Re: Proposed Reforms in the Bar Examinations

Pursuant to its constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law, the Supreme Court may, by resolution en banc, prescribe and adopt structural, administrative, and methodological reforms in the bar examinations — including the disqualification of candidates who fail three examinations or obtain a grade below 50% in any subject, the imposition of qualifications and disqualifications upon examiners, the fixing of a cut-off date for the laws and decisions covered, and the phased introduction of multiple-choice questions, performance testing, readership panels, and calibration of essay corrections.

The resolution rests on the Supreme Court's constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law, which the Court exercises en banc. The reforms were conceived against the twin objectives of safeguarding the integrity of the Bar Examinations and making them effective tools for measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of instruction given by law schools. The matter was initiated by the Court's own resolution of March 21, 2000, which created a Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms chaired by Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera, with retired Justices Jose Y. Feria and Camilo D. Quiason as members. The resulting recommendations were thereafter channeled through the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, headed by Justice Jose C. Vitug, for further study, report, and recommendation.

On March 21, 2000, the Supreme Court en banc created a Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools. The Special Study Group was chaired by Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera, with retired Justice Jose Y. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members. It submitted its Final Report, dated September 18, 2000, containing its findings and recommendations.

On August 21, 2001, the Court en banc referred the Final Report to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters for further study, report, and recommendation; the Committee was headed by Justice Jose C. Vitug. In connection with the discussion on the proposed reforms, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, then a member of the Committee, submitted a paper entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer, proposing structural and administrative reforms, changes in the design and construction of questions, and methodological reforms concerning the marking and grading of essay questions in the bar examination.

Proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine Association of Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the University of the Philippines College of Law, the Arellano Law Foundation, the Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association, and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar. Following her memorandum to the Chief Justice dated February 27, 2003 on a proposed technical assistance project on legal education, Program Director Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum of the Program Management Office was invited to a meeting of the Committee.

Under the auspices of the Program Management Office, the Committee conducted four regional round-table discussions with law deans, professors, students, and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines: for the National Capital Region at the Manila Diamond Hotel on November 19, 2003; for Mindanao at the Grand Regal Hotel in Davao City on January 23, 2004; for the Visayas at the Montebello Hotel in Cebu City in January 2004; and for Luzon at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Manila on February 6, 2004. In a special meeting held at the Pan Pacific Hotel on April 23, 2004, the Committee heard the views of Ms. Erica Moeser, Chief Executive Officer and President of the National Conference of Board Examiners in the United States of America, on a number of proposed bar reforms.

After extensive deliberation and consultation, the Committee arrived at certain recommendations for the consideration of the Supreme Court and submitted its report, dated May 21, 2004, to the Court en banc. The Court, sitting en banc, thereupon resolved to approve and adopt the Bar Examination Reforms.

• Adoption of the Proposed Reforms: Whether the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, should approve and adopt the bar examination reforms recommended by the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters.
• Disqualification of Repeat Examinees: Whether a candidate who has failed in three bar examinations should be disqualified, subject to the taking of a fourth and fifth examination upon completion of a one-year refresher course for each.
• Subject-Grade Disqualification: Whether a candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in any subject should be disqualified.
• Cut-off Date for Coverage: Whether the cut-off date for the laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar examinations should be fixed at June 30 of the immediately preceding year.
• Qualifications and Disqualifications of Examiners: Whether bar examiners should be subject to prescribed qualifications and disqualifications, including kinship with an examinee, employment of an examinee in the examiner's office, membership in a law school's governing board, faculty or administration, teaching or lecturing in a law school or review center during the semester following the examinations, and suspension or disbarment.
• Automation of the Bar Examinations: Whether the computerization or automation of the bar examinations should be adopted to facilitate application, testing, and reporting procedures.

• Adoption of the Proposed Reforms: Yes. The Court, sitting en banc, resolved to approve and adopt the Bar Examination Reforms, pursuant to its constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law.
• Disqualification of Repeat Examinees: Yes. A candidate is disqualified after failing in three examinations, but may take a fourth and fifth examination upon successful completion of a one-year refresher course for each; those who have already failed in five or more examinations upon the effectivity of the Resolution are allowed only one more examination after completing a one-year refresher course.
• Subject-Grade Disqualification: Yes. A candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in any subject is disqualified.
• Cut-off Date for Coverage: Yes. The cut-off date for laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar examinations is fixed at June 30 of the immediately preceding year.
• Qualifications and Disqualifications of Examiners: Yes. Examiners must possess the prescribed qualifications and are subject to the enumerated disqualifications, including kinship with an examinee within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, having an examinee as a member of the examiner's office staff or as the spouse or child of such staff member, membership in a law school's governing board, faculty or administration, teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or review center during the particular semester following the bar examinations, having any interest or involvement in any law school, bar review center or group, and suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction.
• Automation of the Bar Examinations: Yes, for implementation within five years and beyond, the further computerization or automation of the bar examinations is adopted to facilitate application, testing, and reporting procedures.

• Adoption of the Proposed Reforms: The Resolution proceeds from the Court's constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, exercised by the Court en banc. The reforms were adopted after a Special Study Group created on March 21, 2000 submitted its Final Report dated September 18, 2000; after the Final Report was referred on August 21, 2001 to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters; after proposals and comments were received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine Association of Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the University of the Philippines College of Law, the Arellano Law Foundation, the Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association, and other personalities from the Bench and the Bar; after four regional round-table discussions and a special meeting at which the views of the President of the National Conference of Board Examiners were heard; and after the Committee, following extensive deliberation and consultation, submitted its report dated May 21, 2004. The Resolution itself states no further rationale beyond these recitals and the Committee's recommendations.
• Disqualification of Repeat Examinees: The measure is set for implementation within one to two years and is stated as a rule of disqualification, qualified by two provisos: a candidate may take a fourth and fifth examination if he successfully completes a one-year refresher course for each examination, and, upon the effectivity of the Resolution, those who have already failed in five or more bar examinations shall be allowed to take only one more bar examination after completing a one-year refresher course. The Resolution supplies no additional reasoning for the measure.
• Subject-Grade Disqualification: The Resolution lists, among the reforms for implementation within one to two years, the disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in any subject. No further rationale is stated in the text.
• Cut-off Date for Coverage: The Resolution fixes June 30 of the immediately preceding year as the cut-off date for laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar examinations, as one of the reforms for implementation within one to two years. No further rationale is stated in the text.
• Qualifications and Disqualifications of Examiners: The Resolution prescribes that examiners must be members in good standing of the Philippine Bar, competent in the assigned subject, a teacher of the subject or familiar with the principles of test construction, and committed to checking test papers personally and promptly pending the creation and organization of the readership panels. It further enumerates the disqualifications, which include kinship with an examinee within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, having an examinee as a member of the examiner's office staff or as the spouse or child of such staff member, membership in a law school's governing board, faculty or administration, teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or review center during the particular semester following the bar examinations, having any interest or involvement in any law school, bar review center or group, and suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction. The same grounds of kinship, staff relationship, and law school affiliation govern the disqualification of a Bar Examination Chairperson. No further rationale is stated in the text.
• Automation of the Bar Examinations: The Resolution places the further computerization or automation of the bar examinations in the category of measures for implementation within five years and beyond, in order to facilitate application, testing, and reporting procedures. No further rationale is stated in the text.

