In re: Cunanan, et.al., 94 Phil.
534
FACTS: Congress passed RA No. 972 known as the "Bar Flunkers' Act of 1953” entitled “An Act to Fix the
Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955”. Under the Rules of Court
governing admission to the bar, a general average of 75% in all subjects, without falling below 50% in
any subject is required to pass the Bar Exams.
Section 1 of EA 972 provides the changes on the passing grade as follows, provided that the examinee
shall have no grade lower than 50% in any subjects:
1946 to 1951 - 70%
1952 - 71%
1953 - 72%
1954 - 73%
1955 - 74%
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar
invoking its provisions, while others whose motions for the revision of their examination papers were
still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. The court has found
no reason to revise their grades after reviewing the motions for reconsideration.
The total number of candidates to be benefited by RA 972 is 1,094, of which only 604 have filed
petitions. Of these 604 petitioners, 33 who failed in 1946 to 1951 had individually presented motions for
reconsideration which were denied, while 125 unsuccessful candidates of 1952, and 56 of 1953, had
presented similar motions, which are still pending because they could be favorably affected by RA 972,
— although as has been already stated, this tribunal finds no sufficient reasons to reconsider their
grades
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 972 is constitutional
HELD: Laws are unconstitutional on the following grounds: first, because they are not within the
legislative powers of Congress to enact, or Congress has exceeded its powers; second, because they
create or establish arbitrary methods or forms that infringe constitutional principles; and third, because
their purposes or effects violate the Constitution or its basic principles. As has already been seen, the
contested law suffers from these fatal defects.
It is an unlawful attempt to exercise the power of appointment. The legislature may exercise the power
of appointment when it is in pursuance of a legislative functions. However, the authorities are well-nigh
unanimous that the power to admit attorneys to the practice of law is a judicial function. The licensing of
an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function, no matter where the power to determine
the qualifications may reside.
The court held that RA 972 is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without any force nor effect for
the following reasons:
1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the SC may revise or alter
them, in attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution.
3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the
bar (since the rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated are
considered the bare minimum.)
4. It is a class legislation
5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and
being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.
Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 referring to the examinations of 1953
to 1955, said part of article 1, insofar as it concerns the examinations in those years, shall continue in
force.
RESOLUTION:
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. Article 2 of the law in question permits partial passing of examinations, at
indefinite intervals. The fatal defect is that the article is not expressed in the title will have
temporary effect only from 1946 to 1955, the text of article 2 establishes a permanent system
for an indefinite time. This is contrary to Section 21 (1), article VI of the Constitution, which
vitiates and annuls article 2 completely; and because it is inseparable from article 1, it is obvious
that its nullity affect the entire law.
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.
All the petitions of the candidates who failed in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied,
and all candidates who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5% or more,
without having a grade below 50% in any subject, are considered as having passed, whether they have
filed petitions for admission or not. After this decision has become final, they shall be permitted to take
and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the chief
Justice may set.
It is an unlawful attempt to exercise the power of appointment. The legislature may exercise the power
of appointment when it is in pursuance of a legislative functions. However, the authorities are well-nigh
unanimous that the power to admit attorneys to the practice of law is a judicial function. The licensing of
an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function, no matter where the power to determine
the qualifications may reside.
