Speech delivered by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A.

Sereno during the

Breakfast Meeting with the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS)
on November 6, 2016 at the University of Sto. Tomas, Manila

First, may I request all of you to give an astounding round of applause,

as in [an] earsplitting round of applause to this years Chairperson, Justice

Presbitero Velasco [, Jr.]. (applause) You know we have already formed the

Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, and as soon as the Bar exams

are finished, we will be convening the same and Justice Presbi [Velasco] is

the Vice Chairperson and Justices [Lucas] Luc [Bersamin] and [Mariano]

Mar del Castillo are members. And I believe that [Legal Education Board]

Chair [Emerson B.] Aquendeyoure also a memberand so with other

deans, and together with the PALS [Philippine Association of Law Schools]

President [Dean Nilo T. Divina]and I forget its a very long list. The reason

why it is constituted that way, and by the way it is the first time it is

constituted in that manner together with the Bar Confidant [OBC], is because

we want to have stability in the Bar exams. The Court, as you will notice, went

into an experiment of the multiple choice questions format. It didnt pan out

during its first year of implementation because it was too radical a shift and

the approach that we are adopting now is to have a more graduated change,

pace of changing the Bar examination.

1
 Justice [Arturo Art] Brion, of course the essay questions of Justice

Brion, I think you had one or two MCQ [Multiple Choice Questions] questions

still or completely none during the time when you had the, when you were

chairperson? You still had an 80% and 20% and then he, so it was a

combination and then less and less in the time of Justice Tess [Teresita de

Castro]. Now you dont have that anymore. So, it is back to the time before the

Court decided to go on a MCQ mode.

Now, we will check again whether it will be stable, and then I know that

you have a pending request before the Court to limit the coverage of the Bar

exams, but again the status of your petition is, at first, we must have a study to

show the basis for making the change. Remember that the MCQ change was

also precipitated by a study, but I think the implementation was too abrupt

that it basically gave a bad experience to the participants as well as to the

Court. I hope that the study will be given to us in a timely manner so that we

can really study it as a Court, discuss it thoroughly together with the

Committee on [Mandatory] Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters and

then only after we are sure that it will not destabilize too much the work of

the law schools and the conduct of the work of the OBC [Office of the Bar

Confidant], will we proceed with it. That is why Justice Luc and Justice Mar

2
are here. Justice Luc, please also encourage him also with a round of

applause, he will be next years Chair. (applause) Justice Mar del Castillo will

be the 2018 Bar Exam Chair. (applause) And maybe we can have the benefit of

a more intense study, of course we will always have to go back to Justice Art

Brion because Justice Art Brion submitted a very important study on the

direction of the Bar exams and we have to proceed from the study and the

recommendations that he had made on how we can further improve the Bar

exam.

But the threshold question which I had been asking for three years from

the PALS [Philippine Association of Law Schools] is: What kind of lawyers do

we want to be accredited by the Supreme Court? What fields of practice? How

many and will it match the required legal services that our people need? And

we really are relying on the PALS as I explain to you our situation, we do not

have enough time nor the manpower as of the moment to undertake this

study thoroughly and we were really counting on you to provide that. Rest

assured that we will listen very closely to what you have been saying.

Now, there is another pending letter request from [Court of Appeals]

Justice Portia [Alio-] Hormachuelos and unless we understand that demand

really is both substantial and it can be maintained and sustained before we

3
can undertake the massive effort to put in a regional administrative operation

that is as secure as the operation that is being undertaken here in Manila, it is

actually a bit risky because the problem of leakage and a nonsynchronization

of the start of the time and the finishing of the exam will be difficult by

themselves. So unless we are sure that it will eventually turn out to be a smart

proposition, we are quite reticent about going through that. There must be a

substantial number of people who will want that. We need outweighs the

adjustment, the pains of the adjustment that will be required of the Court and

its administrative offices. So, that is also the status of the pending request that

you have with us.

Now, with respect to stability, I can assure Mar del Castillo that you

will have the same administrative support that Justice Presbi has had and to

a limited extent, Justice Bersamin will have next year. And with that you are

always free, as you can see Justice Presbi has always been listening with

open ears to all of your suggestions and he has been assuring the Court that he

is very open to your suggestions. The only purpose of the Bar, really, as far as

the Court sees it now, is to really ensure that there are quality people who are

competent enough, with enough knowledge, before we release them to the

public to provide legal services, but I know that it is such a general goal that

4
perhaps we need a more nuanced and differentiated approach to the kind of

legal services that must be provided. I am of the view that there are limited

instances of limited legal knowledge that will be required that can be provided

by people other than full-fledged lawyers, and I have already discussed this

possibility with you together with my appeal to the Legal Education Board

[LEB] chair and members, as well as to the PALS, to remember your

commitment to the students who are investing four years of a very, very

significant part of their lives so that they have the chance to be a member of

the Bar. What if they do not make the grade? We have a responsibility for their

future as well while they will never be under the jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court because our responsibility to discipline will only come in when they

become members of the Bar. Your responsibility to them as human resources

that have made themselves available for your molding and influence will

persist and they will look up to you for answers to what they can do in the

future. It would be very bad indeed if we were to maintain the status quo of

allowing frustrated Bar candidates to be directionless in terms of crafting a

career path or a vocation in life. Give their lives, their professional lives,

meaning. Allow them a ray of hope that will say that in the scheme of things, at

least with respect to the work of administering justice and rendering justice in

this country, they can still play a role, albeit limited. Define for us that kind of

5
role that will not pose a danger to the public when they will perhaps be able to

assist people in much simpler legal issuesperhaps that is possible.

In other jurisdictions, people have limited legal technicians license. In

other jurisdictions, paralegal services is a well-accredited and established

career path. You can define the future for these people; do not allow them to

feel that they have only wasted years and resources. So, from the bottom of

our hearts, the Supreme Court thanks you for all the cooperation that you

have given the job of turning out professionals for the greater service of our

country. God bless you all!