https://news.mb.com.
ph/2019/06/26/legal- Note that the Executive Department that
education-problems-and-issues/
Legal education
problems and
issues
Share it!
Updated June 26, 2019, 11:15 AM
THE LEGAL FRONT
By JUSTICE ART D. BRION (RET.)
To continue the discussions I started in my article
“Postscript to the Bar Oathtaking,” our  low Bar
passing rate serves as the glaring manifestation of
our legal education system’s unsatisfactory
performance.
Concealed behind these shocking statistics are the
root causes that we must regard as problems if we
are to improve legal education. For far too long, we
have limped along, happily looking at the few
success stories, but doing practically nothing to
address the more numerous failures.
To approach legal education at a deeper yet
simpler level, I propose to recall and critically look
at its objective and at the means available to reach
this objective.
The objective, in my view, is to assist the Supreme
Court in its constitutional mandate to deliver a
working justice system that responds to the needs
of our people.
Among others, the court fulfills its mandate
through magistrates and lawyers, competent in the
ways of the law, who man and administer our
justice system.  Legal education’s objective is to
adequately train those aspiring to be lawyers.
implements the law and handles the appointment
of judges and justices, itself relies on the services of
lawyers.
Legislation by Congress also relies on lawyers who
assist our lawmakers in crafting our laws.
Disputes, of course, are resolved by courts that are
manned by members of the Bar.
Citizens, for their part, rely on lawyers to advise
them; to act on their legal needs; and to handle the
disputes they may be involved in.
This view aptly tells us the critical role of lawyers in
our society. From generation to generation, we
need a continuous flow of lawyers, trained and
well-versed in the law, to undertake the legal tasks
involved in our governance and daily lives.
How legal education effectively trains future
lawyers embodies the means to achieve its
objective of assisting the court in the delivery of
justice.
Our current legal education system, sad to state,
leaves much to be desired; it is failing in both its
objective and in the means to reach this objective.
Our 70% to 80% failing rate translates to a waste of
valuable human resources. Our Bar flunkers end
up  personally unfulfilled and useless for their
intended delivery of justice roles. They could have
been trained for careers appropriate to their
potentials instead of allowing them to waste their
years in fruitless legal education.
The situation, however, is not irremediable if we
shall only frankly and honestly assess our
situation, confront our system’s weak components,
and apply our will to purposively strengthen them.
1. Teachers. Do we have teachers competent
to teach law?
The depressing Bar passing rates do not only point
to weak and unprepared candidates, but to
deficiencies as well on the part of their law school
teachers and administrators. Needless to state,
without competent law teachers, Bar failures are
inevitable.
How the Legal Education Board (LEB) can foster
the strengthening of law faculties is a primary
question it must unavoidably address.
2. Law Students. Indiscriminate admission of
students to law schools, with Bar admission
standards being constant, can only lead to
more Bar failures.
The alternative is a screening system that gives law
schools the opportunity to focus on those who, by
their aptitude and demonstrated preparation, are
most likely to succeed.
The law has given the LEB the task of screening
prospective law students. Many law schools,
however, find screening unacceptable because it
limits their enrolment and, consequently, their
income.
We must thus contend with the question: Should
we have admission screening that ultimately
serves legal education’s purposes, or allow the
unhampered admission that primarily protects
law school income?
3.Law Schools. – do we have law schools
whose overriding mission is to provide legal
education; which are equipped with the
essentials to undertake this mission; and
which can fairly manage to deliver
results consistent with the demands of our
justice system?
Some law schools qualify but many more fail as the
statistics indisputably show.
Should law schools falling below defined
expectations be continually allowed to operate?
4. Regulation. Ideally, the LEB should have the
full authority to regulate the essential
components of our legal education, subject only
to the limits imposed by its charter, to the
reasonableness that police power demands and
the justice system requirements that the
Supreme Court addresses.
Otherwise, it may be simpler to abolish the LEB
and allow free market forces and the dictates of
income to regulate legal education.  This approach
will leave the court as the only filter in filling up the
needs of our justice system.
