Scribd
Upload
71 views3 pages

In Re: Cunanan March 18, 1954

The Supreme Court ruled that parts of Republic Act No. 972, also known as the "Bar Flunkers' Act of 1953", were unconstitutional. The law aimed to relax the passing requirement for bar exams from 1946 to 1953 from 75% to admit more candidates, citing difficulties after World War 2. However, the Court held that admitting inadequately prepared lawyers would endanger the public. Admitting attorneys is a judicial function, and the law encroached on the Court's authority. While circumstances after the war were considered, relaxing standards so much still failed to ensure competent lawyers. Therefore, parts of the law retroactively admitting candidates were void, though the Court upheld future exams from 1953-1955 remaining under

Uploaded by

Benz Clyde Bordeos Tolosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views3 pages

In Re: Cunanan March 18, 1954

The Supreme Court ruled that parts of Republic Act No. 972, also known as the "Bar Flunkers' Act of 1953", were unconstitutional. The law aimed to relax the passing requirement for bar exams from 1946 to 1953 from 75% to admit more candidates, citing difficulties after World War 2. However, the Court held that admitting inadequately prepared lawyers would endanger the public. Admitting attorneys is a judicial function, and the law encroached on the Court's authority. While circumstances after the war were considered, relaxing standards so much still failed to ensure competent lawyers. Therefore, parts of the law retroactively admitting candidates were void, though the Court upheld future exams from 1953-1955 remaining under

Uploaded by

Benz Clyde Bordeos Tolosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

In re: Cunanan

March 18, 1954

Facts: Congress passed Republic Act No. 972, commonly known as the

“Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953. Considering the varying difficulties of the different bar

examinations held since 1946 and the varying degree of strictness with which the

examination papers were graded, this court passed and admitted to the bar those

candidates who had obtained an average of less than 75 per cent from 1946 to

1953. Republic Act No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to

the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials

and inadequate preparation. The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent

passing grade is the tremendous handicap which students during the years

immediately after the Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the

insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of

students who took up law soon after the liberation.

Issue: WON R.A. 972 is constitutional.

Held: No. It is not constitutional. 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. The public interest demands of

legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency. To approve officially of


those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a

delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. The power to admit

attorneys to the practice of law is a judicial function. The disputed law is not a

legislation; it is a judgment — a judgment revoking those promulgated by this

Court. Furthermore, 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 on the matter.

Ra 972 is unconstitutional and therefore void because it is an

encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the supreme court. The

reason advanced for the pretended classification of candidates, which the law

makes, is 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 legislation.

Upon mature deliberation, this Court have decided:

1. That (a) the portion of article 1 of Republic Act No. 972 referring to the

examinations of 1946 to 1952, and (b) all of article 2 of said law are

unconstitutional and, therefore, void and without force and effect.

2. That, for lack of unanimity in the eight Justices, that part of article 1

which refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law, that is

from 1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, in

conformity with section 10, article VII of the Constitution.

You might also like