‘Non-performing’ law schools
The results of 2012 Philippine bar examinations which came out last March 20 revealed the lowest passing percentage for the past 10 years.
Of the 5,343 candidates who took the bar examinations, a total of only 949, or 17.76 percent, passed.
With this passing rate, last year’s bar examinations is touted to be one of the most difficult to date.
Bar exams data
Conduct of the bar examinations is done annually by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, pursuant to its constitutional mandate to regulate the practice of law.
Until 2011, the examination was in the form of essay-type questions which cover eight subject areas—political law and public international law, labor law and social legislation, civil law, taxation, commercial law, criminal law, remedial law, and legal ethics and practical exercises.
In 2011, however, the format of the bar examinations was revised to multiple-choice questions (MCQ) for all subjects and legal memorandum and opinion. In 2012, another revision was introduced, combining multiple-choice and essay-type questions.
Out of curiosity, I made a cursory examination of the data on the bar exams results over a 10-year period, from 2003 to 2012. I found some interesting data that are worth sharing. For example, of the 118 law schools with candidates taking the 2012 bar examinations:
There are 34 schools that had a zero passing percentage. Of these schools, 16 had zero-percent passing rate at least 50-percent of the time since 2003;
There are 40 schools with a passing rate between one percent and 10 percent. Of these schools, 19 had less than 10-percent passing rate at least 50-percent of the time since 2003;
There are 28 schools with passing rate between 10 percent and 20 percent. Of these schools, 26 had less than 25-percent passing rate at least 50-percent of the time since 2003;
There are seven law schools with a passing rate between 25 percent and 50 percent. Of these schools, two had less than 50-percent passing rate at least 50-percent of the time since 2003;
There are only five law schools that obtained a passing rate between 50 percent and 75 percent. Three of these schools had less than 75-percent passing rate since 2003; and,
There are only two schools that had a passing rate of more than 75 percent in 2012. Of these two law schools, only one has consistently made the 75-percent mark since 2003.
Laying the ‘blame’
Some point to the new format of the bar exams as the culprit. There seems to be truth to it but the data appear inconclusive.
In fact, in 2011 when the MCQ was first introduced, the overall passing rate was 31.95 percent. This was the highest passing percentage in 10 years since 2003. The only year that came close to it was 2004 when the passing rate was 31.61 percent.
Also, in 2012, while the passing percentage for the MCQ-type exams was generally lower than that for the essay-type, political and international law was one of the subject areas with the most casualties for the essay-type questions.
The MCQ portion of the subject had a passing rate of 59.07 percent compared to only 6.07-percent passing rate for the essay portion. Likewise, the passing rate for the MCQ portion of civil law was 34.69 percent while the passing rate for the essay-type portion of the same subject was 27.30 percent.
On the contrary, if the results are analyzed in their entirety, it appears that there are “problem” subjects wherein majority of candidates fared very badly. For example, a high number of candidates did not pass the criminal law and remedial law examinations on both multiple choice questions and essay. The same holds true for civil law and mercantile law where the failing percentage was well beyond the 50-percent mark on both counts.
Therefore, rather than blame the MCQ for the dismal performance of our bar examinees, attention must be focused on the quality of legal education that our law schools provide. After all, if a student truly grasps the law, there is no reason why he or she cannot answer a question posed, whether in multiple-choice or essay format.
Reforming legal education
In 1993, Congress passed Republic Act No. 7662, otherwise known as the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 (LEB Law) to raise the standard of legal education in the Philippines. The LEB Law also created the Legal Education Board (LEB) to implement reforms in legal education.
However, there was considerable delay in the implementation of the law partly because there were objections from the Supreme Court.
It was not until late 2009 that the LEB became actually operational when retired Court of Appeals Justice Hilarion Aquino was appointed as its chair.
In the light of the glaring data as discussed above, concrete and forceful steps must be taken to uplift the standards of legal education in the Philippines, as envisioned by the LEB Law.
Allowing substandard law schools to continue operating will work as a fraud on the public.
Knowing Justice Aquino, the LEB will crack the whip on law schools. In fact, in the short span of its existence, the LEB has already ordered the closure of seven law schools for failing to meet its standards. This having been said, the LEB must not lose sight of the need for law schools in different parts of the country. Not every student can afford to take up law in major cities, much less in Metro Manila. More importantly, the LEB must work closely with the law schools to improve the quality of their legal education.
Of course, this is “mission impossible” for the LEB unless both Congress and Supreme Court truly support it in its reform initiatives.
* * *
(The author is co-managing partner and head of the corporate and special projects department of ACCRALAW and a law professor at the Ateneo Law School. He may be contacted through his e-mail address at [email protected].)
