Posted on March 30, 2008 in Bar Exams
We’ve seen, in the past three or four days, a sudden buzz of comments and activities in this blog centered on the bar exams. Three times the site broke down due to the surge in traffic. After more than 1,500 combined comments in two blog entries (here and here) relating to the 2007 bar exams, we’ve seen, after a long and suspense-filled wait, the victors. Questions arise as the dust settles.
Why the sudden flow of heavy traffic? To be sure, the 2007 bar exams is not the most controversial — that is perhaps reserved to the previous commercial law leakage. Perhaps it’s arguable that it’s not the most difficult, although let’s not really go there. Suffice it to say that while examinees may have been caught offguard with what is “co-determination” in labor law, previous examinees were less fortunate when the “writ of amparo,” years before it was introduced and became controversial in the Philippines, was asked.
Maybe the interest lies in the fact that only 5% originally passed, then pulled up to 20%. Many are asking if the questions are really difficult. Some are unfairly asking if this is a weaker batch. Why do they have to pull it up to more than 20%? These are only some of the questions that have surfaced. Still, no matter what the criticism is, the increase certainly benefited hundreds of examinees.
Maybe it’s time to revisit the bar exam reforms.
Loading ...
Bar exam is a test to determine the legal knowledge of the Bar examinee. Yes it’s true that a Lawyer must have a good writing skill, but good writing skill should be learned in Law School not during the Bar Exam. This is the reason why we have so many lawyers who lack legal knowledge because some of them pass because of lack and good writing skill. Imagine a doctor who lack medical knowledge, what do you think will happen? It is the same with the legal profession; it will be the justice system in the country that will ultimately suffer. As the saying goes: “Those who have less in life should have more in law”, but how do you expect a lawyer who lacks legal knowledge to give a competent legal advice to the poor if they themselves do not know their law.
There are many ways to improve the ability of the bar examinee to improve his writing skills during his four years of study in law school. We could even imposed a mandatory 16 units in English, and do not allow them to graduate in law school if they did not passed these 16 units in English.
To Atty. D:
By saying “we” you mean your opinion is also that of the entire member of the IBP? With a self-serving statement like that, it’s good that you “manage” to pass the bar. I wonder how you’d fare if you took the 2007 bar yourself? It’s good also that the Supreme Court did not look at the situation like you do; they agree that there was something wrong with the checking that’s why they decided to increase the passing percentage.
Hi Lenard,
I am just curious.
How is English instruction done in law schools?
EXCESSES:
1. By the way I think this should have been written in your previous post:
“…We could even ‘IMPOSE’ a mandatory 16 units in English, and do not allow them to graduate ‘FROM’ law school if they ‘DO’ not ‘PASS’ these 16 units in English…”
instead of:
“…We could even imposed a mandatory 16 units in English, and do not allow them to graduate in law school if they did not passed these 16 units in English…”
2. I am baffled by your statements here:
“…Yes it’s true that a Lawyer must have a good writing skill, but good writing skill should be learned in Law School not during the Bar Exam. This is the reason why we have so many lawyers who lack legal knowledge because some of them pass because of lack and good writing skill…”
Please advise/qualify.Thanks!
Please don’t mind Atty D. He’s not a lawyer.
Thank you, Mr. Mike for checking my grammar. I appreciate that. Don’t worry next time I will be more careful. By the way, it is not lack but luck. Perhaps, I should often give more comments in this blog so that I would be able to improve my English.
Mr. Mike, what is there to be qualified? I said some lawyers not all Lawyers. I’m sorry but I believe you do not know what it means by qualified. Please defend yourself. Thank you.
Most of the people living in other countries like Japan, Singapore, US etc., are aware of their rights under the law. Why? Their lawyers know their law very well. In Philippines, most of the people are not aware of their rights or most of them are misguided by some incompetent lawyers.Why? How do you expect people to know their rights under the Law if some Lawyers themselves do not know their law. And most of these Lawyers are the ones who use bribery to resolve their legal problem. Why? Because they do not how to do it in a legal way. Why? They just pass the bar exam by pure luck. I hope Atty. D is not included in this lists of pure luck Lawyers. Joke only Atty. D.
Most of the people living in other countries like Japan, Singapore, US etc., are aware of their rights under the law. Why? Their lawyers know their law very well. In Philippines, most of the people are not aware of their rights or most of them are misguided by some incompetent lawyers. Why? How do you expect people to know their rights under the Law if some Lawyers themselves do not know their law? And most of these Lawyers are the ones who use bribery to resolve their legal problem. Why? The reason is some of these Lawyers do not how to do it in a legal way. Why? They just pass the bar exam by pure luck. I hope Atty. D is not included in this lists of pure luck Lawyers. Joke only Atty. D.
