Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    In Re Cunanan

    Uploaded by

    Kcompacion
    The document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 972, also known as the Bar Flunkers Act. The Act established passing marks for bar examinations from 1946 to 1955. Section 2 of the Act allowed candidates who scored 75% or higher in any subject to have already passed that subject for future exams. The Court ruled Section 2 unconstitutional because it established a permanent passing system not related to the title of the Act. Section 1, which set the passing marks, was partially unconstitutional because it attempted to retroactively change passing marks from 1946 to 1951 in a way that encroached on the Court's authority to determine bar admissions. The portions setting future passing marks from 1953 to 1955 were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In Re Cunanan

    Uploaded by

    Kcompacion
    51 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 972, also known as the Bar Flunkers Act. The Act established passing marks for bar examinations from 1946 to 1955. Section 2 of the Act allowed candidates who scored 75% or higher in any subject to have already passed that subject for future exams. The Court ruled Section 2 unconstitutional because it established a permanent passing system not related to the title of the Act. Section 1, which set the passing marks, was partially unconstitutional because it attempted to retroactively change passing marks from 1946 to 1951 in a way that encroached on the Court's authority to determine bar admissions. The portions setting future passing marks from 1953 to 1955 were

    Original Description:

    Cun

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 972, also known as the Bar Flunkers Act. The Act established passing marks for bar examinations from 1946 to 1955. Section 2 of the Act allowed candidates who scored 75% or higher in any subject to have already passed that subject for future exams. The Court ruled Section 2 unconstitutional because it established a permanent passing system not related to the title of the Act. Section 1, which set the passing marks, was partially unconstitutional because it attempted to retroactively change passing marks from 1946 to 1951 in a way that encroached on the Court's authority to determine bar admissions. The portions setting future passing marks from 1953 to 1955 were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    51 views2 pages

    In Re Cunanan

    Uploaded by

    Kcompacion
    The document summarizes a Philippine Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 972, also known as the Bar Flunkers Act. The Act established passing marks for bar examinations from 1946 to 1955. Section 2 of the Act allowed candidates who scored 75% or higher in any subject to have already passed that subject for future exams. The Court ruled Section 2 unconstitutional because it established a permanent passing system not related to the title of the Act. Section 1, which set the passing marks, was partially unconstitutional because it attempted to retroactively change passing marks from 1946 to 1951 in a way that encroached on the Court's authority to determine bar admissions. The portions setting future passing marks from 1953 to 1955 were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    IN RE CUNANAN

    94 PHIL. 534

    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:

    1946-195170%

    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.

    RULING:

    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:

    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;
    The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the said
    candidates;
    The law is an encroachment on the Courts 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
    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.

    You might also like