Do we want this unregulated training approach
that may conceivably lead to more Bar failures
and to the scarcity of competent lawyers,
thereby placing our justice system at risk?
5. Bar admission. Bar admission is a function that
constitutionally belongs to the Supreme Court.
The court in turn is guided by the express and
implied terms of our Constitution.
However wide and overreaching the court’s Bar
admission power may be, it should be subject to
standards of fairness and reasonableness, and
thus must respond to the policy question: Do we
have a fair testing system to determine who
should qualify under the justice standards the
Constitution requires?
6. Consultations between the LEB and the court.
Legal education is the phase that trains aspirants
for Bar admission; by law, this task is assigned to
the LEB.
On the other hand, the applicable Bar admission
standards  – i.e., the examinable law subjects as
well as the acceptable passing marks – are for the
court solely to determine.
Between the court and the LEB is thus an
unavoidable interdependence that demands a
continuing two-way communication, led by the
court, so that each may know, adjust and respond
to the other’s needs, demands and standards.
7. Law schools and academic freedom. Law
schools cannot be denied the freedom to
teach, to determine what to teach, who to
teach, and how to teach. But at the higher
delivery of justice plane, academic freedom
cannot but yield; law schools must adhere to
the SC and LEB requirements if they want their
students to qualify for legal education leading
to Bar admission.
This reality empowers the LEB and the court to
require the teaching of subjects necessary for Bar
admission and for future law practice or delivery of
justice roles.
Beyond these requirements, law schools should be
able – in the exercise of their academic freedom –
to require their own program of studies.
I shall further discuss each of these concerns in my
subsequent articles.
https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/06/19/postcript-to-
the-bar-oathtaking/
Postcript to the
Bar oathtaking
Share it!
Published June 19, 2019, 12:32 AM
THE LEGAL FRONT
By JUSTICE ART D. BRION (RET.)
Philippine Bar history did not change its trajectory
at all when the Supreme Court swore in the new
2018 lawyers. The Bar passing rate, although in the
low side at 22.07%, was still within the established
20%-30% national average.
An eye-catching feature, as discerned from media
reports, was the relative calm that surrounded the
ceremony: the nation did not appear disturbed at
all by the 2018 Bar candidates’ lackluster
performance, nor by what this development
implied – the overall low level of excellence in
training the professionals who would handle the
nation’s laws and the citizenry’s lives, liberties, and
properties.
We did not appear to care at all that, on the
average, some 75 out of every 100 of our students
flunk the Bar exam and essentially waste 8 years of
their lives preparing for a profession they can
never claim for themselves nor practice with
distinction if they pass the Bar at all.
We did not likewise appear to mind the waste of
time, money, efforts that every failed Bar examinee
represents. Also lost to many was the possibility
that an unsuccessful Bar examinee could have
brilliantly performed elsewhere had he/she
channeled his energies into the proper direction.
We appeared to disregard, too, the most obvious
cause of the Bar mortality – the law schools, in
particular, the sub-performing ones who continue
to enjoy the authority to accept enrollees although
they have lost, by their mediocre performance,
every right to educate students in the field of law.
Even the top-tier law schools appeared smugly
happy because they have individually delivered the
high-flying Bar topnotchers. For some reason, they
did not appear to be bothered at all by the
pervasive mediocrity surrounding them, thereby
impliedly accepting for the Bar exams the
characteristic configuration of our larger society –
small islands of abundance in a massive sea of
scarcity.
This is not the 1st time I am voicing out these
sentiments.  In the Bar oathtaking of 2015, I
highlighted the plight of those who were not in the
ceremony – the Bar flunkers.  In a recent article
– Reverse Roll of Honor, I articulated my continuing
frustrations due to the law schools’ dismal Bar
passing records. I provided as well the damning
evidence –  the statistics covering almost 20 years
of Bar exams and law school performance.
I again focus on this proof today by giving the
public the 2018 Bar Statistics that my previous
article did not show because they were not then
available.
The 2018 Bar exams saw 131 participating law
schools whose candidates the Court judged for Bar
admission using the usual 75% pass/fail cut off.
