December 13, 2019

Mr. Juan Dela Cruz

Peñaranda Street

Legazpi City

Dear Mr. Dela Cruz,

Here is the opinion that you requested.

The facts, as I gather from you and your documents, are as follows:

That on August 3, 2019 you started your study of law, in the University of Santo
Tomas Legazpi College of Law, as a conditional student. Being a conditional student, you
were admitted and was able to enroll but was tasked to take the Philippine Law School
Admission Test (PhiLSAT) last September 29, 2019. The results on your Certificate of
Grades show that you have the percentile score of 43%. The Legal Education Board (LEB)
has set the passing score of 55% correct answers or such percentile score as may be
prescribed by the LEB. Unfortunately, the percentile score you received, although quite near
55%, was not part of that prescribed by the LEB.

Now that you have completed your first semester of law school, you pose the
following questions:

1. Should you or can you still enroll in the second semester?

2. If you enroll in the second semester can you proceed to enroll up to 4th year and
graduate with a law degree?

3. If you are able to graduate and earn your degree can you still take the bar exam
and become a lawyer?

I base my opinion on the following:

In the case of Oscar B. Pimentel, et al. VS Legal Education Board [LEB] GR No.
23064. In the case the Supreme Court has stated that the purpose of the PhiLSAT is:

“The subject of the PhiLSAT is to improve the quality of Legal

Education. It is indubitable that the State has an interest in
prescribing regulations promoting education and thereby protecting
the common good.”

The Court also discussed the validity of the PhiLSAT by saying:

“Thus far, it is settled that the PhiLSAT, when administered as an

aptitude test, is reasonably related to the State’s unimpeachable
interest in improving the quality of legal education. This aptitude test,
however, should not be exclusionary, restrictive, or qualifying as to
encroach upon institutional academic freedom. Moreover, in the
exercise of their academic freedom to choose who admit, the law
schools should be left with the discretion to determine for
themselves how much weight should the results of the PhiLSAT carry
in relation to their individual admission policies.”

 “The PhiLSAT presently operates not only as a measure of an

applicant’s aptitude for law school. The PhiLSAT, as a pass or fail
exam, dictates upon law schools who among the examinees are to
be admitted to any law program. When the PhiLSAT is used to
exclude, qualify, and restrict admission to law schools, as its present
design mandates, the PhiLSAT goes beyond mere supervision and
regulation, violates institutional academic freedom, becomes
unreasonable and therefore, unconstitutional. In striking down these
object able clauses in the PhiLSAT, the State’s inherent power to
protect public interest by improving legal education is neither
emasculated nor compromised. Rather, the institutional academic
freedom of law schools to determine for itself who to admit pursuant
to their respective admissions policies is merely protected. In turn,
the recognition of academic discretion comes with the inherent
limitation that its exercise should not be whimsical, arbitrary, or
gravely abused.”

The Court also said that:

“The PhiLSAT, for instance, is not a perfect initiative. Through time

and a better cooperation between the LEB and the law schools in
the Philippines, a standardised and acceptable law admission
examination may be configured. The flaws which the Court assessed
to be unconstitutional are meanwhile removed, thereby still allowing
the PhiLSAT to develop into maturity. It is, thus, strongly urged that
recommendations on how to improve legal education, including tools
for screening entrants to law school, reached possibly though
consultative summits, be taken in careful consideration in further
instances or legislations.”

The Court ordered that:

“Accordingly, the temporary restraining order issued on March 12,

2019 enjoining the Legal Education Board from implementing
LEBMO. No. 18-2018 is made permanent. The regular admission of
the students who were conditionally admitted and enrolled is left to
the discretion of the law schools in the exercise of their academic
freedom.”

Given the information I recommend the following:

1. As of the moment, whether or not you can enroll for the second semester is left to
the discretion of the law school you are currently enrolled in. I strongly recommend that you
coordinate with your school as soon as possible and be prepared for any decision they may
render.

2. If the school you are current in allows you to enroll for the second semester, you
will be able to continue your study of law up to fourth year and graduate with a law degree.

3. Yes, you will be able to take the Bar exam because, as of the moment, passing
the PhiLSAT is not needed to take the bar exam.

 A word of reservation: I base my opinion on the language of settled judicial

proceeding. There is a chance that you have to transfer to a different school if your school
decides to set a passing percentile score higher than yours. Never the less, aptitude exams
in general will only be able to get you admitted to a law school but your performance in
school will still be the sole determining factor whether or not you will stay and finish the
study of law. So basically, you have to work hard and perform well in school to prove that
having a low percentile score does not equate to poor academic performance. Furthermore,
as the Court emphasised, the purpose of the PhiLSAT is to improve the quality of legal
education. If your performance in school is fine then it will be taken into consideration.

Please let me know if I can be of further service to you in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Atty. Stephen Jasper H. Samson