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, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) and the Legal Education Board (LEB). The petitioners include law students, aspiring law students, and law professors. They argue that the imposition of the PhiLSAT as a mandatory admission requirement for all law schools, and the very existence of the LEB, violate constitutional principles. The respondents are the Legal Education Board and other government officials. The main ponencia upheld the constitutionality of the PhiLSAT and the LEB. This text is a Separate Dissenting and Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen.

ISSUE

Whether the provisions permitting the imposition of the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) and the entire concept of the Legal Education Board (LEB) are unconstitutional for intruding on the academic freedom of law schools and the universities and colleges to which they belong.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his Separate Dissenting and Concurring Opinion, held that the PhiLSAT and the LEB are unconstitutional. He argued that the State has no business substituting its judgment for academic institutions regarding student qualifications or curriculum, as this undermines academic freedom. He emphasized that one of the four essential academic freedoms is the right of institutions to determine who to admit to study. The government’s imposition of a mandatory passing score on the PhiLSAT as a bar to admission violates this freedom. Furthermore, the existence of the LEB interferes with the institutional academic freedom concerning how to teach and who to teach. He traced the constitutional guarantee of academic freedom to all institutions of higher learning, citing jurisprudence (Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, Tangonan v. Paño, San Sebastian College v. Court of Appeals, Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong) which consistently upholds the discretion of educational institutions in matters of admission, dismissal, and the establishment of academic standards. He concluded that these state intrusions are unwarranted.