The starting shocker is that in 25 (or 19.08%) of
our law schools, all the Bar candidates failed.
Thus, roughly one-fifth (1/5) of our law schools
had a 0% passing rate in the 2018 Bar exams.
Only less than 10% of the candidates in 32 (or
24.48%) of our law schools passed, while 37 (or
28.24%) law schools had passing rates ranging
from 10% to less than 22.07%  –  the national Bar
exam passing average.
In outline form, these ranges and the number
of sub-performing law schools are:
 0% passing rate – 25 law schools
 above 0% to less than 10% passing rate – 32 law
schools
 10% to less than 22.07% passing rate             – 37
law schools
Sub-total                                                                  – 94
law schools out of 131
The following more positive statistics complete
and somehow brighten up the bleak 2018 Bar
picture:
 07% to less than 30% passing rate – 12 law
schools
 30% to less than 50% passing rate – 15 law
schools
 50% or more passing rate – 10 law schools
Sub-total                                                                 – 37
law schools out of 131
Note how stilted the level of performance is in
favor of mediocrity.  The non-performing law
schools (94) are by far more numerous than those
(37) whose graduates reached  the court’s 75% cut-
off point.  I leave it to the public to decide how
many of the successful 37 really deserve the title
“law school.”
Factors beyond the law schools, of course,
contribute to the dismal Bar results but the law
school factor outweighs them all.  We simply have
law schools that, by all accounts, should no
longer be engaged in legal education; we
likewise accept students that, from Day 1 of law
school, are already Bar flunkers.
In fairness to the authorities, in particular, to
the Legal Education Board (LEB) and the Supreme
Court, they have done what they could in the past
and are still currently exerting efforts to improve
legal education.
The LEB has undertaken many meaningful
regulatory initiatives but has also met many
stumbling blocks in performing its functions, some
of them strewn by legal education stakeholders
themselves.  An example is the use of centralized
admission exams by law schools – a process that
would deny admission to the unfit and the
unprepared, but which would have limited the
enrolment (and income) of many law schools.
In no small measure, the law profession and the
justice system to which lawyers heavily contribute,
are stable because the court, through the years,
has remained a steady gatekeeper in the admission
to the practice of law.
To its credit, irrespective of legal education and Bar
exams developments, the court has steadfastly
sought – through the Bar examinations – to
maintain the standards of the legal profession at
their highest. Though generally unrecognized, the
recent 22.07% passing rate is the result of this
laudable effort.
But the court and the LEB, solely on their own,
cannot deliver the ideal that everyone wishes to
see. Other stakeholders have to actively help by
undertaking their respective roles. They cannot
simply look up to the authorities for solutions nor
consider only their narrow self-interests in
considering problems.
Those in the frontlines – in particular, the school
owners, the deans and other members of the
academe  – have to contribute to the political will to
generate the critical mass necessary to effect
meaningful and lasting changes.
I hope the readers will react to these latest
statistics by sending in their comments, so that I
can in turn submit these to the Supreme
Court’s Legal Education Summit this coming July.
https://opinion.inquirer.net/121126/legal-ethics-
beyond-escaping-disbarment
Legal ethics beyond escaping
disbarment
By: Cristina A. Montes - @inquirerdotnet
09:01 AM May 04, 2019
The results of the 2018 bar exams have just been
released, once again triggering discussions about the
impact of lawyers on society.
Among the bar exam subjects is Legal Ethics. Many
agree that lawyers should be ethical. Many people
have stories of how unscrupulous lawyers have
destroyed their lives or those of people they know.
Thus, Legal Ethics has been made a subject matter
for the bar exam, and lawyers have to periodically
attend lectures on Legal Ethics as part of their
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).
ADVERTISEMENT
But are these enough to make lawyers ethical?
In the Philippines, norms of legal ethics are
articulated in the Code of Professional Responsibility
as a set of duties that lawyers have toward society,
the courts, their clients and their colleagues in the
profession. Based on my experience in law school
and MCLE lectures, the teaching of legal ethics has
been limited to the canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and related
jurisprudence. The focus is on what a lawyer should
or should not do to escape disbarment.
The Code of Professional Responsibility is useful. But
a listing of duties that lawyers must comply with on
the pain of disbarment is not enough to prevent
them from messing up society.
For one, what should a lawyer do when conflicts
among these duties arise? How should a lawyer
resolve conflicts between his or her duty to the
courts and to society, on one hand, and to the client,
on the other?
Then, there is the lawyers’ ability to “lawyer”
themselves out of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, enabling them to do unethical acts
without violating the literal text of the code’s
canons.
Furthermore, the Code of Professional
Responsibility does not answer all the possible
ethical issues that lawyers may encounter in the
exercise of their profession. For example, when a
prospective client approaches a lawyer asking for
help in obtaining a declaration of nullity of marriage,
the lawyer must ask: Is the prospective client
trapped in what is really a void marriage, in which
case he or she must be helped? Or is the prospective
client, in reality, asking the lawyer to aid and abet an
illicit extramarital affair? The Code of Professional
Responsibility alone cannot answer these questions.
But they make a difference between the lawyer
mending or ruining society, between a lawyer acting
ethically and acting unethically.
In her book “Deontologia Profesional del Abogado,”
Angela Aparisi Miralles identifies three principles on
which legal ethics is founded. The first is the
centrality of the person and his or her dignity,
considering that the legal profession is practiced by
persons and is in the service of persons. The second
is the end (telos) of the legal profession, which is the
defense of rights and maintenance of justice in
social relations. The third is professional virtues,
with an emphasis on prudence, defined as the
capacity for good judgment.
These principles raise questions: What does it mean
to be a person with dignity? What is justice? What
are rights? What is virtue? How do these concepts
apply in law practice? Is there room for such
concepts in legal practice, or should a lawyer, as I
heard someone once say, keep values out of the
courtroom?
To promote the ethical practice of law, it is
necessary to challenge lawyers to shed off the
cynicism and the moral relativism prevalent in the
legal profession, which keep them from aspiring to
ethical standards beyond merely escaping
disbarment. In addition to teaching the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the jurisprudence
related to it, education in legal ethics must impart
wisdom. No less is required in order that lawyers
will, in the words of Miralles, obrar segun ciencia y
conciencia (“act according to science and
conscience”).
https://opinion.inquirer.net/112585/black-marks-law-
profession
Black marks on the law profession
By: Raul J. Palabrica - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:18 AM April 20, 2018
In the wake of the concerted efforts to remove Chief
Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from office, some
events in recent days have tarnished the esteem
that justices of the Supreme Court and the law
profession enjoy in our society.
A substantial portion of the oral arguments at the
high court on the quo warranto case filed against
Sereno was a virtual shouting match between her
and Justice Teresita de Castro. They did not make
any effort to hide their animosity toward each other.
As members of the institution tasked by the
Constitution to decide on significant legal disputes in
the country, Sereno and De Castro are held to a high
level of civility and professionalism in resolving their
official and personal differences, more so if the
public is watching.
Without passing judgment on who caused the
unpleasant scene, the incident provided a bad
image of the high court and, collaterally, our judicial
system.
The honorific “Your Honor” that traditionally
precedes any address to a member of the judiciary
lost its meaning. The so-called “gods of Padre Faura”
have been found to have feet of clay.
The next time the Supreme Court issues a
memorandum to the lower courts to unclog their
dockets by encouraging litigants to amicably settle
their differences and let reason, not emotion, guide
their actions, the judges may be tempted to say,
“Look who’s talking.”
The shouting match between the two justices traces
its origin to the impeachment complaint filed by
lawyer Larry Gadon against Sereno at the House of
Representatives. The hearing on the complaint
turned out to be a comedy of errors for Gadon.
He swore in his complaint that he had personal
knowledge of Sereno’s alleged impeachable acts,
only to admit later that some of his allegations were
hearsay or taken from outside sources. By lying, he
committed an act that any lawyer worth his or her
salt would not deliberately do, and yet no words of
apology were heard from him.