• Judicial authority over admission to the practice of law — The Supreme Court's constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law is the source of its power to prescribe, revise, and reform the bar examinations. The Resolution invokes this authority as the basis for approving and adopting the reforms, and the reforms were adopted by the Court sitting en banc.
• The Bar Examinations as a measure of legal education — The reforms were undertaken to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools. This dual purpose framed the Special Study Group's mandate and the entire reform process.
• Phased implementation of bar reforms — The Resolution calibrated the reforms into three implementation windows: (a) within one to two years — initial determination by the Chairperson of admission of candidates subject to confirmation by the Court en banc, certification by law deans of absence of derogatory record, disqualification after three failures subject to refresher courses, disciplinary measures, disqualification of Bar Examination Chairpersons and Examiners, qualifications and disqualifications of Examiners, personal preparation of fifty main questions in sealed envelopes at least forty-five days before the scheduled examination, apportionment of questions among topics, burning and shredding of drafts, publication of names of admitted candidates, disqualification for a grade below 50% in any subject, the June 30 cut-off date, and consideration of suggested answers prepared by the U.P. Law Center; (b) within two to five years — objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions, formulation of essay questions and model answers, performance testing, designation of two examiners per subject depending on the number of examinees, a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson, readership panels for each subject area, and the calibration method in correcting essay questions; and (c) within five years and beyond — further computerization or automation of the bar examinations.
• Refresher-course condition on repeat examinations — A candidate who fails in three examinations is disqualified, but may take a fourth and fifth examination if he successfully completes a one-year refresher course for each examination. Upon the effectivity of the Resolution, those who have already failed in five or more bar examinations are allowed to take only one more bar examination after completing a one-year refresher course.
• Subject-grade disqualification — A candidate who obtains a grade below 50% in any subject is disqualified from passing the bar examinations.
• Cut-off date for bar coverage — June 30 of the immediately preceding year is fixed as the cut-off date for laws and Supreme Court decisions and resolutions to be included in the bar examinations.
• Reservation of unaddressed matters — Items not covered by the Resolution, such as those pertaining to a possible review of the coverage and relative weights of the subjects of the bar examinations, are maintained. Matters concerning the accreditation and supervision of law schools, the inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in the law curriculum including an apprenticeship program in the Judiciary, prosecution service and law offices, the imposition of sanctions on law schools failing to meet prescribed standards, and a mandatory Law School Admission Test were referred to the Legal Education Board.

• "WHEREAS, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the Supreme Court en banc item in its Resolution of 21 March 2000, created a 'Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms' to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools" — This recital identifies the constitutional source of the Court's authority over bar admissions and states the two-fold purpose of the reform project: safeguarding the integrity of the Bar Examinations and making them effective measures of legal education.
• "NOW, THEREFORE, the Court, sitting en banc, hereby RESOLVES to approve and adopt the following Bar Examination Reforms:" — The operative clause of the Resolution, from which the Court's approval and adoption of the entire package of reforms derives.
• "Disqualification of a candidate after failing in three(3) examinations, provided, that he may take a fourth and fifth examination if he successful completes a one (1) year refresher course for each examination; provided, further, that upon the effectivity of this Resolution, those who have already failed in five(5) or more bar examinations shall be allowed to take only one (1) more bar examination after copleting (1) year refresher course." — The canonical formulation of the repeat-examinee disqualification rule and its two provisos, including the transitional rule for those who had already failed five or more examinations.
• "This resolution shall take effect on the fifteenth day of July 2004, and shall be published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines." — The effectivity and publication clause, fixing the date on which the reforms took effect and imposing the publication requirement.

• Constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law (1987 Constitution) — The Resolution invokes the Supreme Court's constitutional authority over admission to the practice of law as the basis for creating the Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms and for approving and adopting the reforms. The text does not specify the particular article and section of the Constitution.
• Bar Matter No. 1161, Re: Proposed Reforms in the Bar Examinations (June 8, 2004) — The Resolution itself is the governing issuance; it approves and adopts the enumerated Bar Examination Reforms, provides for their phased implementation, maintains items not covered such as the coverage and relative weights of bar subjects, refers certain matters to the Legal Education Board, and takes effect on July 15, 2004 upon publication in two newspapers of general circulation.

The Resolution was issued by the Court en banc and signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Jose C. Vitug, Artemio V. Panganiban, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona (on leave), Conchita Carpio-Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, and Dante O. Tinga. No separate concurring opinions are reflected in the text.