite for law school admission. Petitioners, including law students and a law school, argued that these regulations infringed upon the academic freedom of law schools and the right to education. The main Decision, penned by Justice Zalameda, addressed these constitutional issues. This text is a Separate Concurring Opinion by Justice Dimaampao, expressing partial agreement with the main ruling.

ISSUE

Whether Section 17 of LEBMO No. 1-2011, which prohibits non-law graduates from being admitted to the Master of Laws (LL.M.) program, is unconstitutional for infringing upon a school’s right to determine who to admit to its graduate degree programs.

RULING

Justice Dimaampao concurs with the main ponencia but takes exception to its declaration that Section 17 of LEBMO No. 1-2011 is void. He disagrees with the striking down of the provision that allows only Bachelor of Laws or Juris Doctor degree holders to be admitted to the LL.M. program. He argues that the LL.M. degree is an augmentation of legal studies designed for those already knowledgeable in law, as evidenced by the curriculum of programs like that of the University of the Philippines College of Law, which includes advanced legal subjects. He emphasizes that while academic freedom is protected, it is not absolute and must be balanced with the State’s police power to regulate in the public interest, particularly to uphold the standards of legal education. He finds the State’s restriction on LL.M. admission to be a reasonable exercise of this power, serving the compelling interest of maintaining the quality and purpose of advanced legal education. Therefore, he believes Section 17 should not have been declared unconstitutional.