In re: Cunanan
(Extent and Limitations on Legislative Power)
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%.
Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by
the S.C., 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.
Issue: Is RA Act 972 is unconstitutional?
Held: Yes.
Article 2 of the law in question permits partial passing of examinations, at indefinite intervals.
The grave defect of this system is that it does not take into account that the laws and
jurisprudence are not stationary, and when a candidate finally receives his certificate, it may
happen that the existing laws and jurisprudence are already different, seriously affecting in this
manner his usefulness. The system that the said law prescribes was used in the first bar
examinations of this country, but was abandoned for this and other disadvantages. In this case,
however, 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.
By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement
the rules on admission to the Bar. Such additional or amendatory rules are, as they ought to be,
intended to regulate acts subsequent to its promulgation and should tend to improve and elevate
the practice of law, and this Tribunal shall consider these rules as minimum norms towards that
end in the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar, inasmuch
as a good bar assists immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential to
a worthy administration of justice. It is therefore the primary and inherent prerogative 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.
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.
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.
Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed in the
examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and (2) all candidates who in the examinations
of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5 per cent or more, without having a grade below 50
per cent 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. So ordered.