Nawiwindang ako mga comments dito. Haha
I still insist na in order to have a very accurate and a very very objective way in checking bar exam, a multiple choice ang gagamitin ng SC to test the theoritical aspect or the legal knowledge ng isang barista. If you please, you may call it phase I in the Bar exam. Then ang Phase II naman is a test for the examinee’s reasoning skills. Pratical exam, eka nga and in this way na talagang malalaman mo (ideally)kung sinong karapatdapat na maging abogado. But on the other hand, I also believe na ang phase I, as I suggested, is enough measure. Although it cannot test the reasoning skills ng mga “would be lwyers” but let it be! Kasi, after all in practice matototo rin naman sila. O, kung di talaga nila alam na mag-reason out (which is highly impossible!) eh di mawawalan sila ng cliente! It is a simple as that. In reality nga there are so many lawyers na alang trabaho! So, what’s the big deal?
O better still abolish the bar exam! Nah, joke only!!!!
Ewan ko ba! Bat nagdadalamhati pa rin ako until now? Basta bagsak ako sa Bar ngayon and I am wondering where did I fall short!
Really bar exam mystifies me…
why cant there be a published guidelines on how the test booklet is being graded? anyway publication is a common requirement nowadays
its true
for so many times, ive known new lawyers for the past five bar exams who is unsure how they passed
in the same vein, there are lot of questions how can one came short when he is confident he got the right answers
who were etc- maybe its the grammars, never mind the substance of the answer
This website quotes Justice Puno himself – “the Almighty has a plan for all of us and I agree that the All Seeing Eye does not play dice with our destinies. Indeed, even pain has a purpose”.
The issues hounding the 2007 Bar Exams are capable of being addressed by humans, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the examiners. Hence, I feel that in the 2007 Bar Examinations, THE EXAMINERS AND THE SC JUSTICES HAVE PLAYED DICE WITH OUR DESTINIES.
Ok, I didn’t make it so my opinion may seem to be an expression of bitterness. But still believe, like many others that something went wrong.
atty.D, i strongly disagree that we’re a weak batch, maybe we were not just as LUCKY as you were when you took the exam. We may have been unlucky but that doesn’t mean that we’re not as good as you… oh, maybe not coz maybe we’re better. it just so happened that you got LUCKY!!
I think the decision of the SC to lower the passing percentage to 70% is unacceptable. First, lowering the passing percentage is tantamount to changing the rules of the game while the players are playing or have already played. Second, it gives the impression that bar examinations are flawed. And that putting bar examination to thrash is a feasible option, especially so when the good Justice (Azcuna) uttered the words ‘unusually strict’ and ‘unusually difficult’. These words which are meant to describe some of the bar examination subjects and checking are indications of unvalidated bar examinations.. The basic principle of test construction that is ‘validation’ is downright violated. The SC should have evaluated each item in every subject in order to avoid unpleasant scenarios. Third, the lowering did not only tarnish the 2007 bar examination but it likewise tarnished the reputation of more than a thousand bar passers…
The lowering of dq mark is likewise unacceptable. The examiners, during the checking of bar booklets, have the mindset that the dq mark is 50. when the examiner gives lower than 50, say 49, 48, etc, he gives it with a mindset that the examinee is not really qualified to be a lawyer. Aside from that, it would be unfair for those examinees who did not make it because they were disqualified in, say ,subjects other than civil and labor but got 75 or higher in average. It would be most fair to lower the dq mark for all the subjects.
May the good justice answer the following issues:
1. if for instance an examinee got 49 in political law but did good in civil and labor law and in all other subjects; and got an average of 75, would it be fair to him to flunk the bar? Who is the better examinee, the one who got an average of 70 and 46 in Labor and qualified, or that examinee who got an average of 75 in all subjects but was disqualified because he only got 49 in any subject other than civil and labor?
2. Would it be fair to those examinees in previous bar examinations who got 74. something and flunked?
3. Would the lowering of the percentage change the truth that that there were only 281 examinees who passed the 75 mark?
So frustrating was the result of the 2007 Bar exam. I bet, kung pagsama-samahin ang mga topnotchers before and they will take the 2007 Bar exam, majority of them cannot make it to the top! Grabi no?!
The problem here now is, all those who fail in this Bar exam will suffer adversely of the consequences which practically speaking are not of their own doing. What I mean is, the big factor why they fail is the way the EXAMINERS checked their papers!
Kung pwede pa lang na e-envalidate ang 2007 bar result (except sa result ng mga pumasa) at mag REMOVAL uli. GAnda sana no?! Is this possible?????