EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS )
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
First Regular Session )

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

7 Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez
2836
House Bill No.

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,

4. 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, [Langdell] 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 Collumbus 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 pedagogy 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 regular 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
dato, the LEB has been limited, in its operation, to the accreditation of law schools.

To address the first problem, the Undersigned respectfully submits the following proposals:

‘Suegang JD Thesis, cting B Kimball, The Langdel Problem: Historiizing the Century of Historiography, 1906-
2000, Law and History Review. Vol. 22, No, 2 (2004)


A. Longer term

With the influx of technological and scientific advancements, the positions of Chairperson
‘and Regular Members calll 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 R.A. 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
JBC process


To further facilitate effective and continuous representation, the Undersigned proposes that
applicants for the positions of Regular Members representing the PALS, PALP and IBF 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
Mill 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 (4)
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."
8. 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

* inchuding 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
“{t]he Legal Education Fund shall be immediately available, and in no case later than two (2)
years’ to compel the government agencies concemed 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 @ more detailed discussion of the effects of gfobalization and ASEAN Economic Community tothe Philippine
legal professions, see Chapters IV (B) and VII of Suegang JD Thesis, supra note 1

"RA. No. 9904, § 4 (9)
B25 Staters i (12). IV (C). V (C) and Vil of Suogang JD Thesis (supra nate 5) for an in-depth discussion on

teeching methods applicable to iaw schools


5. 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 concem 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 Chaptor VI (A [1] and (C{1}) of Sucgang JD Thesis (supra note 1)
” LEB Memorandum Order No. 1, § 5.2


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
meaningful curricular and pedagogical design for this internship requirement. 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 paradigm among Philippine 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; (4)
establish centers for legal aid for poor 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
Office 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 yet pedagogically-sound experience and equipping them with practical skills for a
future law practice.

Because of its important role in the future practice of law, many jurisdictions have adopted
this condition,” among them are: the 12-month pupillage in Hong Kong, 12-month intemship
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 as Concipient 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
requirement in Sweden, two-year articling in a canton in Switzerland, one-year pupillage in
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
accredited law schools and not for law admission.

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

1,

Lt
RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ

* Suegang JD Thesis, supra note 1 at 206
° 1d, at 208-208,
® CONST. at. Vi § 5 (5)


EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS )
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
First Regular Session )

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez -_

House Bill No, 2836

AN ACT
STRENGTHENING THE LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD, THEREBY AMENDING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7662, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “LEGAL EDUCATION
REFORM ACT OF 1993” AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
Assembled:

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

“SEC. 2. Declaration of Policies. - xxx

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 AND CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION.

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

“SEC. 3. General and Specific Objectives 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 [members of the legal profession] 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 shalll 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:

(6) 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.”

SEC. 3. Section 4 of the same Act if hereby amended to read as follows’

“SEC. 4. Legal Education Board; Creation and Composition. ~ To carry out the
purposes 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 [chairman] CHAIRPERSON [who shall preferably
be a former justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeais,) and the following as regular
board members: a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); a
representative of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS); a representative of the
Philippine Association of Law Professors (PALP); a representative from the ranks of active
law practitioners; and [,] a representative from the law students’ sector. The [Secretary of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports] CHAIRPERSON of the COMMISSION, or
his/HER representative, shall be an ex officio member of the Board.

With the exception of the representative of the law students’ sector, the [Chairman]
CHAIRPERSON and regular members of the Board must be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and members of the Philippine Bar, who have been engaged for at least ten (10)
years in the practice of law, [as well as] 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 ENGAGEMENT IN LAW PRACTICE AND THE TEACHING OF
LAW, DURING THE TERM OF OFFICE, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL DISPENSATION, IN
WRITING, FROM THE BOARD CHAIRPERSON UNLESS THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT
OF INTEREST INVOLVED: PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT APPOINTMENT TO THE
BOARD SHALL NOT BE A BAR TO THE CHAIRPERSON’S ENGAGEMENT IN THE
TEACHING OF LAW IN A DULY AUTHORIZED OR RECOGNIZED LAW SCHOOL
UNLESS THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST INVOLVED.”

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

“SEC. 5. Term of Office; Compensation. — The [Chairman] CHAIRPERSON and
regular members of the Board shall be appointed by the President for a term of [five (5)
years without reappointment 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. Of those first appointed, the Chairman and the representative of the IBP shall
hold office for five (5) years the representative of the PALS and the PALP for three (3) years;
and the representative from the ranks of active law practitioners and the representative of
the law students’ sector for one (1) year, without reappointment. Appointments to any
vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor.) SIX (6)
YEARS FROM THEIR ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE WITHOUT REAPPOINTMENT.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF PALS, PALP, AND THE
IBP, THE CHAIRPERSON AND REGULAR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SHALL BE
CHOSEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES 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 APPOINTMENT.

THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND REGULAR MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD SHALL BE RECKONED FROM THEIR ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE

UNLESS THE REASON IS DEATH, DISQUALIFICATION OR INCAPACITY, THE
CHAIRPERSON OR ANY REGULAR MEMBER OF THE BOARD WHOSE TERM HAS
ENDED, SHALL SERVE IN HOLD-OVER CAPACITY PENDING THE APPOINTMENT OF
THE SUCCESSOR IN CONSONANCE WITH JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINE.

