The enactment of RA 7662 was in the proper exercise of police

power

Police power

Police power is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution

to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws
for the good and welfare of the State and its people. 1 Police power is validly
exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the
means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object
sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. 2 It is
the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education,
good order or safety, and the general welfare of the people flows from the
recognition that salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is
the supreme law.3

The Section 2 of the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993, in its

declaration of policies, declared that it is 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 and continuing legal
education. 4

In this regard, the enactment of the Legal Education Reform Act of

1993 was in the proper exercise of police power. The police power as

1 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, INC., Et al. v. City Mayor of Manila,
G.R. No. L-24693 October 23, 1967

2 Article XIV, Section 5(3)

3 Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No.
170656, 15 August 2007, 530 SCRA 341.

4 Legal Education Reform Act of 1993

aforementioned involves the regulation of the legal education. Legal
education is a road less travelled but deal with the lives and properties of the
state and its people. The Legal Education Board (LEB) deals with the
importance of education of future lawyers. Such importance of the legal
education serves as a drive for a more regulated approach in uplifting the
standards of legal education.

As enunciated in DECS v. San Diego5, while every person is entitled to

aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor.
This is true of any other calling in which the public interest is involved; and
the closer the link, the longer the bridge to one's ambition. The State has the
responsibility to harness its human resources and to see to it that they are
not dissipated or, no less worse, not used at all. These resources must be
applied in a manner that will best promote the common good while also
giving the individual a sense of satisfaction.

In the same vein, a person cannot insist on being a physician if he will

be a menace to his patients. If one who wants to be a lawyer may prove
better as a plumber, he should be so advised and advised. Of course, he may
not be forced to be a plumber, but on the other hand he may not force his
entry into the bar. By the same token, a student who has demonstrated
promise as a pianist cannot be shunted aside to take a course in nursing,
however appropriate this career may be for others.6

As above discussed, if one who wants to be a lawyer, he may not force

his entry into the bar since the profession affects the lives of the people and
the lives will be greatly jeopardized if the legal education is not regulated.
Hence, the enactment of Legal Education Reform Act was in the proper
exercise of police power since there is a clear distinction as to the interests
of the public generally, and (b) the creation of LEB is reasonably necessary
for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and it is not
unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Valid delegation of legislative power

5 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) and DIRECTOR OF

CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT v. ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO and
JUDGE TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989

6 Supra note 5
Legislative power

The legislative power of the Government is vested exclusively in the

Legislature in accordance with the doctrine of separation of powers. As a
general rule, the Legislature cannot surrender or abdicate its legislative
power, for doing so will be unconstitutional. Although the power to make
laws cannot be delegated by the Legislature to any other authority, a power
that is not legislative in character may be delegated.7

Under certain circumstances, the Legislature can delegate to executive

officers and administrative boards the authority to adopt and promulgate
IRRs. To render such delegation lawful, the Legislature must declare the
policy of the law and fix the legal principles that are to control in given cases.
The Legislature should set a definite or primary standard to guide those
empowered to execute the law. For as long as the policy is laid down and a
proper standard is established by statute, there can be no unconstitutional
delegation of legislative power when the Legislature leaves to selected
instrumentalities the duty of making subordinate rules within the prescribed
limits, although there is conferred upon the executive officer or
administrative board a large measure of discretion. There is a distinction
between the delegation of power to make a law and the conferment of an
authority or a discretion to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law,
for the power to make laws necessarily involves a discretion as to what it
shall be.8

The above jurisprudence reiterated the completeness test and the

sufficient standard test for the validity of delegation of legislative power. The
RA 7622 adequately states the policy and standards to guide the LEB in
achieving the objectives of the Act. Section 2 spells out the policies of the
law:

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

7 Crawford, Earl. T., The Construction of Statutes, Thomas Law Book Company, St. Louis,
Missouri, pp. 24-25 (1940).

8 Supra note 7
 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
and continuing legal education.9

Hence, reiterating the given policies of RA 7622, the objectives set

forth in Section 2 fixed a definite standard to guide the LEB. The policy was
clearly laid down and a proper standard was established by the statute.
These rules reinforced the point that there can be no unconstitutional
delegation of legislative power as long as is within the ambit of the policy.
The policies of the Act clearly established that it only involves legal
education and in no way considered the very rule making power of the
Legislative to be considered as undue delegation of legislative power.

9 Supra note 4