Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – OBE

ISSUES: Whether or not Republic Act 7662, the Legal Education Reform Act is
unconstitutional?

Article VIII, Section 5(5): The Supreme Court shall have promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional right, pleadings, practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged.

In political sense, law is the body of rules made by government for society,
interpreted by the courts and backed by the power of the state. If law were limited to what
can be established and enforced by the state, then Louis XVI would have been correct in
saying, “It is legal because I wish it.” A sociological view approached law as the gradual
growth of rules and customs that reconcile conflict among people in societies; it is as much
as product of culture, religion and morality of politics.

The Supreme Court is a political institution that makes both policy and law, for it is
a political institution, an institution, that is to say, for arriving at decisions on controversial
questions of national policy.

On December 23, 1993, Congress passed Republic Act No. 7662, The Legal
Education Reform Act, which provided for the creation of a Board of Legal Education to
supervise law schools and administer the legal education system in the country. Since then,
however, the Board has not been constituted as questions have been raised on the
constitutionality of some of its provisions. Because of the hiatus created by the non-
implementation of the law, a technical panel under the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED), which was created in 1994, has ‘unofficially’ assumed the function of supervising
law schools. This is being challenged by the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS)
on the ground that the CHED has no jurisdiction over law schools under its charter.

We, petitioners declare the LEB Law as well as its memos constitutional.

Checks and Balances

To guarantee separation of powers, the Founders built in overlapping powers called


checks and balances that if one branch abuses its power, the others could use their checks
to thwart it. The principle of separation of powers gives each branch its own sphere of
authority, but the system of checks and balances allows each branch to intrude into the
other branches’ spheres.
Congress makes the laws; but due to checks and balances, the president can vetoed
them, and the courts can rule them unconstitutional. All three branches are involved in
legislating. One political scientist one said “a government of separated institutions
competing for shared powers.” Its purpose hoped for a “balanced government.”

Judicial Review

One vested power of the Supreme Court is Judicial Review; it is the authority to
declare laws or actions of government officials unconstitutional. It is the power of the
Judiciary Branch to declare acts Congress or actions by the executive branch – or laws and
actions at any level of local, state, and republic government – unconstitutional. Although
the Supreme Court may exercise judicial review and strike down a law as unconstitutional,
it may also affirm that a law or executive act is constitutional.

The Court cannot completely ignore the reactions to its decision in Congress and in the
nation, because, as a political institution, its power ultimately rests on public opinion.

Note: The underlined word, I am not sure if we can make it as another argument to support
the constitutionality of the Legal Reform Act. Or should we site cases to support if mahimu
siya ug argument? Kay if ever, I have a case prepared. *smiles.

LSAT AND LEB

There is no centralized law school admissions test in the country unlike in the
United States where there is a Law Schools Admissions Test (LSAT), which an applicant
will have to hurdle before being admitted to a law school. In the Philippines, the law school
conducts its own admissions test supposedly to determine a student’s aptitude for
analytical reasoning and studying law as well as articulation skills and command of
English. Strangely enough, some schools maintain strict admission policies while others
content themselves to observing strict retention policies.

The Supreme Court prescribes that an applicant for admission to the bar must have
completed a four-year high school course and a bachelor’s degree in the arts or sciences.7 It
is further required that an applicant to a college of law must have earned eighteen (18)
units of English, six (6) units of Mathematics, and eighteen (18) units of Social Science
subjects

It would be easy to blame the lack of a supervisory body for law schools, like the
aborted Board of Legal Education, for many of the problems besetting legal education
today. The reality, however, is that with or without a regulatory mechanism, the same
problems that have hounded most law schools for decades have continued to persist.

Perhaps, the single most important factor that has inhibited the growth of the
Philippine legal education system into a robust network of modernized quality educational
institution is the bar examination orientation.

Benefits based in U.S. Criteria


A school that accepts only students with high LSAT and UGPA scores is one that truly promotes legal
scholarship and puts a high regard on the admissions process. A school that spends a hefty amount for
upgrading of facilities indicates a well-endowed school that is able to raise funds from a variety of
sources. The immediate employment of graduates of a school indicates the faith that employers have in
the capability of its students.

Note: Page 11 of The State of Philippine Legal Education Revisited: Mariano F. Magsalin,
Jr.

Sources:

PALS Resolution dated December 1, 2001

CHED Memorandum Order No. 46, August 12, 1996

Cummings Jr, M. & Wise, D. (2007) Democracy Under Pressure: An Introduction to


the American Political System, 2006 Election Update. Chapter 15: Justice, pg 504.

Welch, S., Gruhl,J., Comer, J., & Regdon, S. (2008) Understanding American
Government, Eleventh Edition. Chapter 2; The Constitution, pg 36-40

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi