‘SIXTEENTH CONGRESS ) 14 JUL 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 30 PA

Second Regular Session ) apps
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez and
Representative Maximo B. Rodriquez. Jr.

House Bill No. _47 36

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Legal Education Board (hereinafter “LEB") was established by law to introduce
and produce genuine and meaningful reforms in the legal education sector. Although the law
creating it, Republic Act No. 7662, was enacted in 1993, the LEB was only constituted in
2009.

1. Section 4, R.A. No. 7662
A. Omission of preference

While the Undersigned recognizes that the purpose for including the preference that the
Chairperson of the Board must be a retired Justice of the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals was to give prestige to the LEB as a regulatory body of law schools all over the
Philippines, it is more prudent and, in fact, beneficial to the entire legal education sector to
omit such “preference” because of the following reasons:

1. It discriminates against justices (or those who have similar ranks) from other judicial
and/or quasi-judicial bodies such as, but not limited to: Senators, Members of the
House of Representatives, Justices of the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals,
Solicitor-General, and President of the University of the Philippines, etc.)

2. It discriminates against law professors or other persons more competent and well-
versed with the disciplines of education and pedagogy, and cognitive sciences who
can all the more bring in the much-needed reforms in Philippine legal education.

It is, however, conceded that the inclusion of such “preference” will not bar the above-
mentioned individuals from applying to the position of Chairperson. However, to the
knowledge of the Undersigned, the mere inclusion of the phrase gave birth to the practice
and recognition in the Judicial and Bar Council (hereinafter “JBC’) and also among the legal
education sector that only justices from the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals can be
Chairperson. Furthermore, the inclusion of the “preference” automatically gives, to some
extent, an undue advantage to these classes of persons. Thus, as among nominees, one of
which is a former justice and the others are not, there is a guidepost, unfortunately statutory,
to give preference to the former. Although it is not mechanical to the nominating and
appointing offices, yet such is a powerful one for them.

It begs stressing that the Father of American legal education who introduced the innovative
modified Socratic and case methods was characterized by the following as follows:

Born in 1826, [Lanadell] had come to study at the [Harvard] Law School in
1851. He was then already a lawyer in his native state of New Hampshire.
Recognized as a ‘book worm if there ever was one,’ he was made librarian
and research assistant to Professor Theophilus Parsons, working on the
Parsons text on Contracts. He remained for three years, twice the usual time,


and won recognition among younger fellow students as a genius... Langdell
practiced law in New York for 14 years. He was not successful as a litigator
and attracted few if any clients of his own. He did win a reputation as ‘the
best read lawyer in New York;’ and became a partner to other lawyers who
met with clients, adversaries, and courts, while Langdell wrote their legal
briefs and memoranda. A recluse then without family, he slept close to his
work,”

Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell was never a judge. Although he was a litigator before
his appointment to Harvard Law School, he was not a successful practitioner. What enabled
him to introduce his innovative reforms in Harvard Law School, which became the gold
standard in American legal education and later adopted in several countries, are his passion
for reading and love for genuine research. To the mind of the Undersigned, the best
qualification for a Chairperson and, even, for other members of the LEB is being
knowledgeable to the modern developments of cognitive sciences, trends in legal education
and pedagoay in other countries, and the openness and willingness to adopt, innovate, or
apply these to the Philippines.

Furthermore, the primary role of the Chairperson and the other Regular Members is policy-
making and not administration or operation. Proposed amendments for the latter will be
discussed later. As such, the Undersigned respectfully submits that this phrase calling for a
“preference” be omitted

B. Exemption to the prohibition provided by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees

The words "x x x law practice, especially x x x" is added, thus the proviso reads: “provided,
however, that appointment to the board shall not be a bar to any reqular member's engaging
in law practice, especially the teaching of law, during his/her term of office.”

This provides an express exemption to the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees. This broad exemption, subject, of course, to the special
dispensation discussed below, would further increase the applicants to by making the
positions in the LEB more enticing. Thus, the representative from the IBP or from the PALS,
may be allowed to continue his litigation practice, albeit in a limited sense.

