BERNALDO, Aaron Silas C.

1L – H
2019-46264 Law 109 – CRIM 1
Reflection
Law is the manifestation of justice which is supposed to pervade society, and
ideally is an amalgam of theory and practice. Every person in the world of law, from
students to Chief Justices, tries his/her best to draw on these two elements: studying
provisions, understanding their crafting, identifying exceptions, and applying legal
learnings to real-world situations. Studying law requires long hours of reading, rigorous
understanding, and tedious analysis. So tedious that, as a first-year student, I could only
empathize with my fellow blockmates on the mountains of readings and the anxiety of
recitations that await us. As someone who is just in his first semester of law school, I
sometimes feel tempted to merely memorize and understand cases and their principles,
without yet fully comprehending or acknowledging how these can reflect in other real-life
scenarios not dictated in said readings. Sometimes, I feel like I could be leaning more
towards theory rather than practice.
This was the concern of essays written by Frank almost a century ago and Kotkin
just a few years back. Closing the distance between theory and practice has been a
challenge in the field of law, for a long time now. In Frank’s case, he was critical of the
casebook method pioneered by American jurist Christopher Columbus Langdell.
Granted, such method redefined how law students like me learn about the law, but
Frank’s description of Langdell as a reclusive theoretician in the library illustrates the
problem of how many law students graduate but are unable to apply their learnings in
actual practice. As for the latter essay, the favoring of legal education of faculty with little
or less practical experience in law and the dwindling of legal clinics mirror the same
concern.
The comparison made by Frank of law schools to medical schools piqued my
interest. Frank, in his observation, felt that medical schools gave equal, if not more,
value to practice compared to theory (or studies), and that legal education was left
wanting in the same aspect. Some of his questions pricked the mind. Just as a medical
student could administer the health of patients during education, could not a law student
do so in legal proceedings more often? Why is it that (at least during Frank’s time) law
students are not given enough exposure, and only get to have substantial experience
near or after graduation?
This was written in the context of 1930’s America, so I cannot claim that the
same situation is identical to our 21st century Philippine setting. Nonetheless, Frank has
a point. Maybe, this is the case because law apparently does not have the same direct
effect on people as medicine (i.e., physiology, the human body). But on a similar tone to
Frank, I disagree that things must remain this way. Law does have a direct effect on
people. It governs and regulates us, even if we may not feel it all the time. Even more
pressing is the age-old adage of law only serving the rich, or that most people do not
know much about it. Just as medical students are made to intern in desolate areas, so
should law students like me, as future stewards of justice, be made to help propagate
the rule of law and knowledge of it, especially to the less fortunate. It also kills two birds
with one stone, as we gain experience in applying our learnings, which was what Frank
wanted. We step out of the library that “imprisoned” Langdell and threatens to detain us.
Kotkin touches on a similar aspect. Law serves to equalize the scales of justice
for both rich and poor. Such was the purpose of legal clinics established by law schools
early on. However, in the wake of the 2008 recession, her observations found that in
recent years, poverty law, which is focused on protecting the rights of the poor, has
been overrun by transactional law, or that which is of an entrepreneurial nature and
prioritizes gains over social justice. The prominence of legal clinics has dwindled, in
favor of more “practical” trends in law school that benefit the privileged. Also, Frank’s
earlier concern of theory eclipsing practice is again relevant, as there have been an
increasing number of law professors joining the faculty but having little experience in
practice (Kotkin mentioned this in the form of professors with mere J.D. degrees having
more practical experience and those with advanced degrees having less). Her point
serves to show that the rift between theory and practice, the rich and the poor, can
disenchant the people and drive them from the law, seeing it as merely a vessel for the
powerful. Law is a failure if this is to be the norm.
Reflecting on these, I must first say that I am among the most privileged law
students, as a scholar in the country’s top law school. I am blessed to have professors
who have practical experience, and as part of the country’s national university, are
geared towards helping the underserved and needy. Kotkin and Frank inculcate in me
two things: applying what I learn in real life as opposed to merely studying them, and
enabling those in society’s margins to have a greater share of justice. These are
perhaps the heart of this subject as well, Criminal Law 1. I now understand better that
learning the law is not just knowing facts, reciting cases and understanding legal
principles. It is important that I also learn how the knowledge I have gathered applies to
real life, whether it be current social issues, or personal dealings. The trite saying that
law should protect the poor remains trite, but for good reason, and both Kotkin’s and
Frank’s essays have reminded me of our mission to deliver justice to everyone,
especially the least and the last.
I cannot say much yet as I am still a toddler in the legal world. I do not even know
if I can pass my other subjects or survive my first year. Though if ever I somehow hurdle
it all, I do not mean to brag, but I have strengthened my desire to be a lawyer. I am
lucky to have read the above, and now I am more selfless as to why I study the law.
Para sa bayan, as we say in UP.