My previous article about the face-off between Mindanao State University (MSU) and the Legal Education Board (LEB) over policy differences drew mostly applause and positive reactions from readers. People from across the social and political spectrum, diverse cultural and ethnic identities, and varied creeds whose lives had been touched by the great academic institution reacted promptly.

Some manifested emotional outbursts using curse words which I felt should not be printed for being either seditious, libelous or improper. But it was all summed up in their raucous protest and indignation over the alleged wanton overreach, if not abuse of power, of the LEB and its recent cease and desist order against MSU’s extension or satellite law program, which was ill-timed coming two days before the start of the September 2024 Bar Examinations where candidates, including from the MSU College of Law, were at their wit’s end prepping for the day.

In my previous article I focused on the rationale for the creation of MSU which is not found in the black letter of the law creating it. I wrote then that its mission and vision as crafted by its founding father, then Senator Domocao Alonto (Allah SWT bless his soul), is far nobler than the triad mandate of education, research and extension which are pedestrian to any educational institution. MSU was meant to be a grand device to put out the socio-political conflagration then raging in southern Philippines through education.

Last weekend, I had a chance encounter with a prominent lawyer, Allan Panolong, the incoming national president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). As usual, we talked about meaty issues affecting Moros. Our exchange pivoted to the MSU-LEB issue which is a hot topic among Moro netizens. He had a mouthful to say about the validity of the legal position of MSU vis-a-vis LEB which were revealing, didactic and full of sense. He sent me a copy of documents upon which MSU grounds its position.

As culled from the press releases both in mainstream and social media, the crux of the controversy is the refusal of MSU to recognize the regulatory jurisdiction and supervisory authority of the LEB. The position of MSU is summed up in the exposition sent to me by lawyer Panolong and input from Assistant Regional Prosecutor Sultan Omar Macapaar. Their arguments which are cogent, to say the least, could be reduced to the following:

One. The MSU College of Law was created by a law, Republic Act 1387, in 1955 mandating the creation of the college, ergo, LEB has no power to amend the charter by cancelling the accreditation of MSU and revoking its government recognition leading to the closure of its juris doctor program across all campuses starting academic year 2025-2026.

According to Panolong, EVP of the IBP, MSU is beyond the regulatory and supervisory power of the LEB simply because according to its charter or the law that created it the regulatory power is vested in the Board of Regents and not on any agency of government. The logic is simple: LEB did not give life to the MSU College of Law and by common sense it cannot take away that life.

Two. The MSU College of Law is outside the coverage of the LEB under RA 7662, Section 12, which specifies that only schools under the supervision of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports at the time of the law’s passage in 1993 fall within LEB’s jurisdiction. MSU argued that at no time was its College of Law operated under the supervision of DECS and, furthermore, it existed long before the creation of LEB and by no stretch of the imagination can its rules apply retroactively to the prejudice of an institution not within its supervisory authority.

Granting en arguendo that the law creating the LEB was a later law, still it doesn’t amend or modify the MSU charter. For a latter law to amend an earlier law, it must be clear and categorical and leave no room for any other interpretation but that it was meant to amend the old law. This is basic and elementary in statutory construction, a must requirement not present in the issue at hand.

Three. From the rollo or transcript of the records of Congress during the deliberations on the law creating the LEB: EVP Panolong noted the repartee between Senators Freddie Webb and Edgardo Angara said it all, thusly:

Senator Webb interpellating Senator Edgardo Angara (sponsor) — “Before I make any amendment, just one question on the coverage. Does this cover state universities and colleges? Because they do have their own charters and they are not covered by the control and supervision of the DECS.”

SENATOR ANGARA (SPONSOR): “THEY WILL NOT BE COVERED BECAUSE AS THE GENTLEMAN RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THEY ARE COVERED BY THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT CHARTERS.”

This writer absolutely agrees with the position of EVP Panolong. It is basic and elementary in statutory construction that we can deduce the rationale or spirit of the law by looking at the transcript of the deliberation on the law. (What were the solons thinking when they enacted the law?)

Four. The Dean of the MSU College of Law expressed exasperation at the turn of events and insisted in a message to this writer that the benchmark adopted by LEB in coming to the debatable conclusion that the Bar Examination results showed a “dismal record of MSU College of Law” was way off the mark and not supported by facts and evidence.

According to Dean Norhabib Barodi, the data and statistics from The LEB Report on the 10-year Performance of Legal Education Institutions in the Bar Examinations (2011-2020) belie the statement of LEB, “Out of 119 Colleges/Schools of Law, MSU LAW ranked 16th with a total of 422 new lawyers contributed or a 1.69-percent share in the national population of New Lawyers (topped by Ateneo de Manila University with 1,794 new lawyers contributing 7.18 percent) . . .

“MSU contributed 80.84 percent (422) new lawyers to the BARMM.” He asserted likewise that MSU was a top 16 contributor/producer of new lawyers in the entire Philippines out of 119 Colleges/Schools of Law.” He then asked sarcastically: “Is this what the LEB calls a dismal bar performance?”

To augment the argument of Dean Barodi, IBP EVP Panolong said: “It should be highlighted that MSU came into being as an institution of higher learning in the South… the melting pot where diverse communities converge on Marawi and its other autonomous campuses in pursuit of quality education.”

MSU has produced a number of professionals who are spread out not only in our country but all over the world who excel in their respective fields, bringing honor and prestige to the country.

The MSU College of Law has a program to include Shariah courses so that it can produce Shari’ah counselors and lawyers who are competent to take an active role in the administration of justice in the so-called MINSUPALA area.