C. Requirement of special dispensation

The phrase “subject to the special dispensation, in writing, from the Board
Chairperson” is proposed to improve the provision semantically. This clarifies that the
“special dispensation” will always be subject to the sound discretion of the Chairperson and
will not be purely mechanical on his part. This will be a safeguard to conflict of interests that
members of the Board may possibly confront.

2. Section 5, R.A. No. 7662

The statutory powers of the LEB are enormous. However, there are three factors that greatly
impeded the Board from exercising such and realizing its mandate, namely: (a) lack of
quorum among the Regular Members due to dismal turn-out in application; (b) lack of staff
support in the agency's administration and operation; and (c) lack of funds. As such, to this
date, the LEB has been limited, in its operation, to the accreditation of law schools.

* Suogang JD Thesis, citing B Kimball, The Langdell Problem: Mistoriczing the Century of Historiography, 1906-
2000s, Law and History Review, Vol. 22, No, 2 (2004)


To address the first problem, the Undersigned respectfully submits the following proposals:
‘A. Longer term

With the influx of technological and scientific advancements, the positions of Chairperson
and Regular Members call for effective policy-making and efficient strategic planning skills.
These will ensure a more stable implementation of long-term solutions to problems
confronting Philippine legal education, Thus, the term of six (6) years.

B. Clear duration and computation of term

The qualification that the term of the Chairperson and other members of the Board shall be
“five (5) years from their assumption of office” will present a clearer and easier computation
of the period of their term on the part of the JBC and the appointing authority.

Currently, the practice with the JBC is to compute the term on the basis of the date of
commencement of the agency, i.e., 2009 in the case of LEB. Thus, the Chairperson,
currently the first one, ended his term in January, 2014. This resulted to an unintended yet
serious consequence of lack of representation’ of the different sectors intended to be
represented in the LEB. Add to this are the lack of applicants and the slow process of vetting
and appointment in the Office of the President, thus, it is no wonder that the Board has
repeatedly failed to reach a quorum. What happened was to amend the internal rules to
reduce the number of quorum from five (5) to three (3)

To illustrate, the first full-termer representative of the law students’ sector, was only
appointed last October 30, 2013 and assumed office last November 26, 2013. The term of
the first appointee, since under RA. No. 7662, his was only for one (1) year ended 2010.
Thus, for more than three (3) years, there was nobody representing the interests of Filipino
law students. Fortunately, upon his assumption of office, the Board reached a quorum of
three (3), together with the current Chairperson and the CHEd Chairperson’s representative.
However, upon the end of the term of Chairman Hilarion L. Aquion, the Board, again, failed
to muster the quorum. Ironically, because of this unfortunate circumstance, the Undersigned
served concurrently as a Regular Member and Acting Officer-in-Charge. Although, it is both
an honor and challenge for him to serve in this dual capacity, considering the fact that he
was then a senior student and currently a Bar Examination reviewee, to his mind, however,
this scenario was never the intended by our lawmakers. Moreover, he surmises that
Congress, when it enacted the law, never thought that this circumstance may even happen.

This amendment will, therefore, forbid the happening of a scenario where the most junior
member will head the Board, albeit in an acting capacity.

C. Hold-over capacity

To prevent lack of representation resulting from the circumstances above-discussed, unless
the reason is death, disqualification by law, or incapacity by law or fact, the Chairperson or
any Regular Member, whose term has ended, shall serve in a hold-over capacity. This will
ensure that the Board will always have a quorum for continuous operation. Currently,
because there are only two (2) members in the Board, namely: the Undersigned and the
CHEd Chairperson's representative to the LEB, the agency is apparently paralyzed. All
issuances, orders, and resolutions are provisional in nature and will be submitted if and
when the Board attains a quorum

D. Exemption of the representatives of the PALS, PALP and IBP from undergoing the
UBC process


To further facilitate effective and continuous representation, the Undersigned proposes that
applicants for the positions of Regular Members representing the PALS, PALP and IBP will
be exempted from the JBC nomination process. Besides, these associations are highly
organized that they can establish internal mechanisms for the nomination and vetting
process of their prospective representatives. Through this amendment, these organizations
will be empowered since they, on their own, can recommend to the President who they think
will best represent their ranks

Such exemption shall not be applicable to the position of Chairperson and Representatives
of the law students’ sector and active law practitioners. The role of the JBC is all the more
required for the position of the Chairperson since he will set the vision for the LEB. Likewise,
the role of the JBC is important for the positions of Regular Members representing law
students’ sector and active law practitioners since there is no other way to screen them.

3. Section 6, R.A. No. 7662

‘The problem with lack of manpower hounds not only the policy-making body of the LEB but
also its administrative and operational services.

As early as January 28, 2011, the LEB, through the CHEd, has requested the Department of
Budget and Management to create 29 regular positions‘ as initial manpower complement.
Said request was reiterated in letters dated August 6, 2013 and December 9, 2013.
However, of the requested positions, only five (5) positions were created, notwithstanding
the fact that they are tasked to implement the policies of the LEB among the 119 law schools
all over the country. Furthermore, these staff members are, to this date, hired on a contract
of service basis, thus, without government benefits.

A. Secretariat positions statutorily established

To prevent the unintended circumstance that a junior member of the Board will serve as the
officer-in-charge, in an acting capacity, the Undersigned respectfully submits that there be
statutorily-provided regular Secretariat positions, namely: (a) Executive Director; (b) Director
for Accreditation and Admission Standards; (c) Director for Finance and Accounting; and (d)
Director for Human Resources. Thus, regardless of the attainment or non-attainment of
quorum in the Board, the LEB’s operation will not be hampered. These positions will, of
course, be subject to ‘x x x national compensation and position classification plan x x x.”

B. Other statutory guarantees to the LEB

‘The Executive Director shall be granted, statutorily, the power to recommend the fixing of the
secretariat's staffing pattern, determination of their duties, qualifications, responsibilities and
functions, as well as the compensation scheme, subject to the Board's approval

To ensure realization of the LEB's functions, it is now expressly mentioned that the Board is
mandated to establish "x x x regional officers for a more efficient discharge of its powers and
functions.x x x." Currently, all applications, requests, and other correspondence from the 119
law schools in the country are forwarded to the lone office located in the City of Manila. If
there can be offices not only for Metro Manila law schools but also those from Luzon,
Visayas, and Mindanao, then administration of legal education will be more efficient.

Also, the CHEd is mandated to provide technical support to the LEB since it has more
experience in administration of higher education. Although the Legal Education Reform Act

* Including the Chairperson and Regular Members.


was enacted a year prior to the Higher Education Act, the LEB was only constituted in 2009
and became operational in 2010.

4, Sections 11 and 13, R.A, No, 7662

As identified by the Undersigned, the lack of funds is part of the three-fold problems that
hamper the LEB from fully realizing its mandate.

A. Extension of the government subsidy as primary source of budget

Section 13 of R.A. No. 7662 as it now stands provides that the National Government,
through the DECS (now CHED), should appropriate P10,000,000 “for a period of ten (10)
years effective Fiscal Year 1994." However, since the LEB was only constituted in 2009, the
period for government subsidy is reckoned from that year.

However, to the mind of the Undersigned, in order for the National Government to
completely and realistically assist the LEB, it is submitted that the period for government
subsidy be extended for another ten years from date of effectivity. This shall be the primary
source of budget for the LEB.

B. Immediate availability for disbursement of the Legal Education Fund to sustain
operations and secure further expansion of the LEB

Section 11 of R.A. No. 7662 provides for a special endowment fund called the Legal
Education Fund. However, to this date, the fund is still unavailable. Thus, the amendment
“{{}he Legal Education Fund shall be immediately available, and in no case later than two (2)
years’ to compel the government agencies concerned to immediately constitute such
‘endowment fund.

The Legal Education Fund will sustain the operations of the LEB even beyond the period of
National Government subsidy, above-proposed to be amended, Furthermore, it will ensure:
that the LEB will effectively and full realize its mandate since it can be used for “faculty
development grants, professorial chairs, library improvements and similar programs for the
advancement of law teaching and education in accredited law schools.”

