Congress passed a law, R.A. No. 15005, creating an administrative Board principally tasked with the supervision and regulation of legal education. The Board was attached to the Department of Education. It was empowered, among others, to prescribe minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications of faculty members, the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness, as well as to establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a law student shall undergo anytime during the law course, and to adopt a system of continuing legal education. Professor Boombastick, a long-time law practitioner and lecturer in several prestigious law schools, assails the constitutionality of the law arguing; that it encroached on the prerogatives of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules relative to admission to the pra ctice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. If you were Professor Boombastick’s understudy, how may you help him develop clear, concise and cogent arguments in support of his position based on the present Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court on judicial independence and fiscal autonomy? (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
I would help Professor Boombastick argue that establishing a law practice internship for taking the Bar and mandatory continuing legal education under RA 15005 are unconstitutional. Under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution and Pimentel
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which institution has exclusive power over admission to the practice of law?
The Supreme Court possesses exclusive constitutional authority to promulgate rules regarding admission to the practice of law.
In Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, what statutory power granted to the Legal Education Board was declared unconstitutional?
Prescribing prerequisites for taking the Bar examination unconstitutionally encroaches upon the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over bar admission.
What is the extent of legislative power regarding legal education under Pimentel v. LEB?
Police power permits regulation of legal education, provided it does not intrude into judicial control over law admission and practice.
Why is an administrative requirement for mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) enacted by an executive board unconstitutional?
Choices available with full access.
Which constitutional principle is violated when an administrative board dictates prerequisites for taking the Bar examination?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Exclusive Rule-Making Power
Under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, the Supreme Court possesses the exclusive authority to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. While Congress holds legislative authority to regulate legal education under its police power, it cannot enact statutes or delegate administrative powers that usurp, alter, or diminish the judicial prerogatives strictly reserved to the High Tribunal.
2. Legal Education Regulation
In Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, the Supreme Court affirmed that the State, through the legislature, may regulate legal education pursuant to its police power. However, executive or administrative bodies like the Legal Education Board can only prescribe minimum standards for legal education, law curricula, and law faculty qualifications. The regulation of legal education must remain distinct from the regulation of admission to the practice of law. Any statutory provision empowering an administrative agency to prescribe prerequisites for taking the Bar examination unconstitutionally encroaches upon exclusive judicial jurisdiction.
3. Judicial Independence Protection
Judicial independence guarantees that the Judiciary remains free from unwarranted interference by the Legislative or Executive branches. Allowing an administrative board attached to an executive department to dictate mandatory law internships as prerequisites for taking the Bar or to regulate continuing legal education directly impairs judicial independence. Mandatory continuing legal education and bar admission qualifications fall within the inherent regulatory control of the Supreme Court over the legal profession. Encroachments by administrative bodies undermine the constitutional separation of powers and impair judicial oversight of the legal system.