PREPARING FOR THE 2015 BAR EXAMINATIONS

What is past is prologue.

- Robert Aitken

Restoration of essay question s lead role in bar exam

The 2013 bar examination was notable for the revival of the essay question s preem
inent role. The examination comprised 80% essay questions and 20% multiple-choi
ce questions (MCQs). This was a turn-around from the 2012 bar exam s format of 60
% MCQ and 40% essay question and the 2011 bar where the use of problem-type essa
y questions was entirely discontinued in favor of MCQs and performance tests.
The essay question s resurgence had its genesis from a debate on the format of the
bar examination, which was not settled with finality despite the adoption of th
e combined MCQ and performance-test format in the 2011 Bar. One side advocates
the use of MCQs and performance tests as the new and progressive trend in bar ex
aminations. The other side contends that the essay examination is still the gold
standard in measuring the competencies of those aspiring for membership in the
bar, especially the ability to think and argue like a lawyer. The 2013 bar exam
ination was an indication that the pro-essay question faction has regained the u
pper hand.
The lead role of the essay question was fortified further in the 2014 bar examin
ation. For instance in Remedial Law, there were only 8 MCQs having a weight of
1% each or a total weight of only 8%. This allocation was substantially the sam
e in the other bar subjects.
Based on the trend of the past bar exams, we can predict with some confidence th
at the nominal role of MCQs in the bar will continue.
Importance of a logic-driven or argument-driven approach to bar preparation
The restoration of the essay question s leading role is a clear indication of the
importance given by the High Tribunal to testing the examinee s ability to think a
nd argue like a lawyer.
In 7 December 2012, the Supreme Court issued Bar Bulletin No. 1 for the guidance
of the bar reviewees. The bulletin states that [w]hether MCQ or essay, the que
stions shall be based on a given set of facts, presented as briefly but as clea
rly and completely as possible.

The bulletin enumerates the basic elements of problem-solving or what we may cal
l as competencies that the examiners shall particularly look for:

Proper understanding and appreciation of the facts, particularly of the comp

onents or details that can be material in resolving the given problem.
Appreciation of the applicable law or laws that may come into play.
Recognition of the issue or issues posed.
Resolution of the issues through the analysis and application of the law to
the given facts.

The bulletin states that the examinee s presentation and articulation of his or he
r answer shall also be given weight. In the Guidelines for the 2014 Bar, the Su
preme Court said that in a 5-point essay exam, the examiner can give credit even
if the answer is not exactly correct but the answer is well-written and logical.

These statements in the bulletin indicate that the examination will be argumentdriven or logic-driven rather than conclusion-driven. This information is of c
apital importance since most law students have been taught in law school to be c
onclusion-driven rather than argument-driven and little if any time has been dev
oted to the proper presentation and articulation of one s answers.

The examinee thus has to be trained in presenting his answer in such a way as to
display to the examiner his familiarity with the basic elements of problem-solv
ing.

Issue-spotting

Bar Bulletin No. 1 includes as one of the competencies the examiners are looking
out for is the recognition of the issue or issues posed.
Issue-recognition is a
core competency which may be developed by a rigorous mock-bar and coaching progr
am. Bar Bulletin No. 1 was a harbinger of a shift from the typical issue-poser
question to an issue-spotter question. And indeed issue-spotter questions wer
e liberally used in the 2013 bar examination.

In this regard, the bar candidate must know the difference between an issue-pose
r and an issue-spotter. The difference may be illustrated by giving an example
of each. First let us give an example of an issue-spotter question.

Q
Jose filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Ma
ria. During the trial, the lawyer of Jose offered Jose s testimony on the content
s of a psychiatrist s report which made a finding that Maria was suffering from ny
mphomania and which report was in the hands of Jose.
a) If you were the lawyer for Maria, what objections if any can you
raise to the offer of Jose s testimony? Explain.
b) If you were the lawyer for Jose, how would you counter the objec
tions of Maria? Explain.
c) If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objections? Exp
lain.