Just to illustrate how significant the amount is, the annual Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) is
pegged at PhP300.00. With more than 25,000 lawyers in the Philippines, the annual amount
that will revert to the Legal Education Fund is more or less PhP4,500,000.00. This will grow
exponentially as the number of lawyers increase. Thus, the interest coming from this special
endowment fund can, to a great extent, aid the LEB in the realization of its mandate.

Through this, the LEB can now raise the standards of accreditation and admission similar to
that of the American Bar Association, making our law graduates globally competitive,
considering the fact of globalization and the eventual economic integration of the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations.’ Likewise, the LEB can now provide for scholarship programs to
poor and indigent students, children of military members, to senior citizens,” and all other
deserving students who desire to have a law degree. The LEB can now provide for
meaningful seminars on trends in law teaching and clinical legal education,” a more and
scientifically sound pedagogical approaches and an accurate assessment methods of law
students.

* For a more detailed discussion ofthe effects of globalization and ASEAN Economic Community to the Philippine
legal professions, see Chapters IV (B) and Vil of Sucnang JD Thesis, supra note 1

SRA. No. 9984, § 4 (a)

* See Chapters iI (B{2)). Il, IV (C), V (C), and Vil of Suogang JD Thesis (supra note 5) for an in-depth discussion on
teaching methods applicable to law schools


8. Section 7, R.A. No. 7662

After addressing the structural and financial problems experienced by the LEB, the
Undersigned deemed it best to propose amendments that will further increase the quality of
legal education, through express statutory provisions. Thus, he proposes the express
mention in the statute of the following reforms: (a) Mandatory National Law Aptitude Test;
and (b) Mandatory National Law Internship Program, implemented by the LEB through a
National Legal Apprenticeship Center.

A. Statutory mandate to implement a National Law Aptitude Test

It is conceded that having a mandatory National Law Aptitude Test (hereinafter "NLAT") is
already within the powers of the LEB in the exercise of its function to “prescribe minimum
standards for law school admission.” However, in order to compel the LEB to fully use this
power, the Undersigned respectfully submits that such must be mandated by the statute
itself, Therefore, inaction on its part to implement this reform will be compellable through a
petition for mandamus,

Mandating a national law aptitude test will solve two most important problems plaguing
Philippine legal education: (a) low passing rate in the Bar Examinations; and (b) undue
proliferation of law schools.

As it now stands, the Bar Examination is the sole screening process to weed out, ideally and
theoretically, those who are incompetent to practice law. By providing a mechanism, through
a statute passed by Congress itself, only those who have the aptitude for legal studies and,
ultimately, to practice law will be allowed admission to any duly accredited law school. Thus,
this will ensure that only the competent will study law and, after a rigorous training and
screening process in law school, shall take the Bar Examination.”

This amendment adopts the screening process a priori for prospective law students in the
United States of America (i.e., Law School Aptitude Test) and prospective medical students
in the Philippines (i.e., National Medical Admission Test).

Lastly, a mandatory NLAT will prevent the brazen proliferation of law schools since
prospective law students who only are interested to having a law degree for professional
development will be lessened. The Undersigned has observed, although there are available
articles and essays from legal minds, that many law schools which perform dismally are
those who have this kind of law students as their main clientele. Thus, they become a mere
diploma mill and not genuine institutions for legal studies.

B. Statutory mandate to implement a National Law Internship Program

‘A mandatory National Law Internship Program (hereinafter "NLIP") ensures that those who
will be admitted to law practice not only have knowledge but also proficiency in the practice
of law. This is the clinical legal education paradigm which has already adopted in the United
States of America as early as 1960s, Through the NLIP, the oft-repeated concer of
employers of lawyers that Bar passers are not really prepared for practice shall be
answered

Although the 2011 J.D. Model Curriculum’ requires for an internship program, how it is
carried out is left to the discretion of law schools. As such, a number of law schools and