As if this grievous offense were not enough, on the
day of the oral arguments on the quo warranto, he
called the people who were demonstrating in
Sereno’s support “bobo” (dumb) and gave them the
dirty finger.
He was lucky his boorish behavior was ignored by
the demonstrators; in less serene circumstances, his
actions would have drawn violent reaction and
resulted in his lynching.
Although Gadon is not representative of the
majority of lawyers in the Philippines, his unethical
conduct during the impeachment hearings and oral
arguments at the high court put the legal profession
in serious disrepute in the public’s eye.
ADVERTISEMENT
These incidents made the word “liar” rhyme with
“lawyer” and showed that eight or more years of
education in law does not guarantee its adequate
understanding and proper application.
Given these circumstances—members of the high
court engaging in a harsh, emotional exchange of
words and a lawyer flouting the rules of truth and
public decorum—an incoming law student cannot
be faulted for wondering whether going through the
rigors of an eight-year law education (plus a one-
year bar review) would be worth the time, money
and effort.
The practice of law is supposed to be a profession,
not a business, with the high court looking over the
lawyers to make sure they live up to their oath to
give every person his or her share of law and justice.
The actions of Sereno and De Castro do not inspire
confidence that the high court can be
wholeheartedly trusted (or expected) to resolve
disputes with cold neutrality and objectivity, or
consistent with the message of the iconic Lady of
Justice statue that adorns our courtrooms.
When a lawyer who is no spring chicken openly lies
in public and feels no sense of remorse about that
reprehensible act, it is not unreasonable to ask if
there is still pride and prestige in becoming a lawyer.
It will be a sad day for morally upright and
competent Filipino lawyers when their profession is
mentioned in the same breath as or associated with
the world’s oldest profession.
https://businessmirror.com.ph/2017/10/02/
judicial-issues-and-corruption/
Judicial Issues and Corruption
By
 Henry J. Schumacher
 -
October 2, 2017
During the very well attended Arangkada
Forum on September 14, there was much
focus on sectors with substantial growth
potential—including agriculture, creative
industries, information and communications
technology, manufacturing, mining, logistics
and tourism. But—not surprisingly—the cost
of doing business, judicial issues and
corruption were raised in many panel
discussions.
In building a competitive business
environment, judicial and anticorruption
policies are very important to attract and to
keep investors. Reforms in the administration
of justice are ongoing, but their
implementation should be continuously
intensified.
Some of the problematic factors in the WEF
competitiveness ranking pertained to the
judicial and security problems that afflict the
Philippines. According to the WEF ratings,
investors also identified corruption (16.9
percent), policy instability (7 percent) and
crime and theft (3 percent). The Supreme
Court and the judicial system it administers
face major challenges, such as case backlog,
using modern technology and obtaining more
funding. These are factors that investors very
much consider before they invest in a
particular country and comprises of what
makes a country competitive.
Clogged courts have long been an issue in the
Philippine judiciary system. It often takes
numerous years to have a case decided and, as
new cases come every year, caseloads have
piled up. Major reforms have been introduced
under the leadership of Chief Justice Maria
Lourdes A. Sereno, including computerization
of decisions, court records and continuous
trials.
Corruption has long been a major concern for
doing business in the country. Only in recent
years has it moved down from first to third
place in the WEF assessment to be slightly
below red tape and poor infrastructure. In the
Transparency International annual Corruption
Perception Index the Philippines improved
from 134th in 2010 to 101st in 2016, yet is
still ranked in the bottom 50 percent, along
with Indonesia, Thailand  and Vietnam.
The Arangkada Team has listed 26
recommendations; I have taken the liberty to
reduce the recommendations a bit:
1. Continue to increase judicial salaries
and hire more judges, encouraging
new judges to reduce the case
backlog more. Steadily raise the
budget for the judicial branch.
2. Make greater use of alternative
dispute resolution and arbitration to
resolve civil disputes outside of
courts, which should reduce the
backlog of cases and hasten justice.
3. Reduce the caseload of the Supreme
Court by limiting acceptance of
cases largely to cases involving
national issues.
