Getting ready to take the bar exam

The bar exam season is approaching its crescendo and bar reviewees all go into high gear as they approach what marathon runners call “the final mile.” The finish line is barely visible but clearly audible are the encouraging cheers of friends and family waiting at the tape.

On October 5 and the next 3 Sundays, most bar reviewees will be bar takers. Enthusiasm is high, even if, as everyone knows, only a small fraction of bar takers will next year be rejoicing as bar passers.

The Supreme Court, towards this end, recently issued its “Guide and Rules of Conduct to the 2014 Bar Examinations.” The Supreme Court itself tells the bar reviewees to “read this Guide thoroughly as part of his/her preparation.” Bar reviewees must heed that advice.

The Guide, which may be downloaded from the Supreme Court website, www.supremecourt.gov.ph, has two major parts: first, “Preparing for the Examinations”; and the other “The Actual Bar Examinations.” In this piece, I comment on the first, and dare make a few “last two minutes” suggestions to the bar reviewees and their kith and kin. My pieces of advice are born primarily of my experience as Bar Examiner in Taxation twice; the first was during the Bar of 2001, with the late Justice Sabino de Leon as my chairman, and the second, of 2003, under Justice Jose Vitug. The other part of the Guide, which deals with what bar takers ought to do on the bar examination days, I leave for the bar takers’ caregivers to handle.

While meaning to be helpful, the Guide’s preparation prescriptions are not easy to fully comprehend, much less implement.

The first item, Coverage, makes a distinction not often stressed in the law schools. March 31, 2014 is the cut-off date for laws and jurisprudence, but the Guide stresses, “no cut-off dates exist for examinable principles of law.” What, bar reviewers may wonder, is the difference between laws and jurisprudence and principles of law? The implications of the difference need to be understood because the Guide emphazises that a bar taker may be asked about a principle of law, (for example, the doctrine or principle of operative fact) even if the jurisprudence that brought it to recent prominence, (i.e. the Supreme Court decision on the DAP) was promulgated only in July 1, 3 months after the cut-off date for “law and jurisprudence.”

Another area that needs clarity is just exactly how deep the legal understanding on the part of the bar taker ought to be. While it is generally agreed that “only entry-level understanding” is required, there is no precise definition of “entry-level.” Not every law firm, big or small, or legal office, government or NGO, has the same expectation of what a new comer needs to know. 

For a big private law firm or the litigation department of a government office, “entry-level” capability may mean no more than the ability to summarize the facts, issues and of controversy and to compile relevant legal material for his seniors to review. But smaller outfits, where warm bodies needed to go to court are often in short supply, “entry-level” could mean whatever is needed to argue and secure, by through whatever way or wile, the grant by the trial judge of its motion for postponement of the hearing.

What the Supreme Court has provided to indicate what it means by “understanding” is to supply a Syllabus showing the topics that could be dealt with in the examinations. While its recent practice of providing a Syllabus is truly a blessing to be counted (we who took the Bar in the 60s did not have the benefit of a Syllabus), it’s a negative assurance of breadth. The required depth of the understanding of the included topics is not indicated. 

A third item of unspecified meaning is the level of proficiency in communicating in English. Undoubtedly, a bar taker must demonstrate ability to write well in English. But English, in the course of its becoming over the centuries to be the lengua franca (I ask the French to pardon the irony), has itself various versions. There is English English, American English, Continental English, Singaporean English, Hong Kong English, Arrneow English and, even, Taglish. So, which version (any one, or all) is acceptable?

Like the need to show legal understanding, rule on the need for proficiency in written English is clear only what it prohibits: any other language or dialect, not even Pilipino which is an official language.

Only by way of introducing amusement to somewhat relieve the stress of the bar review classes I handle, I always tell them how one bar taker on my exam in Taxation answered entirely in Latin. Perhaps, he had hoped to impress me; but, unfortunately for him, I knew my Latin well. I took Latin in High School and Pre-law under very good teachers. The answers were not only wrong; the Latin itself was most faulty; indeed a tennis “double fault.”

Recently, I gave a lecture to the Bar Reviewees at the University of Sto. Tomas’ Facultad de Derecho Civil on how to prepare for the bar examinations. The curious or interested, I invite to my page, www.facebook.com/Gero.Bar.Review. – Rappler.com

Reynaldo “Gerry” Geronimo is a partner at the Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura Sayoc & De los Angeles law office. He is known as The Trust Guru and maintains a website, www.thetrustguru.com.