In re: Cunanan, et al.

94 Phil 534 March 18, 1954

FACTS

 In 1951, Congress enacted Senate Bill No. 12, which among others, reduced the passing rate of the bar exam to 70%.
 Prior to this, there was an inconsistent bar passing rate from 1946 (72%), 1967 (69%), 1948 (70%), 1949 (70%), 1950 to 1953
(75%)
 President vetoed SB No. 12. The former sought for Supreme Court’s comments.
 Congress did not override the veto. Nevertheless, it approved SB No. 371, embodying substantially the provisions in the vetoed
bill.
 Despite the Supreme Court’s unfavourable views against SB 371, the bill became a law, unsigned, on June 21, 1953.
 It became RA 972 or AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR EXAMINATIONS FROM NINETEEN HUNDRED AND
FORTY-SIX UP TO AND INCLUDING NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE.
 Section 1 of the Law provided the ff passing rates:
 1946 to 1951— 70%
 1952— 71%
 1953- 72%
 1954- 73%
 1955- 74%
> Provided, however, that any exact one-half or ore of a fraction shall be considered as one and included as part for next
whole number.
 Section 2. Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject in any bar examination after July 4, 1946 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.
 Reason for enacting RA 972 by Honorable Senator Pablo Angeles David:
“… the tremendous handicap which students during the years immediately after the Japanese occupation had to overcome
such as the insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of students who tool ip law soon after the
liberation.”
 To avoid injustice, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration of their grades without, however, questioning the law in
question. The court denied these petitions. If they are to be admitted, it should be pursuant to RA 972.
 If enacted, here is the statistical data based on the RA 972.’
1.In Section 1 of RA 972, a total of 1,168 unsuccessful bar examiners will be benefited. Of the total 1,168, only 92
passed in subsequent examinations; only 586 filed either motions for admission or mere reconsideration.
2.While in Section 2, 10 unsuccessful candidates are to be benefited. Consolidating their highest grades in different subjects in
previous examinations, everybody can pass.
3.In total, there were 1,094 who will be benefited from RA 972. Only 604 filed their petitions. Of these 604 petitioners, 33 who
failed in ’46 to ’51 had individually presented their motion for reconsiderations which were denied While 125 petitions in ’52
and 56 in ’53 were still pending.

ISSUE: WON Republic Act 972 is constitutional.

RULING:

 According the Supreme Court, the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had
inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. Public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and
efficiency, precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. To approve officially those who are
inadequately prepared to dedicate themselves in protection of life, property, donor and civil liabilities can create a serious danger.
 Supreme Court ruled that insufficiency of reading materials is an exaggeration. Court decisions were available to the public; private
enterprise continue to publish in magazines and annual digests; Official Gazette consistently published; books and magazines
entered the country without restrictions
 Nevertheless, the court is faced with a problem: THERE IS NO JURISPRUDENCE TO BASE THIS CASE FROM.
 The case of Cooper 22 NY, 81 is not applicable (p544).
 The admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement (ASDR) of attorneys at law have been a judicial function. Congress by
the power of repeal vested by the constitution, is unacceptable.
 In the A, S, D & R of attorneys at law require legislative functions such as:
1. Previously established rules and principles
2. Concrete facts whether past or present, affecting determinate individuals and
3. Decision as to whether these facts are governed by rules and principles;
 In effect, a judicial function of highest degree. And it becomes more indisputably judicial, and not legislative, if previous judicial
resolutions on the petitions of these same individuals are attempted to be revoked or modified. The ASD and R of attorneys at law
in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
 State vs Cannon (1932) 240 NW 441: Neither department (the three branches) should so act as to embarrass the other in the
discharge of its respective functions. The judicial department of government is responsible for the place upon which the
administration of justice is maintained. The bar is an attache of the courts. The quality of justice dispensed by the courts depends
in no small degree upon the integrity of its bar. An unfaithful bar may easily bring scandal and reproach to the administration of
justice and bring the courts themselves into disrepute.
 The idea that the Legislature might embarrass the judicial department by prescribing inadequate qualifications for attorneys at law
is inconsistent with the dominant purpose of making the judicial independent of the legislative department, and such purpose
should not be interfered in the absence of a constitutional provision.
 When the legislative legislate fixing a standard of qualifications required of attorneys at law in order that public interests may be
protected, such qualification constitute only a minimum standard and limit the class from which the court must make its selection.
 Such qualifications do not constitute the ultimate qualifications deemed necessary by the course for the proper administration of
judicial functions. There is no legislative power to compel courts to admit to their bars persons deemed by them unfit to exercise
the prerogatives of an attorney at law.
 The disputed law, RA 972, is not a legislation; it is a judgement— a judgement revoking the those promulgated by this court during
the afore-cited year affecting the bar candidates concerned.
 Any attempt on the part of the executive or legislative to revoke judgements would be a clear usurpation of its function, as is the
case with the law in question.
 Constitution, Section 13, Article VIII. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure, and the admission top the practice of law in the Philippines.”
 The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and this Tribunal equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the particle of
law.
 The primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognises continue to reside in this Court.
 Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated by this Court, but authority and responsibility over the ASD and R of
attorneys at law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court.
 The power to repeal, alter and supplement the rules foes not signify nor permit the Congress substitute or take the place of this
Tribunal in the exercise of its primary power on the matter.
 The Constitution does not say nor mean that Congress may admit, suspend, disbar or reinstate directly attorneys at law, or a
determinate group of individuals to the practice of law.
 Its power is limited to repeal, modify or supplement the existing rules ion the matter, if according to its judgment the need for a
better service of the legal profession requires it. But this power does not relieve this court of its responsibility to admit, suspend,
disbar and reinstate attorneys at law and supervise the practice of the legal profession.
 The legislature, may by means of repeal, amendment or supplemental rules, fill up any deficiency that it may find, and the judicial
power, which had the inherent responsibility for a good and efficient administration of justice and the supervision of the practice of
the legal profession, should consider theses reforms as the minimum standard for the elevation of the procession and to see to it
that with these reforms, the lofty objective that is desired in the exercise of its traditional duty of admitting, suspending, disbarring
and reinstating attorneys is realized.
 They are powered, which exercised within their proper constitutional limits, are not repugnant but rather complementary to each
other in attaining the establishment of a Bar that would respond to the increasing and exacting necessities of the administration of
justice.
 THE CASE OF GUARINA (1913) 24 Phil., 37:
— Guarina failed to pass the bar. A recently enacted law, RA 1597, provided that one who had been appointed to the position
of Fiscal may be admitted to the pratice of law without a previous examination.
— The government appointed Guarina and he discharged the duties of Fiscal in a remote province.
— The Tribunal refused to give his license without previous examinations.
— REASONS:
1. Deficiency in merits (71%)
2. Applicant was not and never had been practicing attorney prior to his date of appointment as Fiscal of Batanes Province.
— RELIEF: Suggested to the Philippine Commissioner that Guarina will be appointed to the office of the Provincial Fiscal, if he
passes and ordinary examination prescribe by general rule.
 In the case above, it is clear that the Court has the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law. The said act is merely
permissive in character to fix the minimum conditions foe the license.
 QUESTION: IS THERE ANY MOTIVE OF THE NATURE INDICATED BY THE CONGRESS FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION? IF
THERE IS NON, AND NONE HAS BEEN GIVEN, THEN THE CLASSIFICATION IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE.
 In 1944, 1941 or the years before, with the general average indicated, were not included because the Tribunal has no record of the
unsuccessful candidates of those years.
 DECISION: This fact does not justify the unexplained classification of unsuccessful candidates by years. Neither is the exclusion of
those who failed before the said years under the same conditions justified. The fact that this court has no record of examinations
prior to 1946 does not signify that no one concerned may prove by some other means his right to an equal consideration.
 ARGUMENT: It is argued that RA 972 is curative, therefore, unconstitutional.
 DECISION: What the Congress lamented was that the Court did not consider 69.5% obtained by those candidates in 1946 to 1952.
Hence, it is the lack of will or defect of judgement of the court that is being cured, and to complete the cure of this infirmity, the
effectivity of the disputed law is being extended top to the years ’53 to ’55, increasing 1% each year.
 Supreme Court: In other words, the power exercised was not to repeal, alter or supplement the rules, which continue in force.
 What was done, enactment of RA 972, was to stop or suspend them. And this power is not included in what the Constitution
granted to Confess. This power corresponds to the judiciary to which such duty been confided.
ARTICLE 2, RA 972
 FACT: Article 2 of the law permits partial passing of examinations, at indefinite interval.
 S.C.: The grave defect of this system is that it does not take into account that the laws and jurisprudence are already different,
seriously affecting this manner his usefulness.
 Laws are unconstitutional on the ff grounds;
1. Because they are not within the legislative powers of Congress to enact, or Congress has exceeded its powers;
2. Because they create or establish arbitatratt methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles;
3. Because their purposes or effects violate the Constitution or its basic principles.
 These contented law, RA 972, suffers from these fatal defects.

SUPREME COURT’S DECISION:

Republic Act 972 is unconstitutional and therefore void, and without any force nor effect for the following reasons:
1. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of 1946-1952, and who, it admits, are
certainly inadequately prepared to practice lawn as was exactly found by this court in the afore-cited years. It deprives the
Supreme Court the opportunity to determine if the candidates are qualified and prepared to become members of the bar. It obliges
to the Tribunal to perform something contrary to reason and in an arbitrary manned. This is a manifest encroachment on the
constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. Because it is, in effect, a judgement revoking the resolution of this court on the petitions of these 810 candidates without having
examined their respective examination papers, and although it is admitted that this Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at any
time for justifiable reasons, only this Court and no other may revise and alter them. In attempting to do it directly RA 972
violated the constitution.
3. By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative powers to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on the admission to
that bar. Such additional or amendatory rules will be considered by the Tribunal as minimum norms towards the end in the ASDR
of lawyers to the bat. It is the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision on
who may be admitted and may continue in the proactive of law according the to existing rules.