4. The Ombudsman should improve its
capability to investigate and
prosecute allegations of corruption
against public officials. The
Sandiganbayan should reduce its
backlog of cases and increase it
conviction rate.
5. Pass amendments to the
Ombudsman Act to Strengthen the
Ombudsman as an Institution,
Upgrading of Ombudsman
Employee Skills, Augmenting
Compensation and Benefits, and
Enhancing Fiscal Autonomy.
6. The government must demonstrate
through consistent example that it
has the political will to greatly
reduce corruption. Investigating,
bringing charges against and
successfully prosecuting government
officials and private-sector persons
and corporations guilty of not
paying proper taxes, bribery and
other major corrupt acts must be
sustained.
7. Public officials and private persons
found guilty of major corrupt
activities should, after a fair trial, be
punished with heavy sentences,
including imprisonment and seizure
of assets.
8. Strengthen the anticorruption legal
framework by passing: a) anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act
amendments; b) Witness Protection
Act; and c) Whistleblowers
Protection Act.
9. Pass laws to exempt BIR and BOC
employees from the Salary
 Standardization Act (or, better,
privatize the activities of both
government organizations).
10.Appropriate resources should be
provided to the justice- sector actors
to support the fair administration of
justice.
11.Strengthen economic justice.
Establish and enhance special courts
that will address specific cases and
pursue contract enforcement. For
instance, infrastructure courts,
commercial courts, cybercrime
courts and environmental courts.
12.Streamline rules on the disposition
of land cases. The Supreme Court
should study the need to designate
special courts on land- dispute
settlement.
13.Raise scientific-investigation
capabilities and strengthen witness
and whistleblower
protection.
14.Reinforce alternative ADR
mechanisms so that courts can refer
cases for ADR and help in the
speedy disposition of cases.
15.Information and communication
technology should be used sector-
wide to help address fragmentation
in the justice system and greatly
enhance the information
management of the whole justice
sector.
There is no doubt that good intensions by the
government and the private sector are not
enough; judicial reform and anticorruption
initiatives are needed to successfully
implement the 10-point socioeconomic
agenda of the Duterte administration.
https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/
177893-failure-legal-system-challenge-filipino-
lawyers
Failure of the legal system: A
challenge to Filipino lawyers
As part of the legal system myself, an educator
in the field of criminal justice, I say, we are
losing, and we are losing poorly. We carry a
heavy burden because the public call for blood
is our own doing.
Raymund E. Narag, PhD
Published 9:32 AM, August 07, 2017
Updated 9:32 AM, August 07, 2017
The Philippine legal system is a miserable
failure. It has produced lawyers who are
adept in using the law to pervert the law.
And I say this with so much pain because I
worked with many dedicated Filipino
lawyers.
Individually, these dedicated lawyers introduce
innovative practices. Collectively, these
dedicated lawyers' efforts are gobbled by the
very corrupt practices of the legal profession.
First, many bright young lawyers are frustrated
by the fact that to win a case, they need to pull
connections. Even if they have produced a
well-crafted motion or brief, even if they spent
numerous hours of doing legal research, all
these may be thrown away if the opposing
party uses extra-legal tactics. In the legal
profession, this is called "gapangan".
That is why many of the laypersons I
interviewed would say, "Kaya naman kasi
gapangin ang piskal o judge." (They can make
arrangements with the fiscal or judge.) A hard
reality is striking: the law that they read in the
books is very different from the law that they
practice. And it would be considered naiveté for
the bright young lawyers to insist on the ideal.
As one lawyer I talked to said: "Wala kang
maipapanalong kaso kung puro galing ka lang
sa papel." (You can never win a case if you
rely on the formalities).
Second, confronted with these harsh realities,
bright young lawyers adapt to this practice.
They become socialized in the realities of the
law profession. Though many of these lawyers
want to maintain a corrupt-free identity, they
are, in one way or the other, forced to play to
the "tune of the music."
That is where the law fraternity connections
come into play. Law fraternities are, by nature,
very idealistic student organizations. They fight
for the rule of law, for nationalistic aspirations,
for service to the people. However, all these
idealistic visions of the law fraternities are
temporarily suspended, and the social capital
accrued in the connections are the ones
maximized. That is why it pays if the judge or
justice is a "brod."
Aside from the fraternities, other forms of social
entanglements can be maximized: familial
relations, classmates in law schools, coming
from the same province – the traditional
strength of the Filipino social relations. These
are all utilized, one way or the other, to get an
edge in winning the case. Thus, to be a good
lawyer, it pays to be adept at both the formal
elements of the law (the technical side) and the
informal elements of litigation (the political
side).
They need to know when or which tactics to
use in a particular case or context. The
capacity to switch between "santong dasalan"
(soft or diplomatic way) or "santong paspasan"
(tough way) will elevate them in the community
of lawyers. While there are instances that
lawyers can win on merit alone, most lawyers I
talked to lament that these are rare instances
indeed.
Third, these harsh realities affect the legal
careers of many lawyers: many of the
appointments and promotions are based on
personal connections. Judges who are efficient
in court administration, as measured by the
speedy disposition of their cases, for example,
are not promoted, if they do not have
connections to the appointing authorities.
The disconnect between promotions and merit
translates to a culture of inefficiency in the
court management. Some inmates in jail are
undergoing trial for as long as 15 years, yet
judges who have heard these cases are
promoted anyway.
Thus, currently, we have a very legally cynical
public. Filipinos do not trust the legal system.
They would rather approve the action of a
police officer to summarily kill a drug pusher
rather than try the offender in front of a judge
who may likely use technicalities to dismiss the
case.
And they cheer when the President of the
Republic, who is a former prosecutor, calls for
the sidestepping of due process and human
rights of the suspects, with the belief that we
need to cleanse first the corrupt legal system
before we can even introduce any meaningful
reforms. And I understand their frustrations and
pain. The popularity of the President is rooted
in a genuine reality: the brokenness of the legal
and criminal justice system.
Thus I say with a heavy heart that the legal
system is a massive failure. As part of the legal
system myself, an educator in the field of
criminal justice, I say, we are losing, and we
are losing poorly. We carry a heavy burden
because the public call for blood is our own
doing. Mga panyero, tayo ang may gawa niyan.
(My friends, we are the cause of this.)
But we should not take this sitting down. May I
call on all lawyers, judges, prosecutors, legal
scholars, who are truthful to their profession,
please stand up and be counted! Let us do our
fair share to improve the criminal justice
system. Let us be truthful and honest.
Or else, the public sentiment that calls for
blood will eventually wipe us all out.
If you are a lawyer who makes this
commitment, or if you want to challenge a
lawyer you know, please tag, pass and share.
Let us re-sensitize them with the nobility of
their profession. – Rappler.com
The author is assistant professor at the
Department of Criminology and Criminal
Justice of the Southern Illinois University in
Carbondale.
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/
2014/12/14/1402477/changing-how-lawyers-are-
educated
Changing how
lawyers are educated
BREAKTHROUGH - Elfren S. Cruz (The Philippine Star)
- December 14, 2014 - 12:00am
In all the discussions on the effect of ASEAN
integration on business and agriculture, most
people, including myself, have overlooked the
effect of this integration on the professional
services.
The Philippines  agreed to integrate, with other
ASEAN countries, the following professions:
Accountancy, Civil Engineering, Geodetic
Engineering, Electrical Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, Metallurgical
Engineering, Mining Engineering, Sanitary
Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Landscape
Architecture, Environmental (Urban ) Planning,
Computer related professions, and Interior
Designing. The Philippines also entered into
mutual recognition agreements on medical and
dental professions.
Supreme Court Justice Arturo D. Brion, a week
ago, gave a speech before the officers and
members of the Philippine Association of Law
Schools. He brought up the intriguing question
of whether the Congress or the Supreme Court
“can by rule or decision, determine whether, to
what extent, and under what terms foreign
(ASEAN) lawyers can engage in the practice of
the legal profession in the Philippines.”