‘ For a more detailed discussion, see Chapter VI (A{1}) and (C{1) of Suegang JO Thesis (supra note 1)
71ER Me Order Na. 1.8552



internship/practicum providers would carry this out for the sake of compliance.® Assuming
arguendo that law schools and internship/practicum providers are serious in the attainment
of their objectives, there is a need to centralize the efforts in order to establish a more
meaninaful curricular and pedagoaical desian for this internship reauirement. Thus, the
Undersigned respectfully proposes that the LEB establish a National Legal Apprenticeship
Center (hereinafter "NLAC") to serve as a policy-making and coordinating body. The
establishment of NLAC will produce the following intended results: (a) institutionalize the
clinical legal education paradiam amona Philinnine law schools: (b) designing a curriculum
wherein law students, as a requirement for graduation, shall be able to experience the
different aspects of law practice (e.g., government, private, and non-governmental/advocacy
organizations); (c) coordinate the efforts of law schools with adjunct legal aid clinics; (d)
establish centers for legal aid for noor and indigent clients that will supplement the legal aid
desks of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Currently, since the most popular legal aid clinic is that of the University of the Philippines
of Legal Aid (hereinafter “OLA"). hundreds of clients flock to it, even if there are legal
aid clinics nearby. This led to the unintended results of burdening OLA with cases beyond its
capacity and shortages of cases in other legal aid clinics. Through the NLAC, the cases can
be distributed or shared among legal aid clinics, thereby providing law students with
meaningful yat nedagogieally-sound experience and equipping for a
future law practice.

Because of its important role in the future practice of law, many jurisdictions have adopted
this condition ® mang them are: the 12-month nunillage in Hong Kong, 19-manth intarnshin
in Israel's Chamber of Advocates, two-year legal apprenticeship in Japan, Pakistan's six-
month apprenticeship under a Chamber of an advocate of not less than ten years, six-month
training period in Sri Lanka, three-year post-bar training requirement in Belgium, three-year
training a2 Coneipient under an advocate in Czech Republic, three-year vocational training
in Denmark, four-year apprenticeship in Finland, 18-month apprenticeship period in
Greece, 18-month in-house at the Law Society of Ireland, 18-month training period in Italy,
three-year training as advocaat-stagiaire in the Netherlands, three-year public service
ment in Sv ticling in a canton in Switzerland, one-year pu;
the United Kingdom, a varying articling requirement in different provinces of Canada, and a
six-month post-graduate professional practice requirement in the Corporacién de Asistencia
Judicial of Chile,

The statutory requirement of mandatory NLIP will not run against the constitutionally-
provided power of the Supreme Court to “{pJromulgate rules concerning... the admission to
the practice of law...""° since the NLIP will be a pre-requisite to graduation to any duly
acoredited law schools and not for law admission

For these reasons, the expeditious passage of this Bill is earnestly sought.

Meg.
RUFUS’B. RODRIGUEZ

MAXIMO B. RQORIGUEZ, JR.

uegang JD Thesis, supra note 1 at 206.
"id, at 204-208.
© Const. art. Vill § 5 (5)


SIXTEENTH CONGRESS )
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
Second Regular Session )

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez and
Representative Maximo B. Rodriquez, Jr.

4788

House Bill No.

AN ACT

AMENDING SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 of REPUBLIC ACT No. 7662,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “LEGAL EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1993,” AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in congress
assembled:

SECTION 1. Section 2 of the Republic Act No, 7662, otherwise known as the “Legal
Education Reform Act of 1993," is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the
State to uplift the standards of legal education in order to prepare law
students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving, and decision-making, to
infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the
importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal and
indispensable partner of the Bench in the administration of justice and to
develop social competence.

Towards this end, the State shall undertake appropriate reforms in the legal
education system, require proper selection of law students, maintain quality
among law schools, and require legal apprenticeship.

SECTION 2. Section 3 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 3. General and Specific Objective of Legal Education. - (a) Legal
education in the Philippines is geared to attain the following objectives:

(1) to prepare students for the practice of law;

(2) to increase awareness among LAW STUDENTS of the needs of the poor,
deprived and oppressed sectors of society;

(3) to train persons for leadership;

(4) to contribute towards the promotion and advancement of justice and the
improvement of its administration, the legal system and legal institutions in
the light of the historical and contemporary development of law in the
Philippines and in other countries.