REPEAL- the action of revoking or annulling a law or congressional act. To revoke or rescind,
especially by an official or formal act.
ALTER- To make a change in; to modify; to vary in some degree; to change some of the
elements or ingredients or details without substituting an entirely new tiling or de
stroying the identity of the thing affected.
SUPPLEMENTS- to complete or enhance something

4. The reason advances for the pretended classification of candidates which the law makes, os contrary to facts which are of general
knowledge and does not justify the admission to the Bar of law students inadequately prepared. THE PRETENDED CLASSIFICATION
IS ARBITRARY. IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A CLASS LEGISLATIONS

CLASS LEGISLATION— Class legislation refers to legislation that applies to certain persons or class of persons, either
natural or artificial, or to certain districts of territory or state.

5. Article 2 of RA 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins and being inseparable from the
provisions of the article q, the entire law is void.

6. Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 referring to the examinations of 1953 to ’55, said part of article 1,
insofar as it covers the examinations in those years, shall continue in force.

SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION

Upon mature deliberation of this court;

 2 of the Justices did not take part in the decision
 8 members of the Court voted and resolved and gave decided:
1. That (a) Portion of Article 1 of RA 972 referring to the examinations of 1946-1952 and (b) all of article 2 of said law are
unconstitutional and therefore void and without force and effect,
2. That got lack of unanimity in the 8 justices, that part of article 1 which refers to the examinations subsequent the approval of
the law, that is from ’53 to ’55 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in conformity with section 10 article VII of the
Constitution.
 Consequently, (1) all the above mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the examinations ’46 to ’52 inclusive are
denied; (2) all candidates who ion the examinations of 1953 obtains a general average of 71.5% or more, without having a grade
below 50% in any subject are considered as having passes, water they have filed petitions for admission or now.
 In total, there are 604 directly affected by this resolution. Adding 490 candidates who have not present any petition, they reach a
total of 1,094.

THE ENACTMENT OF RA 972

 In Annex 1, the Court reduced
  72% (August and November 1946)
 69% (1947)
 75% (1950)
 This caused the introduction of Bill no. 12 which was intended to amend Sections 5, 9, 12, 14 and 16 of Rule 127 of the Rules of
Court, concerning admission of the attorney-at-law to the parties of the profession.
 Among those interesting amendments are in Sections 14 and 16. (p583 of the SCRA)
 PROBLEM IN AN INSTALLMENT-ISH EXAM (section 14):
By the time that he has passed the last required subject, which may be several years away from the time that he reviewed and
passed first subjects, he shall have forgotten the principles and theories contained in those subjects and remembers only those
of the one or two subjects he had reviewed and and passed.
 On Section 16:
Every after Bar Exam, the Supreme Court issues a Resolutions admitting to the Bar those who passed, but also rejecting and
denying the perditions for reconsideration of those who have failed. The present amendment whole have the effect of repudiating,
reversing, and revoking the Supreme Court’s resolution to deny and reject petition for reconsideration. When a court renders a division
to promulgate a resolution or order on the basis of and in accordance with a certain law or rule then in force, the subsequent
amendment or even repeal of said law or rule many nor effect the final decision, order, or resolution already promulgated , in the sense
of revoking or rendering it void and no effect. The present amendment giving retroactivity to the reduction of the passing general
average runs counter to the acts of refusal and denial of admission to the Bar to a candidate who did not pass since 1946.
With the retroactivity, the Court admits that they accepted an unprepared, underserving and unqualified candidates which
should not be the case since members of the Bar are officers of the court—our Judiciary.

 THE PRESIDENT VETOED BILL NO. 12 because:

1. Elevating the standard of legal professions and maintaining it on high level are not achieved by admitting to practice precisely a
special class who have failed in the bar examination.
2. Section 5 provides that and applicant who has obtained a general average go 70% in all subjects without failing below 50% in any
subject— this constitution constitutes a class legislation, benefiting one group of persons, namely the candidates in the 1946 to
1950.
3. It revokes the final decision of the SC each and every bar examination.

 The bill was returned to Congress but was not passed by 2/3 vote of each House. (Section 20, article VI, Constitution)
 INSTEAD, BILL NO. 371 WAS PRESENTED IN THE SENATE. IT READS:

“An act to fix the passing marks for bad examinations from 1946 up to and including 1953”

Section 1: (Upheld the provisions in Sec. 1 of RA 972) without a candidate obtaining a grade below 50% in any subject shall
be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office… provided, however, that 75% passing general average
shall be rested in all succeeding examinations. Provided, finally, that any exact one-half or ore of a fraction shall be
considered as one and included as part for next whole number.
Section 2: Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject in any bar examination after July 8, 1946 shall be
deemed to pass sin such subject or sUbjects and such rage shall be included in any subsequent examinations that he may
take.

 The bill was passed by congress and the President again asked the comments of this court which endorsed the same sentiment in
SB No. 12.
 The President did not veto the bill but it became a law by virtue of Sec. 20, Article 6, Constitution.
 It mat be mentioned in passing that 1953 was an electioneer and that both the president and the author of the bill lost in the polls
for re-election.