Third of a series
IN the first part of this series, I explained how the fixation with the Bar exam resulted in the many problems besetting the Philippine legal education system. After assessing whether the blame hurled at various components of legal education were proper, I posited in the second part that this unhealthy compulsion be treated as the proximate cause, and not the only one.
In this third and final part, I put forward policy recommendations that will genuinely reform the system. In keeping with the statutory objectives of Philippine legal education under Republic Act No. 7662, these institutional solutions will address the previously identified structural problems.
There should be a paradigm shift in the educational philosophy—one that will consider law not as an end-all-be-all discipline, but rather a tool: a powerful one that effects social change. Thus, a multidisciplinary approach to law is necessary. Practice-oriented courses, culled from various disciplines, are integrated and not marginalized, just because they are excluded from the Bar exam.
Law schools should be allowed to draw their own set of curricula, since the existing model is unresponsive to modern practice—especially when we consider its expanded definition. These should be subject to some mandatory core subjects as in most foreign jurisdictions, with effective regulation to prohibit enforcing electives which are Bar exam subjects.
Such will effectively free up the law curriculum and allow law schools to chart their own courses, determine what their specializations and advocacies are, and integrate these in their respective curricula. Thus, instead of fighting for a share in the big, yet sole, “pie,” there will be several unique “pies.” This will also enable law schools to be relevant to their community. By including community-specific courses, this community-based approach to legal education will benefit the traditionally disadvantaged law schools, especially those outside Manila.
Law professors should be allowed to choose their own teaching methods, including completely scrapping the traditional Socratic-Langdellian method—an 1870s strategy prevalent because of its significant correlation to Bar exam success.
The Magna Carta for Law Students must be promulgated. A hallmark of an educational system, it respects not only the dignity of students as human beings, but also their unique learning strategies, which is just but an offshoot of the respect accorded to their dignity. With this, law students will strive harder not because they need to pass, but because they want to learn. This will maintain their motivation and keep their idealism unimpaired, because the atmosphere of competition will be replaced by collaboration.
There should be a broader screening process to weed out the “unprepared.” (Note: not undeserving or incompetent, because an ideal legal education system presupposes that everyone admitted in law school has the aptitude to become lawyers.) Thus, it will not be Bar exam-centric, but also employ other means of screening such as a Mandatory National Internship Program culminating to a Law Performance Test. Better guiding future employers, the screening process will not only be an achievement, but a real aptitude test, where the potential proficiency of the examinees may be determined.
Furthermore, since the underlying pedagogical philosophies of the controversial Philippine Law School Admissions Test remain unchallenged despite Pimentel v. Legal Education Board, a Mandatory National Law Aptitude Test must push through in keeping with the pronouncements therein. Unlike the time it pushed for PhiLSAT, the Legal Education Board, this time, must act based on consensus and inclusion.
Note that all these solutions are intimately connected with and may be feasible only when we change our assumptions toward the Bar exam. Had it been valid and its results reliable, reforming the system would have been an easier task. Unfortunately, the Bar exam is not. This is precisely because the philosophy behind its structure and the dynamics of its administration have never been.
Thus, in order for us to reach the ideal state of legal education, the Bar exam must be reformed, and not dismantled as some previously called for. It still is an essential component for professionalization. The following are my proposals:
1. Settle on a sole objective with regard to its validity; that is, to measure the legal knowledge and written communication skill of the taker. Nothing more, nothing less. We should do away with pretending that it tests per se the minimum skills required of a new lawyer. It does not.
Other skills needed for legal practice must be tested in another forum. As such, it must be composed of a combination of multiple-choice and essay questions that target higher-order thinking skills. As it is impossible to test knowledge of all the laws there are, the Bar exam should test only the fundamental and core subjects of the law.
2. With respect to its reliability, we should now explore the viability of appointing a tenured Board of Bar Examiners. Aside from its relative advantage of continuity and stability, there will be sufficient time to equip members with psychometric principles. In the end, the Bar exam will be more reliable, since the checkers remain consistent. Furthermore, fears on test item leaks may be lessened, since the identity of examiners are made public, following the Social Facilitation Theory. Compare this to the current system where everything is hidden under a veil of secrecy.
3. Last, the topnotcher system should be abolished. In its stead, the Supreme Court may just use a four-tier system (“High Pass,” “Pass,” “Low Pass” and “Fail”). Any honest educator cannot actually distinguish the difference between a “95 percent” and a “93 percent” student, but it is easy to spot the qualitative difference between a high passer and low passer.
Aside from giving us time to pause, the pandemic has forced us to think of new ways to improve our affairs. Since the Supreme Court already postponed the Bar exam for more than a year, perhaps it is the best time to finally start having the hard conversations on reforming our legal education system.
(A Fulbright Awardee and a DeWitt Fellow, Sucgang is the director and chief innovator of the Center for Legal Education Advancement and Reform: a research and advocacy center that aims to improve the conduct of legal education and the profession in the country. He obtained his Master of Laws degree from the University of Michigan Law School.
Also a former commissioner representing the law student’s sector in the Legal Education Board, Sucgang is an assistant professor and director of Academic Support in De La Salle University’s College of Law. Even prior to law school, the lawyer had been passionate about reforming the country’s legal education system. He ended his stint at the said college with a Juris Doctor thesis: “A Problem Bigger than Law Schools: Reforming Philippine Legal Education System through an Institutional Approach.”)
2 comments
You are nothing but an arrogant, douche bag. Huh! Representing law students? reforming the legal education, thru what? That stupid, pathetic PHILSAT? Dude, you are not helping reform the system. You are merely facilitating propaganda to collect sums of money from students by taking that philsat Charging as high as 1500 even for those who are living in the provinces. You block their dreams of taking up and learning the law because you want to filter those who are allegedly fit to study law (passers).
There should be a broader screening process to weed out the “unprepared.” ????? oH YOU MEAN YOU WANTED TO ERADICATE THOSE WHO DO NOT COME FROM BIG TIME UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS LIKE YOU, to not accept those whose upbringing is different from those elites who were raised in an all english speaking household, etc etc….
Have you watched Justice Gesmundo’s JBC interview? HIs insights on what are the best steps to further enhace a law student’s aptitude and preparations are what you call ideal legal education reform. It does not that originate from controlling on who may be admitted to law schools as this matter is best left to the school’s discretion, which you are trying to terminate by implementing that unconstitutional philsat. No one is truly prepared before entering law school much like no one is really fully prepared for all life’s challenges. True preparation would only come in once students are already in school, experiencing the hurdles of everyday recitations, voluminous readings and terror professors. It is up to them when to give up but you cannot simply take from them the sole decision of entering law school even though they are unprepared financially, emotionally and mentally.