(b) Legal education shall aim to accomplish the following specific objectives:
(1) to impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its various
fields and of legal institutions;

(2) to enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze,
articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allow them to have a
holistic approach to legal problems and issues;


(3) to prepare law students for advocacy, counselling, problem-solving and
decision-making, and to develop their ability to deal with recognized legal
problems of the present and the future;

(4) to develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful
‘employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond the basic
professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and capacity for
continuing study and self-improvement;

(5) to inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal profession;
and

(6) to produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their
profession and to fully adhere to its ethical norms.”

SECTION 3. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 4, Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. - To carry out
the purpose of this Act, there is hereby created the Legal Education Board,
hereinafter referred to as the Board, attached solely for budgetary purposes
and administrative support to the COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
hereinafter referred to as the Commission.

The Board shall be composed of a CHAIRPERSON and the following as
regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP); a representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a
representative from the ranks of active law practitioners; and, a representative
from the law students’ sector. The CHAIRPERSON of the COMMISSION, or
his representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board.

With the exception of the representative of the law students’ sector, the
Chairman and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizen of
the Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged
for at least ten (5) YEARS in the practice of law, AND ALSO ENGAGED FOR
AT LEAST FIVE (5) YEARS in the teaching of law in a duly authorized or
recognized law school.

PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD SHALL
NOT BE A BAR TO ANY REGULAR MEMBER'S ENGAGING IN LAW
PRACTICE, ESPECIALLY THE TEACHING OF LAW, DURING HIS/HER
TERM OF OFFICE, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL DISPENSATION, IN
WRITING, FROM THE BOARD CHAIRPERSON.”

SECTION 4. Section 5 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 5. Term of Office; Compensation. - The CHAIRPERSON and regular
members of the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term of SIX
(6) YEARS FROM THEIR ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE.

With the exception of the representatives of PALS, PALP and the IBP, the
Chairperson and other regular members of the Board shall be chosen by the
President from a list of at least three (3) nominees prepared, with prior
authorization from the Supreme Court, by the Judicial and Bar Council, for
every position or vacancy, and no such appointment shall need confirmation
by the Commission on Appointments.

UNLESS THE REASON IS DEATH, DISQUALIFICATION OR INCAPACITY,
THE CHAIRPERSON OR ANY REGULAR MEMBER OF THE BOARD,


WHOSE TERM HAS ENDED, SHALL SERVE IN A HOLD-OVER CAPACITY
PENDING THE APPOINTMENT OF HIS/HER SUCCESSOR.

The Chairperson and reqular members of the Board shall have the same
salary and rank as the Chairman and members, respectively, of the
Constitutional Commissions: Provided, That their salaries shall not be
diminished during their term of office.”

SECTION 5. Section 6 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 6. The Secretariat and Staff Support.- The COMMISSION shall
provide the necessary office, to be located in Metropolitan Manila:
PROVIDED, THAT THE BOARD SHALL ESTABLISH REGIONAL OR
PROVINCIAL OFFICES FOR A MORE EFFICIENT DISCHARGE OF ITS
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS. TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT TO THE BOARD SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED BY THE
COMMISSION.

THE BOARD SHALL ORGANIZE A SECRETARIAT WHICH SHALL BE
HEADED BY AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMPLEMENTED BY
OFFICERS FOR ACCREDITATION AND ADMISSION STANDARDS,
FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING, AND HUMAN RESOURCES, SUBJECT TO
THE NATIONAL COMPENSATION AND POSITION CLASSIFICATION
PLAN. IT SHALL FIX THE SECRETARIAT’S STAFFING PATTERN,
DETERMINE THE DUTIES, QUALIFICATIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND
FUNCTIONS, AS WELL AS THE COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR THE
POSITIONS TO BE CREATED UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. IT SHALL ALSO PREPARE AND APPROVE ITS
BUDGET.

The Board may appoint such other officers and members of the staff it may
deem necessary in the performance of its powers and functions.”

