The document discusses whether Republic Act No. 7662 violates the doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching on the Supreme Court's power to regulate admission to the bar. It finds that the Act is constitutional and does not encroach on the Court's power because: (1) the Act only prescribes minimum standards for law school admission tests, not admission to practice law, (2) admission to law school is different than admission to practice law, and (3) for there to be encroachment, the power violated must belong exclusively to another branch, which is not the case here.
The document discusses whether Republic Act No. 7662 violates the doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching on the Supreme Court's power to regulate admission to the bar. It finds that the Act is constitutional and does not encroach on the Court's power because: (1) the Act only prescribes minimum standards for law school admission tests, not admission to practice law, (2) admission to law school is different than admission to practice law, and (3) for there to be encroachment, the power violated must belong exclusively to another branch, which is not the case here.
The document discusses whether Republic Act No. 7662 violates the doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching on the Supreme Court's power to regulate admission to the bar. It finds that the Act is constitutional and does not encroach on the Court's power because: (1) the Act only prescribes minimum standards for law school admission tests, not admission to practice law, (2) admission to law school is different than admission to practice law, and (3) for there to be encroachment, the power violated must belong exclusively to another branch, which is not the case here.
There was no encroachment upon the rule making power of
the Supreme Court and its power to regulate the admission to the Bar
Republic Act No. 7662 is constitutional as it does not encroach on the
power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and legal assistance to underprivileged, thus, it does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
Section 5, Par. 5, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the
Supreme Court has the exclusive power to Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Matters covered under the term admission to the practice of law
The power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the
admission to the practice of law or to the bar refers to the following matters:
1. Persons who may practice law;
2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar; 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America; 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions; 5. Additional requirements for other applicants; 6. Pre-law; 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications; 8. Notice of applications; 9. Examination; subjects; 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing; 11. Annual examination; 12. Committee of examiners; 13. Disciplinary measures; 14. Passing average; 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers; 16. Failing candidates to take review course; 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants; 18. Certificate; 19. Attorney's roll; 20. Duties of attorneys; 21. Authority of attorney to appear; 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal; 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients; 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees; 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt; 26. Change of attorneys; 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds; 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance; 29. Upon suspension by the Court of Appeals or Court of First Instance, further proceedings in Supreme Court; 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension; 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants; 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio; 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Government; 34. By whom litigation conducted; 35. Certain attorneys not to practice; 36. Amicus Curiae; 37. Attorneys' liens. (Rule 138 of the Rules of Court) In this case, the Legal Memorandum Order only prescribes the minimum standards for law admission test, a matter not included under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Under the maxim expression unius est exclusion alterius, it is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequences implies the exclusion of all others. 1 Hence, the said Rule, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, and may not be extended to other matters not expressly included.
Definition of practice of law
Practice of law is the doing or performing of services in a court of
justice, in any matter pending therein. In a larger sense, it includes legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts although such matter may not be pending in court. 2
1 (Agpalo, 2003)
2 (De Leon, 2008)
While the court has declared that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting, suspending, disbarring and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial3, law school admission test can hardly be considered as practice of law. Hence, law school admission test does not fall under the regulatory power of the Supreme Court.
No violation of separation of powers
The prerogative of the Supreme Court, acknowledged in Section 5(5)
which authorizes it to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law has not been encroached by the Legal Memorandum Order. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, each department is not permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to the others. It must be noted, however, that there can only be encroachment if the power that is said to have been violated belongs to particular body. In this case, the Legal Memorandum Order that prescribes for the minimum standards for law admission test for applicants to the basic law courses in all law schools in the country does not belong to the Supreme Court. There being no encroachment, the doctrine of separation of powers has not been violated.
3 94 Phil. 534; see Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No. 678, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 424.