“Pimentel decision went on to discuss how the legal education is but a composite of the entire Philippine education system.

In a much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court (SC) struck down the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT) as unconstitutional.

The SC decision entitled, “Pimentel, et al. vs LEB, et al.,” (GR 230642 & 242954, 10 September 2019) is 107 pages long and a joy to read. Ponente Justice Jose Reyes crafted a landmark decision that should be worth reading and rereading. I foresee this to be required reading for Constitutional Law, as it discusses much about academic freedom, the difference of the study of law and the practice of law, and the administrative supervision over law students, lawyers and law schools, in general.

Briefly, the SC struck down PhilSAT as a pass or fail exam that will determine who may be admitted into law schools for being violative of academic freedom. It also ruled that requirements imposed on the members of faculty to be also in violation of academic freedom. In the larger scheme of things, the Pimentel decision discussed and dissected the purpose and legality of the Legal Education Board (LEB), which was the body sought to be abolished by the petitioners. To clarify, it is the LEB, an independent political body consisting of presidential appointees, that issued the memoranda mandating the PhilSAT and other requirements that encroached on the jurisdiction of the SC and on academic freedom.

The Pimentel decision is one of those pieces of jurisprudence that puts the reader in awe of the subject of law to the point that it is something that can never be mastered and be recognized as an expert thereof. It humbles the reader, no matter if he is a law student, seasoned lawyer, or even a SC Justice. Proof of this is that it has sparked a number of opinions from fellow SC Justices, seven in total, all of which should be worth reading.

What should be emphasized here is the narration in the Pimentel decision on how legal education came about in the Philippines. It mentioned that legal education was first institutionalized in 1734 with the establishment of the Faculty of Civil Law in University of Santo Tomas. In 1910, English law courses were first offered in YMCA, then adopted in 1911 by the University of the Philippines when it established its College of Law.

The Pimentel decision went on to discuss how the legal education is but a composite of the entire Philippine education system, and admitted that the study of law excludes the practice of law, where the former’s supervision rightly belongs to the LEB, while the latter to the SC. It continued by determining which functions of the LEB is beyond its authority, therefore unconstitutional, and which ones should be with the SC since it pertains to the “practice of law.”

We can keep discussing the ponencia but let me digress and highlight Associate Justice Alex Gesmundo’s separate concurring and dissenting opinion, which is just as thought-provoking and deserving of attention.

Here, Justice Gesmundo compared the admission tests in the United States, United Kingdom and India, and went on to discuss the problems of PhilSAT, and how it has been perceived as a money-making venture.

My personal favorite is the portion where he explained how the “study of law” should not be seen as preparation for only the Bar exam, to wit: “However, it must be stressed that the Bar examination is not the penultimate goal of the study of law. There is no clear evidence that grades and other evaluators of law school performance, and even the Bar examination, are particularly good predictors of competence or success as a lawyer. The legal education is a wide spectrum of discipline, ranging from the traditional subjects of political, civil and remedial laws, to the liberal and innovative subjects of media, sports and competition laws. It is not confined to litigation practice, court hearings and drafting pleadings and other legal documents. The study of law is a dynamic concept that seeks to analyze, comprehend and apply the effects and interrelationships of the Constitution, laws, rules and regulations, in view of a just and humane society.”

“Thus, instead of restricting the study of law only to the Bar examinations the Court must endeavor to promote its liberalization. The Bar-centric mindset of law schools must be amended. It must be emphasized that legal education should not confine law students to the syllabi for Bar examinations. Instead, law schools must encourage their students to freely take elective subjects that spark their interests; participate in legal aid clinics to render free legal service; experience debate and moot court competitions; and publish law journal articles for their respective schools. These liberalizations of legal education must be accomplished for the enrichment of the law students’ knowledge. In order to implement these innovative measures, various stakeholders in the entire country must be consulted and conferred with to ensure active, wise, and effective participation.”

Most certainly spoken like a future Chief Justice.