The bar exams: Post mortem

posted May 16, 2016 at 12:01 am

by Rita Linda V. Jimeno
Two weeks ago, the results of the 2015 bar examination was
released. It yielded a passing rate of 26.21 percent, the highest in
six years, with 1,731 out of 6,600 plus examinees passing. The
licensure exam for lawyers is one of the most difficult in the world, having eight subjects taken in
four Sundays and requiring that the examinees garner an average of 75 percent in all the
subjects taken. Traditionally the passing rate has been between 15 and 30 percent. In contrast,
in New York, the recent bar exams have been branded as the worst in decades because the
passing rate has hovered between 61 and 68 percent while the rate used to be higher than that.
The Philippine exams, being largely in essay form, have to be read and graded by an examiner
for each of the eight subjects rather than a machine as in other licensure exams which use the
multiple type of questioning. This means that each examiner had to readfor the most recent
bar exammore than 6,600 booklets. This manner of testing has been the subject of much
criticism from law schools saying that it is an arbitrary process because it is subject to the
personality make-up and the mood of the examiner. Many have said that some examiners have
been power-tripping at the expense of the law graduates; thus, openly advocating the abolition
of the bar examination itself.
I had the privilege of being an examiner in Civil Law in the 2015 bar examination chaired by
Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro. I was an examiner too in the 2010 bar exams
for the same subject. Although I was asked by the Chair to be very reasonable, even generous,
in grading, which I later learned she also asked of the other examiners, I realized that much as I
personally wanted to pass as many as I could (being in the academe myself) there was
something fundamentally and sadly wrong with the answers to the questions. This made it
impossible to achieve a remarkably high passing rate. The greater majority of the examinees
simply did not have the grasp of basic concepts of civil law. For example, one question I asked
was, if two males lived together, could they be covered by the law on full co-ownership under
Article 147 of the Family Code, that is, could they share equally in the properties purchased by
just one of them during their cohabitation while the other one took care of their home? Many
said yes because there was no impediment to their getting married. Really now. Two males
could get married in this jurisdiction? What law school could they have graduated from, I asked
myself. Many also answered, in a question about the rights of illegitimate children, that they
have absolutely no right to inherit because they are illegitimate. Still, there were many whose
comprehension of the given question was wrong, resulting in a wrong answer.
Worst, many of the examinees were unable to express their thoughts in English. The English
grammar of many of the examinees could shock even a high school graduate who took his
secondary education seriously. For instance, nearly a majority erred in the proper use of is and
are. In one question involving two persons, Y and Z, many said Z and Y is wrong. Quite
a number answered in a circuitous and incoherent manner. For most of the exam booklets,
sentence construction, spelling and choice of words were so horrifying that if these examinees
happened to pass the bar exams, they would have been a disgrace to the profession and would
have caused injustice to their unsuspecting clients.
As an examiner, I dropped nearly everything else I was doingincluding writing this column for
many monthsto read each and every booklet. I wanted the standard of grading to be uniform
and as reasonable as possible. But passing the bar does not lie in the hands of the examiners.
It does not even hinge on how well one reviews for the bar exams. It lies, rather, in the
foundation of an examinees fouryear law education and, before that, his study ethics from
elementary to high school, to college. The ability to comprehend, analyze and answer in a
logical and coherent manner is not learned overnight.
Advocating the abolition of the bar examination is not the solution to the poor performance of
examinees in the bar examination. Improving the system of educating students from kinder to
law school is.
Email: ritalindaj@gmail.com Visit: www.jimenolaw.com.ph