Bar exams and legal education (1)

Conducted annually on the four Sundays of October, the bar examinations determine who will be blessed to carry the exalted title of “attorney-at-law” and allowed to practice law in all courts in our country.

Bar mystique. The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) supervises the entry to all professions in the Philippines, except the legal profession which is reserved by the Constitution for the Supreme Court. The PRC-administered tests are called “licensure examinations.”

However, the crucible of lawyers is referred to as the “bar” exam, not because they are more addicted to alcoholic drinks, but because only those who pass it may cross the courtroom railing or bar that separates the lawyers’ table and the judges’ bench, on one hand, from the seats used by the general public, on the other. Hence, lawyers are collectively referred to as the “bar” and judges, the “bench.”

The bar exam used to be attended by fanfare galore.

Undergraduates held parades and motorcades complete with marching bands and cheering squads that accompanied their school candidates’ rides to the exam venue. This gaudy practice had been banned by the Supreme Court during the last several years.

But the mystique explodes when the results are released. Traditional and social media herald the passers, complete with the pictures of the topnotchers plastered on the front pages of newspapers and interviewed over radio and television. Law schools take enormous pride in their bar placers and average passing rates. One institution, the University of Cebu, gifts its top 10 with brand-new cars. The most prestigious law firms and best-managed companies offer fantastic opportunities and compensation to the top placers.

My personal experience. I took the bar exam in 1960 without this opening-day fanfare. In fact, on the first day of our exam, I had to wade alone in rain-induced, knee-deep flood on R. Papa Street, Sampaloc, Manila, which connected the then Far Eastern University Hospital (where I was confined for intestinal flu) and the University of the East, the situs of the exam.

Because of my illness, I felt I may have failed the first-day subjects and seriously thought of quitting. But our dean, Dr. Jovito R. Salonga, pepped me up and urged me to go on. Recalling this incident in a speech on Jan. 22, 2008, at FEU, Dr. Salonga opined that “CJ Panganiban could have landed first place (instead of sixth) had he not been sick and hospitalized during the first week of the 1960 bar exam.”

I mention this because I believe that placing in the top 10 is not always a reliable measure of achievement. In fact, a classmate and I compared our answers after each exam day. I was so impressed with my friend’s answers that I expected him to fare better than me.

The point is that the questions during my time called mostly for essay answers and memory work. I thought my classmate’s citation of authorities was more impressive than mine. But apparently, the examiner’s evaluation of our answers was quite subjective and probably veered toward my essayed opinions. Hence, my grades were higher.

Exam scope and methodology. The subjective methodology and scope of the bar exam have not improved much since I took it. The basic subjects are the same, except that for this year, two subjects—taxation and labor law—were added, and the methodology changed to 20 percent multiple choice questions (MCQ) and 80 percent essay.

Inquirer publisher Raul C. Pangalangan lamented in his column on Nov. 25, 2011, that “[t]he bar exams have been administered on basically the same template… The model remained unchanged at least for the last 50 years…”

To be fair, however, let me say that during the last decade, the Supreme Court tried to improve the bar exam. Thus, in a resolution issued on June 8, 2004 (Bar Matter 1161), the Court favorably acted on the reforms proposed by retired Justices Vicente V. Mendoza, Ameurfina M. Herrera and Jose C. Vitug (See my April 22, 2007, column for details).

Moreover, the Court instituted more reforms in another resolution on Jan. 18, 2011, with MCQ at 60 percent of the total exams to measure the “knowledge and recall of laws, doctrines and jurisprudence” of the candidates plus 40 percent essay-type questions to test their “skill in writing in English, sorting out the relevant facts in a legal dispute… organizing [their] thoughts, constructing [their] arguments, and persuading readers to [their] point of view.”

However, the essays were not “bar subject specific,” igniting fiery howling from the candidates. In 2012, the Supreme Court reverted to the “bar subject specific” essays at 40 percent and MCQs at 60 percent.

In the 2013 exam, this was changed to 20 percent MCQ and 80 percent essay. This is the same format for next month’s exam, chaired by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.

* * *

The Supreme Court unanimously voided the Commission on Elections’ edict reducing TV-radio ads during elections to an “aggregate total” of only 120 minutes for TV and 180 minutes for radio per national candidate. As I argued in my Feb. 24, 2013, column, this “draconian reduction suppressed the people’s right to know their candidates, and the aspirants’ rights to inform the electorate of their qualifications and programs of government.”

The good news, however, is that the Comelec accepted its defeat graciously and will not ask for reconsideration. And the better news is that it will, as it should, enforce strictly the legal limits on the candidates’ campaign expenses.

* * *

Comments to [email protected]