BACAL NAMALATA TAMALA BIDAD LAW

Attorneys-at-law
2nd Level, Divine Aiko Building, Pabayo Street corner Dolores Street
9000 Cagayan de Oro City
Philippines
Telephone Number: 880-2529

MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date: 10 January 2019
Re: The equivalence of LLB/JD to doctoral degrees in other non-law academic
disciplines for purposes of appointment/employment, ranking and compensation.

The Facts:

The Legal Education Board (LEB) issued LEB Memorandum Order (LEBMO) No. 1,
Series of 2011. One of its salient features was to incorporate within the Philippine legal
education system, the Juris Doctor (J.D.) curriculum. The JD curriculum under LEBMO
No. 1 was described as a professional doctorate degree just like the M.D. degree.

On December 1, 2018, the Legal Education Board (LEB) issued LEB Memorandum
Order No. 19, Series of 2018 phasing out the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree and
replacing it with the J.D. degree. The said LEBMO applied retroactively so as to deem
those who have graduated from the LLB program, graduates of the JD curriculum. The
previous basic law degree (LLB) would be known as JD-Non Thesis.

The controversy arose in the start of the year 2019. Apparently, even as the JD was
described as a professional doctorate, past issuances of other government agencies were
inconsistent as to what academic graduate degree it is equivalent to. Thus, in January
2019, LEB issued Resolution No. 2019-406 entitled “A Resolution Setting the Graduate-
Level Degree Equivalency of the Basic Law Course.” The Resolution declared that the
basic law degree, now universally known as the JD degree, be equivalent to an
academic doctoral degree for the following reasons: (1) the total aggregate graduate-
level curricular requirement to finish a doctoral degree is approximately 100 unites
(combined for masteral and doctoral studies), with a dissertation, while the curricular
requirement to finish the J.D. Degree Non-Thesis (previously LLB Degree) and the J.D.
Degree with Thesis are 152 units and 168 units, respectively; (2) while the basic law
degrees do not require a dissertation, its curricular requirement is, however,
significantly more than that for doctoral studies; and (3) the curricular duration to
complete the combined masteral and doctoral studies is substantially the same as that
for the basic law course.

In January 11, 2019, the CHED issued a press release expressing concern about LEB
Resolution No. 2019-406. The press release stated that the LEB cannot declare that the
basic law degree be equivalent to doctoral degrees in other non-law academic
discipline.

Questions presented:

1. Who has authority to supervise or regulate legal education in the Philippines?

2. What are the powers and functions of the CHED?
3. Does LEB have the authority to unilaterally declare the basic law degree, now
the JD degree, equivalent to doctoral degrees in other non-law academic
disciplines?
 Answers with discussions

1. Who has authority to supervise or regulate legal education in the Philippines?

It is the Legal Education Board (LEB) which has the sole authority to regulate and
supervise legal education in the Philippines.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 created the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports (MECS)
whose primary task was to administer the entire educational system in the country.
This function necessarily included the supervision of all educational institutions in all
levels including law schools. It was replaced by the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports (DECS) after the EDSA Revolution. Since then, DECS was the government
institution charged with the regulation and supervision of law schools. It created the
Model Law Curriculum for Bachelor of Laws (LLB) which became the standard law
curriculum for all law schools.

It was in 1993 when Republic Act 7662 otherwise known as “The Legal Education
Reform Act of 1993” was enacted, creating the Legal Education Board (LEB) which
abrogated the powers of the DECS insofar as legal education is concerned. However, it
was only on September 16, 2009 when the first Chairman of the LEB was appointed and
the appointment of the rest of the members followed. On June 1, 2010 or 17 years after
the enactment of RA 7662, the LEB became fully operational.

Section 4 of the said law states:

“Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out the purpose of this
Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board, hereinafter referred to as the
Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes and administrative support to the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall preferably be a former justice of
the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, and the following as regular members: a
representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a representative of the
Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a representative from the ranks of active
law practitioners; and, a representative from the law students' sector. The Secretary of
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, or his representative, shall be an ex
officio member of the Board.

With the exception of the representative of the law students' sector, the Chairman and
regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines and
members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10) years in the
practice of law, as well as in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or recognized law
school.”

As can be gleamed from the above-quoted provision of law, the LEB is attached to the
now defunct DECS, (now Dep Ed) solely for budgetary purposes. This means that the
LEB is granted full autonomy when it comes to the regulation and supervision of law
schools and legal education.

The LEB has the following powers and functions:

a. To administer the legal education system.

b. To supervise the law schools.
c. To set accreditation standards for law schools.
d. To accredit law schools.
e. To set minimum standards for law admission and minimum qualifications and
compensation of faculty members.
f. To prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the requirements
for admission to the bar, law practice and social consciousness,and such other courses
of study as may be prescribed by the law schools.
g. To establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the bar.
h. To perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations
necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of the Legal Education
Reform Act.

