G.R. No. 230642 & G.R. No. 242954, September 10, 2019
OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, ET AL., RESPONDENTS; ATTY. ANTHONY D. BENGZON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-IN-INTERVENTION; APRIL D. CABALLERO, ET AL., PETITIONERS-INTERVENORS; FRANCIS JOSE LEAN L. ABAYATA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Before the Court are two consolidated petitions. In G.R. No. 230642 , petitioners seek to nullify Republic Act No. 7662 and abolish the Legal Education Board (LEB). In G.R. No. 242954, petitioners seek to annul and set aside specific LEB issuances: Memorandum Order Nos. 7-2016 and 11-2017, and Memorandum Circular No. 18-2018. Justice Gesmundo, in a Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, votes to partly grant the consolidated petitions. The opinion extensively discusses the concept of academic freedom, particularly as it applies to institutions of higher learning offering legal education. It traces the constitutional and jurisprudential foundations of academic freedom, emphasizing the four essential freedoms: who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. The opinion also examines the history and purpose of legal education regulation, the role of the LEB, and comparative practices from other jurisdictions regarding law school admission tests.

ISSUE

The core legal issue addressed in the opinion is the extent to which state regulation, through the LEB and its issuances, can permissibly infringe upon the academic freedom of law schools, particularly concerning the admission of students, without violating constitutional guarantees.

RULING

Justice Gesmundo votes to PARTLY GRANT the consolidated petitions. He concurs with nullifying LEB Memorandum Order No. 7, series of 2016, which prescribes a Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) as a mandatory requirement for admission to all law schools. He holds that this mandatory national admission test constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on the law schools’ academic freedom to determine “who may be admitted to study.” He dissents, however, from nullifying Republic Act No. 7662 and abolishing the LEB itself. He recognizes the state’s legitimate interest in maintaining high standards in legal education to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession. He views the LEB as a valid regulatory body for this purpose, provided its regulations are reasonable and do not unduly encroach upon the essential freedoms that constitute academic freedom. The opinion concludes that while the state can set minimum standards for legal education, it cannot impose a uniform, compulsory admission test that completely usurps the individual law schools’ discretion and responsibility in selecting their students, which is a core component of their institutional academic freedom.