G S J March 201 5

A PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH TO LEGAL

EDUCATION AT THE ARELLANO
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Florentino S. Cayco III, Ed. D.

Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Vice President for Administration
Arellano University

Introduction

In the Philippines, the success of a law school is measured mainly on

the consistent performance of its graduates in the bar examinations, With the
bar passing percentage used as a benchmark, students wanting to apply for
law school, law firms looking for prospective associates, and even graduate
schools, normally look at the passing percentage of the law school in the bar.
The Bar examinations is the licensure examination administered to graduates
with the degrees of either Bachelor of Laws or Jurist Doctors. Administered
every year by the Supreme Court of the Philippines over the four Sundays of
September, the bar examination has thus earned the reputation of being the
most pressure packed professional examination. An average of around 4,400
bar examinees take the bar examinations every year in the hope of becoming
lawyers six months later when the results are released.

The results of the bar examinations over the past ten years (1996 to
2005) according to data gathered from the Supreme Court show the
consistent performance of graduates of the Arellano University School of
Law as against the national passing percentage. It appears that at the
average, the passing percentage of the Arellano University School of Law for
first candidates over the past ten years is 50.19 percent as against the national
passing percentage of 32.7 percent while the passing percentage in the bar
examinations is only around one-half of the total number of candidates and
this reflects the inadequacy of legal education and training resulting to the
mediocre performance of Arellano University School of Law graduates in
the bar examinations.

To improve the passing percentage in the bar examinations, Arellano

University School of Law has formulated and implemented various academic
policies on admission and retention in the hope of improving the quality of

81
 G S J March 201 5

education of its graduates. It has consistently revised these academic

policies every two years in the hope of finding an efficient and effective
method of measuring the academic performance of students in the study of
law. However, despite the efforts of the law school, it appears that these
academic policies are not sufficient as evidenced by the passing percentage
in the bar examinations.

It is common knowledge among law schools that there is no

standardized method of instruction in the teaching and study of law. This is
even true in developed countries like he United States where for a tine, there
was no program of instruction in law schools until Gonzaga University, a
Jesuit run law school, offered the degree of Master of Laws, Major in
Teaching Law a course hat has attracted professors from elite law schools
such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford to enroll in the program. As a rule, law
professors teach their students using the traditional way of teaching law,
which is, through the modified Socratic method of question and answer, a
teaching style that had originated from common law practice in the United
States and had undergone some changes as it had been traditionally handed
down from generation to generation. Due to the lack of formal education in
teaching, most law professors simply copy the teaching style of their favorite
professor when they were students in law school. Law schools are also
traditionally known to have “terror” professors, whose teaching styles and
motivation techniques normally resulted in unnecessary pressure to the
students who are sometimes humiliated whenever they fail to answer
satisfactorily during recitations in class. This is due to the belief by several
professors that law students should not only be educated in the study of law
but should likewise be trained and developed to think on their feet under
pressure. Such is the practice in the teaching of law that in certain law
schools, students are not even allowed to ask questions, much more, get the
correct answer to a question, or even look the professor straight in the eye.

According to a study conducted by the Department of Education in

1989, only around 40% of law professors have had some sort of formal
education or training on how to teach law. This being the case, there are no
set standards in law schools except for the coverage of the subject matter,
which is dictated upon by the requirement for the bar examination coverage.
They do not use academic teaching styles, have no standardized grading
system and have little emphasis on the assessment and motivation of
students. This is aggravated by the fact that most of the law school
administrators are lawyers with no formal training in educational
management and education in general.

82
 G S J March 201 5

Brief History of Arellano University School of Law

Arellano University School of Law is an institute of legal education

established in 1938, through the efforts of Dr. Florentino S. Cayco, Sr., to
form the nucleus of Arellano University. Being one of the pioneer law
schools in the country, it was one of the few law schools that opened right
after World War II.

Named after the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Cayetano S.
Arellano, the original school was located in historic Intramuros, where
classes were held until the 1945 Battle of Manila. A few months later,
classes were resumed in an old Spanish-type building along Legarda Street in
Sampaloc. It was the first law school opened after the war, boasting of a
strong faculty line-up, among them Fred Ruiz Castro, who was later to
become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Ruperto G. Martin, Jose
Vitug and Antonio Barredo, who were appointed justices of the same court.
It also had an active student population that was in the thick of every burning
issue at that time.

In 1948, the school was moved to Plaza Guipit, along with the other
colleges of Arellano University. In 1955, the school was relocated back to
its old site in Legarda, but this time, housed in a modern four-storey concrete
building. The first 40 years of existence of Arellano University School of
Law produced graduates who topped the bar examinations, including the
former Congressman Francisco Sumulong, Dean Mariano M. Magsalin, Sr.,
the late Congressman Jose Zafra, and businessman Augusto Syjuco. Other
legal luminaries who graduated from the School were the late Court of
Appeals Ramon Gaviola, the late former Arellano University President
Florentino Cayco, Jr., bankers/finance professionals Hermilon Rodis, Eliseo
P. Ocampo, Manuel Abrogar III, and Antonio de las Alas, Jr., insurance
executive Domingo R. Sioson, Police General Manuel Roxas and Manila
Police Chief Gerardo Tamayo.

The first dean of the School of Law was Vicente Sinco, who served
from 1938 to 1940, and who later became President of the University of the
Philippines. He was succeeded by Francisco Capistrano, a civil law expert
who sat as Member of the Civil Code Commission that revised the old civil
code and later became a Justice of the Court of Appeals. He served from
1940 to 1956. He was then succeeded by civilest Enrique Voltaire Garcia
who served as dean until 1962. Manila councilor and bar placer Mariano M.
Magsalin, Sr., assumed the deanship in 1963 until 1978.

83
 G S J March 201 5

In 1979, Arellano University turned-over the management of the

School of Law to the Arellano Law Foundation and in 1997, the agreement
between Arellano University and the Arellano Law Foundation was amended
to grant full fiscal autonomy to the Foundation.

Upon its registration in 1978, the Arellano Law Foundation, a non-

profit and non-stock organization established by alumni and faculty members
of Arellano University, was privileged to have Supreme Court Justice
Ruperto Martin as then first Chairman of the Board of Trustees with Dean
Mariano Magsalin, Sr. as Vice Chairman and Arellano School of Law, cum
laude graduate with businessman and law practitioner Eliseo P. Ocampo as
Executive Director.

Through the years, Arellano University School of Law has been

producing quite a number of lawyers. From an enrollment of barely 50
students, it managed to drastically increase it to become the biggest law
school in terms of student population with the highest student population
reaching 1,300 during the impeachment hearings of former President
Estrada. During the last bar examinations, the School of Law also became
the biggest producer of lawyers with 137 of their graduates passing the bar
examinations in 2006. To further improve the performance in the bar
examinations, the management introduced certain academic policies to
upgrade standard of education. Contrary to the traditional way on how law is
taught in the country, the Arellano University School of Law, through its
faculty development seminars, took the bold step in retraining and
persuading law professors to tame down their teaching styles by slowly
introducing new trends and methods on teaching. In a move to further
upgrade the academic performance of the students, strict retention policies
were implemented where grade requirements had to be met by using either
Quality Point Index (PQI) or the General Weighted Average (GWA) as the
basis for the student to be re-admitted to the next semester. Several non-
academic programs were likewise offered by the Guidance Center where
students were required to attend annual development on time management,
handling pressure, effective study habits, and even test anxiety. Faculty
development seminars were likewise conducted to help them improve their
teaching styles and to discuss the academic problems of their students.
Curriculum offerings were regularly reviewed and updated every 2 years to
meet the demands of the legal profession and to update the professors on the
rapid changing of laws. Despite these efforts, half of its graduates still failed
to pass the bar examinations on their first attempt with an average passing
percentage of only around 50.19% over the last ten years.

84
 G S J March 201 5

Research objective, methodology and findings

The study was undertaken to assess the pedagogical preparation and

competence of the lawyers teaching legal education at Arellano University
School of Law as well as the students’ profile. The findings shall be used in
preparing measures that will standardize the program of instruction and
improve the school’s quality of education.

Inasmuch as the study dealt with the assessment of the pedagogical

practices and approaches in legal education, the descriptive method of
research was used. Respondents were composed of 78 professors who have
been teaching at the Arellano University School of Law for at least two
semesters, and 692 law students.

The following are the salient findings of the study:

A. Demographic Profile of Law Professor-Respondents as to:

1. Civil status: Majority of the respondents (84.62%) were married.

2. Gender: Sixty-six or 84.62 per cent were male.
3. Age: Mean age was 43.34 years.
4. School where they finished law: Most of the law professors took
law from Arellano University School of Law, San Beda College
and University of the Philippines.
5. Pre-law courses taken: Most of them finished Political Science,
Business Administration, and Philosophy; very few took courses
not related to law.
6. Degrees taken other than Ll.B: A little more than one-fourth had
a degree on Master in Business Administration while one fifth
finished Master of Laws in Law; very few have degrees in
Engineering.
7. Education subjects taken: More than 80 per cent had not taken
any Education units.
8. Seminars, trainings and workshops attended related to education,
teaching-learning, assessment of learning outcomes: A little
more than half attended seminars/trainings related to Education as
part of pedagogical preparation.
9. Length of experience in teaching law at AUSL: Mean of
approximately ten years.

85
 G S J March 201 5

10. Subjects handled at AUSL: Law subjects were more or less

equally divided among the professors as they handled only a
number of law subjects.
11. Field of specialization: Most of respondents had specialization in
Civil Law, ADR, Land Laws, and Criminal Procedure.
12. Manner of law practice: Majority of respondents (65.38%) were
legal practitioners while more than one-fourth of them worked as
corporate lawyers.

B. Demographic Profile of Student-Respondents of AUSL as to:

1. Civil status: 306 from the executive class and 383 from regular
class where 562 or 81.57 per cent were single.
2. Gender: More than half were male.
3. Year level: More students in the third and fourth year.
4. Status as students: More than half were not full-time.
5. Pre-law courses: Most of them finished Political Science, BS
Accountancy, BCS-Management and Philosophy while a few
finished non-law courses such as Engineering, Theology and
Physical Therapy.

C. Teaching Strategies Employed:

The law professors used to a greater extent the teaching

strategies known as Question and Answer Method, Recitation and
Socratic Method and averagely used Lecture Method.

D. Pedagogical Preparations/Activities Undertaken:

1. As part of the pedagogical preparations of law professors,

majority gave assignments regularly and prepared a teaching
plan/outline while a little less than half prepared questions for
graded recitation ahead of time.

2. Less than half of the law professors prepared syllabus, revised

syllabus and gave quizzes frequently and regularly.

E. Assessment Practices of Professor-Respondents as regard to:

1. Law professors usually utilized essay, graded recitation,

combination of essay and objective type and case analysis.

86
 G S J March 201 5

2. They rarely used portfolio assessment.

3. They always used results of periodical tests and results of graded
recitation as criteria for rating the students’ academic
performance.
4. They usually utilized absolute grading system in determining
students’ grades.

F. Degree of Satisfaction of Student-Respondents on:

1. Manner of grading: Moderately satisfied with weighted mean of

3.25.
2. Grades received: Moderately satisfied with weighted mean of
3.22.
3. Academic policies on assessment: Student-respondents
Favored
4. General weighted average and quality point index as rating
methods of their performance.
5. Average passing rate of AUSL in bar examinations: Very
satisfied.

G. Degree of Satisfaction of Professor-Respondents on Academic

Moderately satisfied.

H. Preparations Provided to Students:

I. Problems Encountered in Legal Education:

The pressing problem encountered by both professor and

student-respondents in relation to students’ academic performances
was on the students’ mastery of the English language.

J. Academic Measures to Implement:

A five-year development plan for the students and the faculty

was designed whose main goals are to standardize program of
instruction and improve the quality of legal education through the
improvement of the students’ academic performances as well as
showing in the Bar examinations.

87
 G S J March 201 5

Conclusions

In the light of the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Generally, the law professors in AUSL were mostly male, married,

approximately 40 years old, graduated from AUSL, had degrees on
either Political Science or Business Administration courses, had
diplomas on Master of Arts in Law and Master in Business, had not
taken units in education, had attended an average of five
seminars/trainings related to education, had been teaching in AUSL
for around ten years, handled a subject or two, had specialization on
either Civil Law, ADT, Land Laws and Criminal Procedure and
worked either as legal practitioner or corporate lawyers in business
establishments.

2. The law students at AUSL were generally single, male, attended

regular classes, not full time, either in the third or forth year, had
degrees in either Political Science, BS Accountancy, BCS-
Management and Philosophy.

3. Question and answer Method, Recitation and Socratic Method were

the most commonly used teaching strategies in teaching law subjects.

4. The professors resorted to the use of essay, graded recitation, a

combination of essay and objective type and case analysis as
assessment tools and considered results of periodical tests and results
of graded recitation as criteria for rating the students’ academic
performance.

5. In determining the grades of the students the law professors usually

applied the absolute grading system.

6. The students were moderately satisfied in the way they are graded, in
the kind of the grade they received and in the academic policies on
assessment enforced by the school administration.

7. The students were very satisfied with the AUSL performance in the
Bar.

8. The professors felt that the academic preparations provided to the

students by the school and by them were seemingly wanting of more

88
 G S J March 201 5

improvement as the professors were found to be moderately satisfied

only on this aspect.

9. Both the professors and the students were one in claiming that
students’ mastery of the English language was their common
problem.

Recommendations

Based from the findings and conclusions of the study, the following
recommendations are hereby offered:

1. A Continuing Professional Education for law professors be

implemented which should include pedagogical preparation and
improvement of professors’ teaching competencies.

2. A diagnostic test for incoming law students should be administered to

identify the strengths and weaknesses of the students in grammar so
that those who are poor in comprehension and grammar may be
requested to attend English enhancement classes.

3. A grading system and criteria for grading may be decided by the

professors and the administration for uniform implementation.

4. The five year-development plan for the students and the professors
developed in the study may be implemented in Arellano University
School of Law and be evaluated periodically for refinement and
improvement.

5. For further study, a similar research maybe conducted to verify or

refute the findings of the present study.

89
 G S J March 201 5

Bibliography

Bain, Ken. What the Best College Teachers Do. Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 2004

Bradney, Anthony and Crownie, Fiona, Transformative Visions of Legal

Education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1998

Brandsfor, John D. Brod, Ann L. and Cocking, Rodney R. How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 2000

Buriedge, Roger, Hinett, Karen, Pliwala, Abdul and Varnava, Tracey. Effectuve
Learning & Teaching in Law. London: Kogan Page Limited, 2002

Hendricks, Howard, Teaching to Change Lives, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers,

1987

Hess, Gerald F. and Friedland, Steven. Techniques for Teaching Law. North
Carolina: Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 1999

Kennedy, Duncan. Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy: A

Polemic Against the System. New York: New York University Press,
2004
Kissam, Philip C.. The Discipline of Law Schools: The Making of
Modern Lawyers. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2003

MacCrate, Robert, et.al. Legal Education and Professional Development: An

Educational Continuum. Illinois: American Bar Association, 1992

Poskanzer, Seven G. Higher Education Law: The Faculty. Maryland: The John
Hopkins University Press, 2002

Schachter, Madeleine. The Law Professor’s Handbook: A Practical Guide to

Teaching Law. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2004

Walton, Kimm Alayne and Emmanuel, Lazar. Strategies & Tactics for the First
Year Law Student. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2004

Bureau of Higher Education, Department of Higher Education. State of Legal

Education in the Philippines, 1989. Manila: Bureau of Higher Education,
DECS, 1989

90