2. What are the powers and functions of the CHED?

Under Section 8 of RA 7722, otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994,
CHED has the following powers and functions:

a. formulate and recommend development plans, policies, priorities, and programs on

higher education and research;

b. formulate and recommend development plans, policies, priorities and programs on

research;

c. recommend to the executive and legislative branches, priorities and grants on higher
education and research;

d. set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning

recommended by panels of experts in the field and subject to public hearing, and
enforce the same;

e. monitor and evaluate the performance of programs and institutions of higher

learning for appropriate incentives as well as the imposition of sanctions such as, but
not limited to, diminution or withdrawal of subsidy, recommendation on the
downgrading or withdrawal of accreditation, program termination or school closure;

f. identify, support and develop potential centers of excellence in program areas needed
for the development of world-class scholarship, nation building and national
development;

g. recommend to the Department of Budget and Management the budgets of public

institutions of higher learning as well as general guidelines for the use of their income;

h. rationalize programs and institutions of higher learning and set standards, policies
and guidelines for the creation of new ones as well as the conversion or elevation of
schools to institutions of higher learning, subject to budgetary limitations and the
number of institutions of higher learning in the province or region where creation,
conversion or elevation is sought to be made;

i. develop criteria for allocating additional resources such as research and program
development grants, scholarships, and other similar programs: Provided, That these
shall not detract from the fiscal autonomy already enjoyed by colleges and universities;

j. direct or redirect purposive research by institutions of higher learning to meet the

needs of agro-industrialization and development;

k. devise and implement resource development schemes;

l. administer the Higher Education Development Fund, as described in Section 10

hereunder, which will promote the purposes of higher education;

m. review the charters of institutions of higher learning and state universities and
colleges including the chairmanship and membership of their governing bodies and
recommend appropriate measures as basis for necessary action;

n. promulgate such rules and regulations and exercise such other powers and functions
as may be necessary to carry out effectively the purpose and objectives of this Act; and
o. perform such other functions as may be necessary for its effective operations and for
the continued enhancement, growth or development of higher education.

3. Does LEB have the authority to unilaterally declare the basic law degree, now
the JD degree, equivalent to doctoral degrees in other non-law academic
disciplines?

Considering all the pertinent laws, it is strongly asserted that the answer be in the
affirmative.

First of all, this discussion will not delve into the propriety or impropriety of the
equivalence. It will not discuss whether the JD curriculum as it now stands is
comparable to doctorate programs being offered in non-law academic disciplines under
international standards. This discussion will delve solely on whether LEB can declare
the equivalence of the basic law degree to doctoral degrees in other non-law academic
disciplines, unilaterally.

It can easily be inferred that the State affords high regard to legal education. While
many claim that their profession or academic discipline is unique, truly, only the legal
education system can rightfully claim that it is sui generis, a class of its own owing to the
fact that legal education has its own supervisory and regulatory agency unlike other
professional education programs which all fall under the supervisory and regulatory
jurisdiction of the Commission on Higher Education.

Why does the LEB have the authority to unilaterally declare that the basic law degree is
equivalent to the doctoral degrees in other non-law academic disciplines?

Looking at the powers of CHED as provided by the law, it has the authority to lay
down standards, policies and guidelines for programs in higher education for all
disciplines, except law, or legal education, thus it has the power to determine that a
certain degree be equivalent to a doctoral degree for all academic disciplines except law.
Who has that same authority over legal education? It is the LEB.

To be sure, both CHED and LEB are autonomous agency. Neither one answers to any
department under the executive branch of the government. Neither of them answer to
Dep Ed.

Although the law creating LEB, admittedly, did not provide, in clear-cut terms, that it
had the authority to “lay down standards, policies, and guidelines for programs in
higher education” for legal education, this power is deemed included as the powers of
the LEB as provided by law are broad enough to encompass such authority.

In simplest terms, what CHED is for non-law disciplines, is what LEB is for the legal
education. If CHED has the power to declare that a degree is equivalent to a doctorate
degree, then LEB should also have such power when it comes to legal education. To say
otherwise would be in stark contrast to what the law had intended, which is to keep the
legal education separate and distinct from other non-law academic disciplines. This is
even bolstered by the fact that the law creating CHED, a later legislative enactment,
neither mentions LEB, nor legal education. CHED would be encroaching on the powers
of LEB if it would insist that it would be the only agency which would have the power
to determine whether the basic law degree would be equivalent to a doctorate in other
non-law academic disciplines.
It is for the above reasons that it is strongly asserted by the proponent that LEB had the
authority to make the pronouncements it made in LEB Resolution No. 2019-406.

A problem may arise as Congress has recently passed Republic Act 10968 which is an
act institutionalizing the Philippine Qualifications Framework. This law basically
describes the levels of educational qualifications and sets the standards for qualification
outcomes. It is a quality assured national system for the development, recognition and
award of qualifications based on standards of knowledge, skills and values acquired in
different ways and methods by learners and workers of the country. A problem could
arise as LEB is not one of the Members of the Philippine Qualifications Framework –
National Coordinating Council. As such, it may be that the basic law degree – the JD –
as it now stands, does not meet the standards that the PQF has laid down; but that is
not the point which the proponent wishes to convey. Besides, to resolve this issue
would entail a thorough study of the basic law curriculum, which now universally
known in the Philippines as the JD curriculum, and whether it meets the PQF
standards, which is beyond the expertise of the proponent.

Again, to be clear, this discussion is limited to the authority of LEB, and it is strongly,
but humbly asserted that it has not only the authority, but also the competence, to
declare that the basic law degree (JD) is equivalent to a doctorate degree in other non-
law academic disciplines.