His answer was: “It only remains for us  to
determine, how, when and to what extent we
shall open up the practice of the legal
profession to foreign participation.” Brion’s
most important query was whether the
Philippine legal profession was prepared “to
cooperate, collaborate, and compete with our
peers in the ASEAN region .”  He  stressed that
the Philippine legal profession must be ready
for a shift that will entail not only new
knowledge and awareness, but also a new set
of skills for the Philippine lawyer.”
In proposing areas for improvement and
adjustment, Justice Brion focused on radical
improvements in Legal Education. Even
without the ASEAN integration, his analysis
and recommendations, on the Philippine legal
education, should be taken seriously as a
major step for the improvement in the judicial
system which we have long been advocating
as necessary  to institutionalizing the rule of
law in this country. Here two paragraphs, in his
speech, that graphically describes the state of
legal education in this country:
“ Numerically, perhaps, we may currently have
enough law schools to fill our needs, In 2013,
120 law schools sent 5,292 bar examinees to
the BAR examinations. Sad to state, many of
these law schools performed dismally and
cannot live up to the ideal standards we would
wish to see in a regionally-open law practice
environment. In 30 (or 25%) of these law
schools not one Bar candidate passed..  in 67
(or 55.83% of these same law schools, 10% or
less of their graduates passed, while in 93 (or
80,83%)  out of these 120 law schools, 20% or
less of their graduates made it.
In terms of the percentage of the Bar
examinees who passed, from years 2000 to
2013, only 24.55% on the average passed,
with a low of 17.76% in 2012 to a high of
32.89% in 2011. Thus on the average, 3 out of
4 Bar examinees failed. In 2013, only 22.18%
passed the highest success rate then among
law schools was a 78.89% passing rate, and
only 2 other law schools had a passing rate of
more than 70.%”
By any standards, even a non-lawyer can see
that these are dismal results reflecting a deeply
flawed legal education system. Justice Brion
proposed five major changes in the system
which hopefully will address these issues:
First , rethink law school accreditation
standards including faculty and facilities. Also
stricter performance standards beyond a
passing record of one successful examinee for
every three years. My own thinking is they
should close those 93 law schools that had a
passing average of less than 20% of their Bar
examinees. But as Justice Brion said this
requires the political will to close down law
schools.
Second, Brion says that a mandatory aspect of
law school regulations is the requirement for
teachers based on the awareness that teaching
law and practicing law, although related, are
distinct disciplines with their own respective
qualifications. Teaching law should require
more than just passing the Bar. Law schools
also need a reasonable number of full time
faculty members.
Third, there is a need to rationalize the law
curriculum which has been in place for several
decades. Legal competence in this globalized
age requires a wider range of talents, among
them legal research advocacy, counselling,
problem solving, and decision making. Brion
emphasizes legal education should teach
students how to function as competent and
responsible lawyers, not merely to qualify as
lawyers under the Bar examinations.
Fourth, the time has come for radical changes
in the BAR exam. He believes that the present
system of examination – relevant to the
practice needs and environment decades ago
– is badly outdated because it is still largely
knowledge based and does not properly test
for skills and other competencies now
demanded by current realities.
Fifth, he proposes that the present Legal
Education Board should be transferred from
the Department of Education to the Supreme
Court in order to improve the interaction
between legal education and bar admission
regulations currently under the Supreme Court.

There are radical changes in most areas of

education caused by the rapid changes in
technology and the increasing globalization of
knowledge and economies. Best practices and
innovation have become common terms in
business, government and education. In almost
all professions like management, engineering,
accounting, medicine, adapting to a rapidly
changing world is becoming a fact of life.

 The Philippine legal profession must learn to

accept that they cannot continue to operate in
a cocoon of protectionism while the society
around them is embracing change. For
example, in all other professions – in terms of
time – services are now rendered in a matter of
weeks, days or even hours. But our lawyers
and judiciary still think that they are immune to
change and society will accept justice in terms
of years or even decades.

Philippine justice, and the education of its

lawyers, requires radical changes now and not
in some distant future.