In re: Cunanan Ponente: Diokno, J.

Facts: In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as R.A. 972 popularly known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a general average of 75% in all subjects without falling below 50% in any subject, although for the past few exams the passing grades were changed depending on the strictness of the correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-1953 75%). Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and feeling that they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentages lower than those admitted to the bar went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill no. 12, but was vetoed by the president after he was given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the senate then approved senate bill no. 372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then became law on June 21, 1953 Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure in the exams. Issue: WON RA 972 is unconstitutional Held/Ratio: YES 1. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of the law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. 2. In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial. 3. The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and the S.C. equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the constitution recognizes continue to reside in this court. Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the 1935 Constitution provides: 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 Courts, 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. 4. The power of admitting an attorney to practice having been perpetually exercised by the courts, it having been so generally held that the act of the court in admitting an attorney to practice is the judgment of the court, and an attempt as this on the part of the Legislature to confer such right upon any one being most exceedingly uncommon, it seems clear that the licensing of an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function, no matter where the power to determine the qualifications may reside. 5. Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law seeks to cure are not the rules set in place by the S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the court, and this power is not included in the power granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively w/in the judiciary. Why it is unconstitutional: 1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court. (See quoted constitutional provision above) 2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them. In attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution. 3. Congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since the rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated are considered the bare minimum.) 4. It is class legislation legislation based on an arbitrary and unreasonable classification. 5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void. Under the authority of the court: 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 without force and effect. 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% without getting a grade of below 50% in any subject are considered as having passed whether they have filed petitions for admissions or not.) Concurring and Dissenting: Labrador, J. The right to admit members to the Bar is, and has always been, the exclusive privilege of this court. The power to admit is judicial in the sense that discretion is used in this exercise. It is only the power to promulgate rules which regulate admission which is given by the Constitution to Congress. Thus, the rules on the holding of the examination, the qualifications of applicants, the passing grades, etc. are within the scope of the legislative power. BUT, the power to determine when a candidate has made pr has not made the required grade s judicial, and lies completely with the court. The act in toto should be declared unconstitutional, because its objective is not embraced within the rule-makin power of Congress and because it is an undue interference with the power of the Court to admit members thereof.