In the matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar

In Re: Cunanan, et al.

Syllabus topic: Constitution

Facts:

- The law being assailed in this case is RA 972 (Bar Flunkers Act of 1953)
o The object of this law is to admit to the Bar those who suffered from insufficiency of reading
materials and inadequate preparation (during the years immediately after the Japanese
occupation)
- The Rules of Court (Rule 127, Sec. 14) that governs the admissions to the bar provides:
o In order to pass the Bar you must get a general average of 75% in all subjects, without
falling below 50% in any subject
- However, because of the varying difficulties the court had adjusted the passing rates since 1946
o 1946-72
o 1947-69
o 1948-70
o 1949: 74
o 1950-1953- 75.
- Unsuccessful, post-war, candidates (receiving only a few percentages lower than those admitted
to the Bar) in this case, believing to be fully qualified to practice law and feeling discriminated
against fought for the Senate Bill’s passage in 1951
o Senate Bill #12
§ Reduced the passing general average to 70%, effective since 1946.
§ President vetoed this bill
o Senate Bill #371 (this is the one that became RA 972)
§ The congress didn’t override the president’s veto and instead approved this bill
which was substantially the same as the above vetoed bill.
§ Members of the SC reiterated their unfavorable views on this but the President,
through inaction, allowed this bill to be passed into law
- The unsuccessful candidates and those whose examinations were still pending, filed petitions in
court invoking the provisions of the Bar Flunker’s Act.
o Also, some who wanted reconsideration of their grades without invoking the law
- The court reviewed the motions, but they found no reason to revise their grades
- The court said however, that they should be admitted pursuant to RA 972 if declared valid
- It was found that there would be a total of 1,168 unsuccessful bar candidates that would benefit
from section 11 of the act
o 92 had passed
o 568 have filed motions for admission (pursuant to the act/mere motions for reconsideration)
- Around 10 unsuccessful candidates would be benefited by section 22 of the act
o Took 2-5 tests but failed to get the passing average in all but consolidating their highest
grades would make the reach the passing average provided for in the act
- The total number of candidates to be benefited by the act would then be 1,064
o Only 604 have filed petitions
§ Out of the 604, 33 failed in 1946-1951 (their motion was denied)
§ 125 that failed in 1952 and 56 in 1953 (their motions were still pending)

1 SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section fourteen, Rule numbered one hundred twenty-seven of the Rules of Court, any bar candidate

who obtained a general average of seventy per cent in any bar examinations after July fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-six up to the August nineteen
hundred and fifty-one bar examinations; seventy-one per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-two bar examinations; seventy-two per cent in the in the
nineteen hundred and fifty-three bar examinations; seventy-three per cent in the nineteen hundred and fifty-four bar examinations; seventy-four per cent
in the nineteen hundred and fifty-five bar examinations without a candidate obtaining a grade below fifty per cent in any subject, shall be allowed to take
and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Philippine Bar: Provided, however, That for the purpose of this Act, any exact one- half
or more of a fraction, shall be considered as one and included as part of the next whole number.

2 SEC. 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of seventy-five per cent in any subject in any bar examination after July fourth, nineteen

hundred and forty-six shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing
the passing general average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take.
 • but like I said earlier the courts said they didn’t find any reason to
reconsider their grades
- IN SUM:
o 5,236 PASSED (out of 9,675) 604 want to be admitted because they suffer from
insufficiency of reading materials and inadequacy of preparation

ISSUES:

W/N RA 972 Is Constitutional? YES. Partly…

- The declared objective of the law is contrary to public interest

o The people confessed they had inadequate preparation which is against the demands of
legal profession that require adequate preparation and efficiency
§ One of the vital requisites for the practice of law
o To admit inadequate lawyers would create a serious social danger
- The statement that there was an insufficiency of legal materials is grossly exaggerated (there was
a lot)
o Decisions of courts were made available
o Official gazette was published continuously
o Many law books have been printed locally
o PH Reports began to publish since 1946
- The Court said that this law has no precedent in its favor
o Similar laws in other countries have been declared without force and effect
§ The court examined the NY decision that was cited as a favorable precedent
• CA of NY revoked decisions of the SC denying the petitions of Cooper to
be admitted to the practice of law concerning the School of Columbia. CA
believes that this is more consistent with the Constitution of NY.
• Apparently, the CA’s decision seems to indicate that a bachelor’s degree
was enough evidence of the legal qualification that the constitution
required for admissions to the Bar.
§ This case is very different though because the law in the NY case:
• does not require any candidate who failed to be admitted
• did not take over the jurisdiction of the court in admissions of attorneys nor
did it declare anyone admission of a lawyer
• and the Constitution of NY was entirely different from that of the PH in
matters of admission to the practice of law
- The admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice
of the profession and their supervision have been disputably a judicial function and
responsibility
o The congress can, under our Const., repeal, alter, and supplements the ruled promulgated
by the SC, regarding the admissions to the practice of law, but it is not a legislative function
to admit, suspend, disbar, or reinstate attorneys
§ This is judicial
- Admission to the practice of law is the exercise of a judicial function, and Is an inherent power of
the court
- The distinction between the functions of the legislative and the judicial departments is that
o it is the province of the legislature to establish rules that shall regulate and govern in
matters of transactions occurring subsequent to the legislative action
o while the judiciary determines rights and obligations with reference to transactions that are
past or conditions that exist at the time of the exercise of judicial power 

- In lowering the passing rate from 1946-1952, RA 972 is not a legislation but a judgment
o a judgment revoking those promulgated by this Court during the afore-cited year
§ affecting the bar candidates concerned – only this Court, and not the legislative
nor executive department that may do so
 o any attempt on the part of the legislative to do so would be a usurpation of the judicia’s
functions (which is what the law did in this case)
- SECTION 13, ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1935 CONSTITUTION3
o The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the
Philippines.
§ But the authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension,
disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys and their supervision remain
vested in the SC.
• The congress’ power is limited to repeal, modify or supplement the existing
rules on the matter, if according to its judgment the need for a better
service of the legal profession requires it.
- The ultimate power, however, to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to
this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as
other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.
- Furthermore the Court said that there is no valid Classification provided to justify the inclusion of
the bar flunkers of 1946-1955 and to exclude those flunkers prior to such years. Unconstitutional
for being arbitrary and amounting to class legislation.
o The general rule is well settled by unanimity of the authorities that a classification to be
valid must rest upon material differences between the person included in it and those
excluded and, furthermore, must be based upon substantial distinctions. 

o A law is not general because it operates on all within a clause unless there is a substantial
reason why it is made to operate on that class only, and not generally on all. 

- As regards to RA 972 what’s the classification given for lowering the bar passing grades? If there
is none, and none has been given, then the classification is fatally defective. 

o The fact that there were no records of bar flunkers in 1944 and 1941 or the years before
does not justify the unexplained classification of unsuccessful candidates by years, from
1946-1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955. Neither is the exclusion of those who failed before
said years 

- It is being argued that the law is curative so it cannot be unconstitutional for being retroactive
o The court ruled that it does not see the curative nature or what the act intends to cure
o Rather what the law sought to cure the will or judgement of the court

Does Art. 2 of RA 972 violate the one-subject-one-title rule? – YES.

- Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the
Constitution enjoins
- Article 2 of the law in question permits partial passing of examinations, at indefinite intervals.
o The grave defect of this system is that it does not take into account that the laws and
jurisprudence are not stationary, and when a candidate finally receives his certificate, it
may happen that the existing laws and jurisprudence are already different, seriously
affecting in this manner his usefulness. 

- Art 2 which establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time was not embraced in the title of
RA 972 which only have temporary effect from 1946 to 1955 

o because it is inseparable from article 1, it is obvious that its nullity affect the entire law. 


