Bar hopping

The first (of four) Sundays of the 2011 bar examinations went as smoothly as expected — all things considered.

This was a game-changing exam in several respects. Aside from introducing a different “how” (i.e. multiple-choice questions and “tests of lawyering skills” in the form of memoranda and opinion writing), the “where” and the “when” were also modified. From De La Salle, Taft, the venue was moved to the University of Santo Tomas, while the timing was returned from September to November.

Whereas in the past, on the first Sunday, the bar candidates had to contend with the traffic caused by the annual “Alay Lakad,” this year’s inconvenience was occasioned by intermittent rain (that created puddles along flood-prone España). There was initial confusion, as the examinees scrambled to locate their respective room assignments, but one has to hand it to law students and their innate knack for figuring things out, as they were able to make it just in time for the 8 a.m. starting bell.

* * *

The deans of the various law schools — over 100 throughout the country — likewise found themselves in a quandary, as they tried to locate the venue of the “traditional breakfast” with the Bar Chairperson, to discuss the questions and suggested answers to the first subject (Political Law). Ruffled egos were quickly assuaged and pacified by the lavish buffet spread and free-flowing freshly-brewed Figaro coffee prepared by the host law school, led by its amiable dean, Nilo Divina.

By and large, it seems that the deans were satisfied with the “reasonableness” of the political law MCQs. However, initial feedback received from the bar candidates were of the opposite opinion. In the end, the proof of the testing will be in the grading, so the jury is still out on this examination. (It bears stressing that on the shoulders of this batch rests the fate of the future of these kinds of examinations.)

* * *

One important issue discussed during the Deans’ meeting was whether the MCQs and their corresponding answers would be released after the examinations. The argument for non-disclosure is that the Supreme Court is currently building its data bank for future use. Moreover, releasing the questions might encourage future examinees to focus simply on practicing with MCQs rather than really learning the law.

If we look, however, at the experience of the United States (from which these changes derive their “inspiration”), the supposed drawback has not materialized. Au contraire, “dis-equating” the practice of law with bar performance has, perhaps, compelled US lawyers to aim for the true prize of successfully hurdling the bar exams: the privilege to practice law, and serve the ends of justice.

The paradigm shifts. “Becoming a lawyer,” then, becomes a continuous process and lifelong vocation, as opposed to a terminal event when one hurdles the bar. 

At the same time, on a pragmatic level, disclosure serves best those who might fall by the wayside. Failing is one thing — but there is nothing more damning than not knowing what, where, and why.

The integrity of this system of examinations is premised, in part, on its transparency. Because the examiner has very limited discretion in marking the papers, the disclosure of the questionnaires and answers (which, in the past, were always furnished after the exams) would reveal not just the examinee’s mistakes, but quite possibly, the examiner’s.

It is part of their education to help them learn from their mistakes: lest they be inclined to cast the blame elsewhere, they should be chalking it up to experience and charging headlong towards “try again.”

* * *

In his prefatory remarks, 2011 Bar Chairman, Justice Roberto Abad, provided a brief history of the bar exams. Since its inception in 1901 by an American Justice, E. Finley Johnson (who was then serving in the Philippine Supreme Court), its coverage has been modified over the years to reflect the changing needs of the legal profession.

(The highest passing percentage of 75.14 percent was registered during the 1954 bar, while the lowest rate was 16.59 percent during the 1999 bar. This year, my fearful forecast is a passing rate in the 30s.)

To give proper credit where credit is due, the person who first advocated bar reforms in the early 2000s was Justice Vicente Mendoza. The person who carried it through, and actualized the good intentions by implementing these reforms is Justice Abad, whose efforts should earn him the accolade, “Father of the Modern Bar Examination.” (It will be up to the 2012 Bar Chairman, Justice Martin Villarama, to follow and build on the gains achieved thus far.)

* * *

My four centavos is that the changes implemented are steps in the right direction. The new testing methodology is in accord with international best practices and testing trends. Moreover, this will compel law schools to provide their students, not only with “academic and classroom” training, but, more importantly, equip them with “real world and practical life” skills for the practice of law.

We have too many lawyers, but still too little justice.

In this regard, bar reforms, if they are to be meaningful, must be complemented by reforms in legal education. In the past, for example, “legal ethics” was known more as a bothersome chore — apart from being a misnomer — bearing significance, only for the purposes of passing the bar exams, but not in actual practice. Or, for example, the practice of rote “recitation” where the students churn out the words and mouth the answers, without really thinking about them. There’s hardly anything “Socratic” about that method.

Hurdling the bar exams is just a means to an end. Knowing this is important, lest our would-be lawyers become nothing more than glorified “test takers” — who pass the bar, but fail the practice. Truly, they will need to know that they need to learn.

* * *

 “The difference between school and life? In school, you’re taught a lesson and then given a test. In life, you’re given a test that teaches you a lesson.”          – Tom Bodett

* * *

E-mail:[email protected]