A little difficult isn t it? That s because the issues and the applicable laws were

not laid down on a silver platter to the examinee. It s the examinee s job to spot
the issues and the applicable laws. The examinee is also asked to argue for bo
th sides, a common feature of American bar exam questions.

Using the same factual setting, the above question can be modified to an issue-p
oser question as follows:

Q
Jose filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Ma
ria. During the trial, the lawyer of Jose offered Jose s testimony on the content
s of a psychiatrist s report which made a finding that Maria was suffering from ny
mphomania and which report was in the hands of Jose. Maria s lawyer objected on t
he ground that the testimony would violate the physician-patient privilege.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objection? Explain.

The above essay question is less difficult to answer than the preceding one. Th
is is because a narrow issue has been explicitly stated in the problem: Would th
e husband s testimony on the contents of the psychiatric report violate the physic
ian-patient privilege? Knowing the issue, the examinee would find it comparativ
ely easy to determine the applicable law, i.e., Section 24(c), Rule 130 of the R
ules of Court regarding the physician-patient privilege.

On the other hand, in the issue-spotter question, the examinee has to spot the t
hree issues involved:

a)

Would the husband s testimony violate the marital disqualification rule?

b)

Would the husband s testimony violate the physician-patient privilege?

c)

Would the husband s testimony violate the hearsay rule?

Spotting these three issues is not easy if one has not been trained to do so. I
ssue-spotting is not a matter of good luck. There is a science to issue-spotti
ng. Knowledge of issue-spotting techniques and training exercises to develop pr
oficiency in using these techniques would be of immense help.

An example of an issue-poser question in the 2014 bar is Question No. 24.

Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, Solomon contracted a second marr
iage with Hope. When Faith found out about the second marriage of Solomon and Ho
pe, she filed a criminal case for bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) o
f Manila sometime in 2011.

Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his first marr
iage with Faith in 2012, while the case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is o
ngoing. Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the b
igamy case on the ground of prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceeding
s in the criminal case should be suspended because if his first marriage with Fa
ith will be declared null and void, it will have the effect of exculpating him f
rom the crime of bigamy. Decide.

The bar question presents the narrow issue of whether the petition for declarati
on of nullity of marriage presents a prejudicial question in the criminal case f
or bigamy.

Process or remedy-focused questions

A clear trend in the 2013 bar examination was the liberal use of open-ended ques
tions which asked the examinee to give the appropriate legal steps, process, o
r remedy that is available to one of the parties.
Examples of such type of qu
estions are questions IV(C) and IV(D) in Remedial Law:

IV(C) Still in another case, this time for illegal possession of

dangerous drugs, the prosecution has rested but you saw from the records
that the illegal substance allegedly involved has not been identified by any
of the prosecution witnesses nor has it been the subject of any stipulation.

Should you now proceed posthaste to the presentation of defense

evidence or consider some other remedy? Explain the remedial steps you
propose to undertake.

IV(D) In one other case, an indigent mother seeks assistance for her
14-year old son who has been arrested and detained for malicious mischief.

Would an application for bail be the appropriate remedy or is there

another remedy available? Justify your chosen remedy and outline the
appropriate steps to take.

Open-ended, practical, and elucidative questions are not new. They have been us
ed on occasions in previous bar examinations and were the norm in the 1983 bar e
xamination where the examinee was placed in the position of a lawyer acting for
or advising a client. Their liberal use in the 2013 bar examinations indicates
an exigent need to train bar reviewees on how to analyze and answer these types
of questions.

An example of a remedy-focused question in the 2014 bar exam is Question No. 20.

Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of his marriage with Debi Wallis on the ground of psychological incap
acity of the latter. Before filing the petition, Tom Wallis had told Debi Wallis
that he wanted the annulment of their marriage because he was already fed up wi
th her irrational and eccentric behaviour. However, in the petition for declarat
ion of nullity of marriage, the correct residential address of Debi Wallis was d
eliberately not alleged and instead, the residential address of their married so
n was stated. Summons was served by substituted service at the address stated in
the petition. For failure to file an answer, Debi Wallis was declared in defaul
t and Tom Wallis presented evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered judgment declarin
g the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of Debi W
allis. Three (3) years after the RTC judgment was rendered, Debi Wallis got hold
of a copy thereof and wanted to have the RTC judgment reversed and set aside.

If you are the lawyer of Debi Wallis, what judicial remedy or remedies will you
take? Discuss and specify the ground or grounds for said remedy or remedies.

It cannot be gainsaid that these types of questions are quite challenging for a
bar examinee who after all has yet to practice law. Special attention should t
herefore be paid to training and coaching the bar candidate to field these types
of questions.

Know-and-recall MCQs continue to dominate MCQ portion

The 2013 bar examination was notable for the reduction of the MCQs role. In 201
1 and in 2012, the MCQ portion was allocated a weight of 60% of the examinee s gra
de. In 2013, however the weight of the MCQ portion was substantially reduced t
o 20%.
In 2013, the number of MCQs was drastically cut from 100 MCQs in the 2
011 and 2012 bar exams to only 10 to 20 MCQs, albeit the number of options was i
ncreased to five from four. In the 2014 bar, only 8 MCQs were asked with a tota
l weight of only 8%.

Bar Bulletin No. 1 for the 2013 bar exam stated that [w]hether MCQ or essay, the
questions shall be based on a given set of facts, presented as briefly but as
clearly and completely as possible.
This clearly implied that problem-type MCQs
would be solely used. As it turned out, objective-type MCQs were still widely
used for the 2013 and 2014 bar exams just as they had been in the 2011 and 2012

bar exams. For instance in the 2014 Remedial Law bar exam, out of the 8 MCQs, 5
were objective-type or know-and-recall MCQs. There were only 2 problem-type o
r read-and-analyze MCQs and one read-and-understand MCQ.

Importance of jurisprudence and statutory updates

The 2013 bar exam proved quite challenging in that the cut-off for Supreme Court
decisions covered by the bar exam was up to 31 January 2013 of the current year
. It even became tougher in the 2014 bar which provided that 31 March 2014 was
the cut-off for laws and jurisprudence covered by the 2014 Bar Examinations.

And the Supreme Court meant what it said. For instance in the 2014 Remedial Law
bar exam, Question No. 12 was based on a Supreme Court decision promulgated on
10 February 2014 (Republic v. Olaybar) while Question No. 15 was based on a Supr
eme Court decision promulgated on 25 March 2014 (People v. Go).

Needless to state these two cases could not have been taken up in law school by
the 2014 bar candidates. Yet it would be foolhardy for the bar reviewee to unde
rtake a case survey during the bar review.
More or less a hundred cases are p
romulgated by the Supreme Court every month and a bar examinee would not have th
e time or experience to wade through all these decisions and choose the salient
ones. It is thus imperative to attend a bar review program where seasoned bar r
eviewers are surveying recent cases and statutes in order to choose those which
may form the basis of bar exam questions.