3 Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the

admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of
the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. — Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VIII, sec. 13.
SUMMARY RULING:

RA 972 is unconstitutional because

1. it’s declared purpose is to admit 801 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of 1946-1952,
and who, it admits, are certainly inadequately prepared to practice law.. This deprived the court of
the opportunity to determine if they are, at present, prepared to become member of the Bar.
a. Encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the court
2. It’s, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court which only the Court, and no other
may revise or alter.
3. The Congress exceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the rules on
admission to the Bar. It is the SC’s primary and inherent prerogative to render the ultimate decision
on who may be admitted and may continue in the practice of law.
4. The pretended classification of candidate is arbitrary and a class legislation.
5. Article 2 of RA is not embraced in the title of the law and being inseparable from article 1, the entire
law is void.
6. However, lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 referring to the
examinations of 1953 to 1955, said part of article 1, insofar as it concerns the examinations in those
years, shall continue in force.

RESOLUTION:

1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art.
2 of the said law are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and effect.

2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law (1953-
1955) is valid and shall continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from
1946 to 1952 are denied, and all the candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained a GEN
Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of below 50% in any subject are considered as having passed
whether they have filed petitions for admissions or not.)
Dissenting Opinions:

LABRADOR, J., concurring and dissenting:

- The right to admit members to the Bar, is the exclusive privilege of the Court.
- It is only the power to promulgate amendments to the rules that is given by the Constitution to the
Congress, not the exercise of the discretion to admit.
- I vote that the act in toto be declared unconstitutional, because it is not embraced within the rule-
making power of Congress, because it is an undue interference with the power of this Court to
admit members thereof, and because it is discriminatory.

PARAS, C.J., dissenting:

- Wherefore, I hold that Republic Act No. 972 is constitutional and should therefore be given effect
in its entirety.
- Resolutions on the rejection of bar candidates do not have the finality of decisions in justiciable
cases where the Rules of Court expressly fix certain periods after which they become executory
and unalterable.
o Resolutions on bar matters, specially on motions for reconsiderations filed by flunkers in
any give year, are subject to revision by this Court at any time, regardless of the period
within which the motion were filed, and this has been the practice heretofore.
o There is no judicial function involved. It is no more than the function of other examining
boards.
o In the second place, retroactive laws are not prohibited by the Constitution, except only
when they would be ex post facto, would impair obligations and contracts or vested rights
or would deny due process and equal protection of the law. Republic Act No. 972 certainly
is not an ex post facto enactment, does not impair any obligation and contract or vested
rights, and denies to no one the right to due process and equal protection of the law. On
the other hand, it is a mere curative statute intended to correct certain obvious inequalities
arising from the adoption by this Court of different passing general averages in certain
years.
- Neither can it be said that bar candidates prior to July 4, 1946, are being discriminated against,
because we no longer have any record of those who might have failed before the war, apart from
the circumstance that 75 per cent had always been the passing mark during said period
- As regards the alleged interference in or encroachment upon the judgment of this Court by the
Legislative Department, it is sufficient to state that, if there is any interference at all, it is one
expressly sanctioned by the Constitution.
o A law would be objectionable and unconstitutional if, for instance, it would provide that
those who have been admitted to the bar after July 4, 1946, whose general average is
below 80 per cent, will not be allowed to practice law, because said statute would then
destroy a right already acquired under previous resolutions of this Court, namely, the bar
admission of those whose general averages were from 75 to 79 per cent.
- Without fear of contradiction, I think the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power
conferred by the Constitution, may pass a resolution amending section 14 of Rule 127 by reducing
the passing average to 70 per cent, effective several years before the date of the resolution. It
stands to reason, if we are to admit that the Supreme Court and the Congress have concurrent
power to regulate the admission to the practice of law, that the latter may validly pass a retroactive
rule fixing the passing general average.
- Republic Act No. 972 cannot be assailed on the ground that it is unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious, since this Court had already adopted as passing averages 69 per cent for the 1947 bar
examinations and 70 per cent for the 1948 examinations. Anyway, we should not inquire into the
wisdom of the law, since this is a matter that is addressed to the judgment of the legislators.