The [Chairman] CHAIRPERSON and regular members of the Board shall have the
same salary, (and] rank, PRIVILEGES, AND RETIREMENT AND OTHER BENEFITS as the
[Chairman] CHAIRPERSON and members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions:
Provided, That their salaries shall not be diminished during their term of office.”

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

“SEC. 6. Office and [StaffSupport] STAFF SUPPORT. The [Department of Education,
Culture and Sports] BOARD SHALL ORGANIZE A SECRETARIAT WHICH SHALL BE
HEADED BY AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMPLEMENTED BY OFFICERS FOR
ACCREDITAITON 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, RESPONSIBILITES 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.”

XXX

WHEN THE NECESSITY ARISES, AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD, IT
SHALL ESTABLISH ONE OFFICE IN THE VISAYAS AND ONE OFFICE IN MINDANAO
FOR A MORE EFFICIENT DISCHARGE OF ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.

SEC. 6. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 7. Powers and Functions. For the purpose of achieving the objectives of this
Act, the Board shalll have the 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 law schools in the country, BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC, UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, 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 [and minimum
qualifications and compensation of faculty members], 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 THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT;

(f) to prescribe the [basic curricula for the course of study aligned to the
requirements 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] MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS AND
COMPENSATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS;

(g) to [establish a law practice internship as a requirement for taking the Bar which a
law student shall undergo with any duly accredited private or public law office or
firm or legal assistance group anytime during the law course for a specific period
that the Board may decide, but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months. For
this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the necessary guidelines for such
accreditation and the specifications of such intemship which shall include the
actual work of a new member of the Bar] PRESCRIBE THE BASIC CURRICULA
FOR THE COURSE OF STUDY ALIGNED TO THE REQUIREMENTS 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 adopt _a system of continuing legal education. For this purpose, the Board
may provide for the mandatory attendance of {practising} practicing lawyers in
such courses and for such duration as the Board may deem necessary; and]
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 ACT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE BOARD
SHALL PRESCRIBE THE NECESSARY GUIDELIENS 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
MEMEBR OF THE BAR; AND

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

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

“SEC. 11. Legal Education Fund. There is hereby created a special endowment
fund, to be known as the Legal Education Fund, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
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 established out of, and maintained from the
amounts appropriated to paragraph 2, Section 13 hereof, and from sixty percent (60%)
percent of the privilege tax paid by every lawyer effective Fiscal Year 1994,THE
COLLECTIONS OF FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GOVERNMENT PERMIT OR
GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION, FEES FOR OFFICIAL CERTIFICATIONS AND
REGISTRATION FEES IN SEMINARS CONDUCTED BY THE BOARD AND THE LIKE; and
from such donations, legacies, grants-in-aid and other forms of contributions received by the
Board for the purposes of this Act.

TO THIS END, THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO COLLECT SAID REASONABLE
FEES SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT AUDIT AND OTHER GOVERNMENT RULES.

IN A PROPER CASE AND WITH DUE OBSERVANCE OF DUE PROCESS, THE
BOARD MAY IMPOSE REASONABLE FINES ON LAW SCHOOLS FOUND OPERATING
THE LAW PROGRAM IN VIOLATION OF LAW OR THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
THE BOARD.

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];
UNLESS FOR GOOD REASON, THE BOARD DECIDES TO UTILIZE A BIGGER
PERCENTAGE OF SAID INTEREST WHICH IN NO CASE SHALL EXCEED FIFTY
PERCENT (50%).

THE FUND SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE, AND IN NO CASE, LATER
THAN TWO (2) YEARS. The Board, in consultation with the SSS, shalll issue the necessary
tules and regulations for the collection, administration and utilization of the Fund.

THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (DILG) HAS THE PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY OF ENSURING THE
PROMPT REMITTANCE BY THE MUNICIPAL AND CITY TREASURERS NOT LATER
THAN THE END OF EACH FISCAL YEAR THE SIXTY PERCENT (60%) OF THE
PRIVILEGE TAX PAID BY LAWYERS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS SUBJECT
TO GOVERNMENT AUDIT AND OTHER PERTINENT RULES AND REGULATIONS.

THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AND/OR THE MUNICIPAL AND CITY
TREASURERS UNDER THIS PROVSION IS COMPELLABLE BY MANDAMUS, IT BEING
A DERELICTION OF DUTY.”

SEC. 8. Section 13 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

‘SEC. 13. Appropriations. The amount of [One] THREE million pesos
[(P1,000,000.00] (P3,000,000.00) 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 [Department of Education, Culture and Sports] COMMISSION, the
amount of [Ten] FORTY million pesos {(P10,000,000.00)} (P40,000,000.00) for a period of
ten (10) years [effective Fiscal Year 1994] FROM THE DATE OF EFFECTIVITY OF THIS
ACT.”


SEC. 9. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act or any part thereof shall be
declared invalid or unconstitutional, the other sections or provisions not affected shall
remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 10. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts
thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended
or modified accordingly.

SEC. 11. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation

Approved,