SECTION 6. Section 3 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 7. Powers and Functions.- For the purpose of achieving the
objectives of this Act, the Board shall havethe following powers and functions:
(a) to administer the legal education system in the country in a manner
consistent with the provisions of this Act;

(b) to supervise the law schools in the country, consistent with its powers and
functions as herein enumerated;

(c) to set the standards of accreditation for law schools taking into account,
among others, the size of enrollment, the qualifications of the members of the
faculty, the library and other facilities, without encroaching upon the academic
freedom of institutions of higher learning;

(d) to accredit law schools that meet the standards of accreditation;

(e) to prescribe minimum standards for law SCHOOL admission INCLUDING
A_ MANDATORY NATIONAL LAW APTITUDE TEST WHICH A
PROSPECTIVE LAW STUDENT SHALL TAKE AS A PRE-REQUISITE TO
ENROLLMENT IN ANY DULY ACCREDITED LAW SCHOOL. FOR THIS
PURPOSE, THE BOARD SHALL PRESCRIBE THE NECESSARY
GUIDELINES FOR SUCH MANDATORY TEST WHICH SHALL BE
IMPLEMENTED WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS FROM EFFECTIVITY OF THIS
LAW;

(F) to prescribe minimum qualifications and compensation of faculty


members;

(G) to prescribe the basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the
fequirements for admission to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness,
and such other courses of study as may be prescribed by the law schools and
colleges under the different levels of accreditation status;

(H) to establish a MANDATORY NATIONAL LAW INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE (12) CONSECUTIVE MONTHS during the law
course as a requirement for GRADUATION IN A DULY ACCREDITED LAW
SCHOOL WHICH SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS
FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS LAW. For this purpose, the Board shall
prescribe the necessary guidelines FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
NATIONAL LEGAL APPRENTICESHIP CENTER HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS THE CENTER WHICH SHALL BE THE LEAD
COORDINATING AGENCY FOR ALL ADJUNCT LEGAL AID CLINICS AND
OFFICES OF LAW SCHOOLS, THE CENTER SHALL BE PRIMARILY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCREDITATION of private or public law office or
firm or legal assistance group, INCLUDING LEGAL AID CLINICS, and the
specifications of such internship which shall include, IN ALL ASPECTS OF
training, the actual work of a new member of the Bar; AND

(1) to perform such other functions and prescribe such rules and regulations
necessary for the attainment of the policies and objectives of this Act.”

SECTION 7. Section 11 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 11. Legal Education Fund,- There is hereby created a special
endowment fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, which shall be
under the control of the Board, and administered as a separate fund by the
Social Security System (SSS) which shall invest the same with due and
prudent regard to its solvency, safety and liquidity.

The Legal Education Fund shall be shall be established out of, and
maintained from, the amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph 2, Section
13 hereof, and from sixty percent (60%) of the privilege tax paid by every
lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994; and from such donations, legacies, grant-
in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the Board for the purposes
of this Act.

Being a special endowment fund, only the interests earned on the Legal
Education Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes of this Act,
including support for faculty development grants, professorial chairs, library
improvements and similar programs for the advancement of law teaching and
education in accredited law schools.

The Fund shall also be used for the operation of the Board. For this purpose,
an amount not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the interest on the Fund shall
be utilized.

The Legal Education Fund shall be IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE, AND IN NO
CASE LATER THAN TWO (2) YEARS. The Board, in consultation with the
SSS, shall issue the necessary rules and regulations for the collection,
administration and utilization of the Fund.


SECTION 8, Section 13 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 13. Appropriation. - The amount of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be charged against the current year's
appropriation of the Contingent Fund for the initial expenses of the Board.

To form part of the Legal Education Fund, there shall be appropriated
annually, under the budget of the COMMISSION, the amount of Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for a period of ten (10) years from THE DATE OF
EFFECTIVITY OF THIS LAW."

SECTION 9. Separability Clause. — \f any section or provision of this Act shall be declared
invalid or unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the other sections or provisions not
affected shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 19. Repealing Clause. - All existing laws, decrees, orders, or parts thereof,
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, modified or superseded.

Section 20. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following
its publication in two (2) maior newspapers national circulation

Approved,