Charles Tito R.

Aguilar
2014-66922-1

JD-RESTHES | JD4103
July 10, 2014

CASE BRIEF
In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil 534, March 18, 1954
FACTS:
Under the Rules of Court, a bar candidate is deemed to have passed if they obtain a
general average of 75% in all subjects without falling below 50% in any subject. The Supreme
Court changed the passing average since 1946 in consideration of the varying difficulties and
the varying degree of strictness with which the papers were graded: 72% in 1946, 69% in 1947,
70 % in 1948, 74% in 1949, and 75% in 1950 to 1953. On June 21, 1953, Republic Act No. 972
(Bar Flunkers Act of 1953) was enacted without Executive approval.
Many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar
invoking the new laws provisions, while others who had pending motions for revision of their
examination papers also invoked the law as grounds for admission. There are also others who
simply sought reconsideration of their grades without invoking the new law.
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. By
its declared objective, 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, as
was evidenced by their failure in the exams.
ISSUE:
Whether Republic Act No. 972 (Bar Flunkers Act of 1953) is constitutional?
RULING:
No, it is not constitutional.
RATIONALE:
The Court found Republic Act No. 972 unconstitutional for the following reasons.
1. The law is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme
Court to render the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may continue in the
practice of law according to existing rules.
2. It is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the Supreme Court on the petitions
which only the Court may revise or alter, directly violating the Constitution.
3. Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the rules
on admission to the Bar by the disputed law.
4. It is a class legislation.
5. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what
the Constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the provisions of article 1, the entire
law is void.