MANILA - A nationwide entrance exam for aspiring law students underwent scrutiny before the Supreme Court on Tuesday during oral arguments on petitions seeking to invalidate the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) and the law creating the body behind it.

PhiLSAT is a standardized national qualifying examination administered by the Legal Educational Board (LEB) to measure the academic potential of a student seeking to study the law.

It is required on top of entrance exams to law schools, except for honor students who may be granted exemptions.

First implemented in 1970, PhiLSAT was reintroduced in September 2017 following the creation of the LEB through Republic Act (RA) 7662 or the Legal Education Reform Act.

Two groups had filed separate petitions questioning RA 7662 and the LEB issuances imposing PhiLSAT before the high court: one group of lawyers, law professors, and students led by retired Makati regional trial court Judge Oscar Pimentel and another group of students from the Visayas who either failed to pass PhiLSAT or failed to take it.

Petitioners said PhiLSAT hindered aspiring law students from enrolling in law schools because of the steep exam fee of P1,500 and the limited locations of testing centers.

They also cited low passing rates: the September 2017 PhiLSAT had a passing rate of only 57.76 percent while the April 2018 and September 2018 exams produced passing rates of 61.39 percent and 56.78 percent, respectively.

Dean Rodolfo Rapista from the St. Thomas More School of Law in Tagum City, one of the intervenors, said small law schools are also affected by the qualifying exam requirement because with fewer students, schools are either forced to increase tuition or close shop.

'CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR'

In their petitions, petitioners argued PhiLSAT encroaches upon the Supreme Court’s constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law because it imposed an additional requirement for the practice of law – a qualifying exam for law schools – and is administered by a body not answerable to the SC.

Lawyer Errol Comafay, Jr., who represented the Pimentel group, said admission to legal education is part of the practice of law and should thus solely be under the jurisdiction of the high court.

The LEB is attached to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) only for budgetary and administrative purposes and is independent from the SC.

Lawyer Karla Marie Tumulak, counsel for the Visayan students, clarified they are not opposed to having an entrance exam as long as it is administered by the high tribunal.

“We believe the SC can in fact administer the admission test. The power to set the requirements with respect to the admission to the college of law is part and parcel of broader power of this Court,” she argued.

But Solicitor General Jose Calida, representing the LEB, said admission to law schools is different from admission to the practice of law.

Some justices also pointed out that the high tribunal had never regulated law schools in the past and only required that law graduates take up a minimum number of courses to qualify for the Bar Exams.

Justice Francis Jardeleza, for his part, warned petitioners that the magistrates might have higher standards than the LEB.

“Be careful what you wish for,” he said.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

A bigger issue Justice Marvic Leonen raised is that PhiLSAT might possibly be unconstitutional not because of the administering authority but because of violation of academic freedom, a position taken by amicus curiae (friend of the court) Dean Sedfrey Candelaria, former head of the Ateneo Law School.

Candelaria said law schools should administer their own exams as part of their constitutionally-guaranteed academic freedom, which includes the power to determine who may be admitted to study.

Justice Andres Reyes, Jr. said that rather than punishing students, they should be encouraging students to study.

“Some want to study, not necessarily to become lawyers,” he said, a sentiment shared by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

Carpio questioned why PhiLSAT excludes non-passers from studying in law schools when the results of its American counterpart, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), only serve as guide for law schools whether or not to admit potential students.

“You cannot prevent a person from trying to get as much knowledge as he can,” he said.

Leonen asked what is the interest of the state in interfering with what is essentially a contract between a student and a school (in the case of private law schools) by imposing a qualifying exam.

“What is the State’s interest in interfering with private schools’ discretion? In other words, if there is a school that wants to accept everybody and cannot have a Bar passer, it is their own lookout,” he said.

“Are we now starting to become dictatorial? Are we now starting to homogenize law schools so that all of them become Bar review centers rather than legal academics?” he added.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

He also questioned the lack of scientific study to back up the claim that imposing a qualifying exam will help improve the quality of legal education.

LEB chairperson Emerson Aquende admitted they did not have any study but relied on the results of the LSAT in the US.

“If there was no study that supported it, then perhaps it may be stricken down as unreasonable and therefore a grave abuse of discretion,” he said.

Jardeleza said the case should have been filed in a lower court so that evidence may be presented regarding the effect of imposing a national qualifying exam, suggesting the possibility of remanding the case to lower courts.

“There is no question this is a novel issue. How do you juxtapose academic freedom with exclusionary exam. I’ve heard all of the opinions today. They are all opinions. I need hard facts,” he said.

The oral arguments on Tuesday, originally set for 2 days, adjourned after more than 4 hours in session.

Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin gave the parties 20 days to file their respective memoranda.