Digest of in Re Albino Cunanan

In Re: Albino Cunanan
Resolution, March 18, 1954

Diokno, J.
FACTS:
In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest and concern as R.A.
972 popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” Generally, a candidate is deemed passed
if he obtains a general average of 75% in all subjects without falling below 50% in any subject,
although for the past few exams the passing grades were changed depending on the strictness
of the correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-
1953 – 75%).
Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by
the Supreme Court, and feeling that they have been discriminated against, unsuccessful
candidates who obtained averages of a few percentages lower than those admitted to the bar
went to Congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill No. 12, but was vetoed by the president
after he was given advise adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the Senate then approved Senate
Bill no. 372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then became law
on June 21, 1953
Republic Act 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 preparations. By and large,
the law is contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate
preparation for the practice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure in the exams.
ISSUES:
Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have on the legal profession and the
administration of justice, the SC would seek to know if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.
 An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of the law that
should be developed constantly and maintained firmly.
 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
judicial.
 The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C. equal responsibilities concerning
the admission to the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the constitution
recognizes continue to reside in this court.
 Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law seeks to “cure” are not the rules set
in place by the SC but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the court, and this power is not
included in the power granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively w/in the judiciary.
 Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
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.
HELD:
Under the authority of the court:
1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of
art. 2 of the said law are unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and effect.
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law (1953-
1955) is valid and shall continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar
from 1946 to 1952 are denied, and all the candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained
a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of below 50% in any subject are considered as having
passed whether they have filed petitions for admissions or not.)
In Re: Albino Cunanan
Resolution, March 18, 1954
Diokno, J.
FACTS:
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of
the law was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including
1955.”
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70%
1952 …………………….71%
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject
shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in
the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”
ISSUE:
Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
HELD:
Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the title
of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also struck
down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and
jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to
1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the
following reasons:
1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to
1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World
War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the
said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may be
admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and
supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only
minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can practice
law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to declare
it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke
existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. The same may
also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission
to the practice of law.

Digest of in Re Albino Cunanan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest of in Re Albino Cunanan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest of in Re Albino Cunanan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re: Albino Cunanan

Resolution, March 18, 1954

Under the authority of the court:

Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.

You might also like