Importance of mock-bar and coaching program further underscored

The new developments in the bar examination format underscore further the need f
or a training and coaching program that involves not only a series of mock-bar e
xaminations but also one-on-one coaching with a feedback mechanism. The mere tak
ing of practice exams by a reviewee and the giving to him of the answers would b
e inadequate. The reviewee must have the benefit of feedback from an experienced
and competent trainer and this can only be had under a program that provides fo
r one-on-one and face-to-face interaction with a coach. Using a series of specia
lly crafted mock bar exams, the coach would be able to diagnose the weaknesses a
nd strengths of the reviewee and to monitor and guide his progress.
Individualized coaching is especially important for training the bar reviewee fo
r the essay examination. Since the essay question requires the subjective judgme
nt of the examiner, the examinee must be trained and honed in the proper manner
of presenting his answer. Each examinee has his own strengths and weaknesses in
approaching and answering essay questions and a one size fits all lecture or train
ing session is not the proper approach. The comprehensive training program shoul
d especially train the examinee in the basic elements of problem-solving that th
e examiner is looking out for.
Practice is also very important. It is absurd to just lecture a bar examinee on
bar methods and techniques and then expect the examinee to magically deploy the
se during the bar examination. That would be like lecturing a child on how to s
wim and then throwing him into a ten-foot-deep pool. The examinee should underg

o a series of mock-bar exams where he can get the feel of applying the essay and
MCQ tactics and strategies with guidance from his coach.
The Supreme Court itself recognized the salient role played by mock bars and bar
exam coaching. The Guidelines for the 2014 Bar recommend thus:

Practice Exams

A good practice for law schools/review classes to observe is to hold practice ex

amination sessions with the Bar candidates, both on the Essay and the MCQ format
s. In evaluating these practice exams, attention should be given to both the law
and the Bar candidate's presentation and use of English. In many instances, inc
orrect English is more serious as a problem than the lack of precise knowledge o
f law, and has been the cause of high failure rates. [Emphases supplied]

Clearly discernible from the Guidelines is the need for someone to evaluate the
practice exam. It is strongly advised that an experienced or certified bar exa
m coach be the one to undertake the evaluation, taking into account the obvious
limitations of self-coaching.
Fine-tuning of coaching and training to read and answer essay questions
In light of the increased role of issue-spotter questions, Jurists fine-tuned it
s coaching program to further train the examinees in issue-spotting skills, incl
uding the use of fact-pattern recognition, embedded-rule recognition, and other
issue-spotting and rule-spotting techniques. Issue-spotter questions are rarel
y if ever seldom asked in law school; hence the overwhelming majority of bar exa
minees have not had the benefit of any training and coaching on how to face them
. With this in mind, Jurists has added to its data bank of issue-spotter questi
ons for use in its training and coaching program and undertaken further training
of its corps of coaches to respond to the latest changes.
Jurists has also fortified its essay question training program by adding more pr
ocess and remedy-focused questions to its bank of mock-bar questions and devisin
g the appropriate training modules to help the reviewee tackle these kinds of qu
estions.
Reinforcing the MCQ training program
While some reports indicate the discontinuance of the use of MCQs, Jurists still
made the appropriate changes and fine-tuning of its MCQ training program to pre
pare the reviewee just in case MCQs would still be used in the 2015 bar. Jurist
s has been at the forefront in the development and use of MCQ tactics and strate
gies which empowered its reviewees to outperform in the 2011-2013 bar exams.
Utmost preparation and training
As of the writing of this article (January 2015), the Supreme Court has not yet
released the relevant bulletins or resolutions regarding the format of the bar e
xam. Jurists however has been proactive in its bar review and coaching program
, fine-tuning and strengthening the same in order to respond to whatever format
may be adopted by the Supreme Court, rather than just taking a passive stance of
waiting first for the SC s announcements and then reacting accordingly.

With the substantial use of issue-spotter questions and process and remedy-focus
ed questions, there is a felt need for a bar review program which would properly
train the reviewee, taking into account that these types of questions are not w
idely used in law schools. A traditional bar review program based exclusively o
r heavily on lectures and passive study without any or scant training and mechan
ism for feedback would ill prepare the examinee for the argument-driven and comp
etencies-based bar exams and could lead to the bitter agony of defeat. On the o
ther hand the examinee who backstops a rigorous study regime with a tested mockbar and coaching program would significantly boost his chances of savouring the
thrill of victory when he is granted leave by the High Court en banc to inscribe
his or her name in the hallowed roll of attorneys.
-oOo-

January 2015