EN BANC

B.M. No. 2265

RE: REFORMS IN THE 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS
Preliminary Statement
The Court has found merit in the proposed changes in the conduct
of the bar examinations that the Chairperson of the 2011 Bar
Examinations and Philippine Association of Law Schools
recommended.
One recommendation concerns the description of the coverage of
the annual bar examinations that in the past consisted merely of
naming the laws that each subject covered. This description has
been regarded as too general and provides no specific
understanding of the entry-level legal knowledge required of
beginning law practitioners.
A second recommendation addresses the predominantly essaytype of bar examinations that the Court conducts. Because of the
enormous growth of laws, doctrines, principles, and precedents, it
has been noted that such examinations are unable to hit a
significant cross-section of the subject matter. Further, the huge
number of candidates taking the examinations annually and the
limited time available for correcting the answers make fair
correction of purely essay-type examinations difficult to attain.
Besides, the use of multiple choice questions, properly and
carefully constructed, is a method of choice for qualifying
professionals all over the world because of its proven reliability
and facility of correction.
A third recommendation opts for maintaining the essay-type
examinations but dedicating these to the assessment of the
requisite communication skills, creativity, and fine intellect that
bar candidates need for the practice of law.
Approved Changes
The Court has previously approved in principle the above
recommended changes. It now resolves to approve the following
rules that shall govern the future conduct of the bar examinations:
1. The coverage of the bar examinations shall be drawn up by
topics and sub-topics rather than by just stating the covered laws.
The test for including a topic or sub-topic in the coverage of the
examinations is whether it covers laws, doctrines, principles and
rulings that a new lawyer needs to know to begin a reasonably
prudent and competent law practice. The coverage shall be
approved by the Chairperson of the Bar Examination in
consultation with the academe, subject to annual review and reapproval by subsequent Chairpersons.
2. The bar examinations shall measure the candidates knowledge
of the law and its applications through multiple-choice-questions
(MCQs) that are to be so constructed as to specifically:
2.1. Measure the candidates knowledge of and ability to recall
the laws, doctrines, and principles that every new lawyer needs in
his practice;
2.2. Assess the candidates understanding of the meaning and
significance of those same laws, doctrines, and principles as they
apply to specific situations; and
2.3. Measure his ability to analyze legal problems, apply the
correct law or principle to such problems, and provide solutions
to them.
3. The results of the MCQ examinations shall, if feasible, be
corrected electronically.
4. The results of the MCQ examinations in each bar subject shall
be given the following weights:
Political Law -- 15%
Labor Law -- 10%
Civil Law -- 15%
Taxation -- 10%
Mercantile Law -- 15%
Criminal Law -- 10%
Remedial Law -- 20%
Legal Ethics/Forms -- 5%
5. Part of the bar examinations shall be of the essay-type,
dedicated to measuring the candidates skills in writing in
English, sorting out the relevant facts in a legal dispute,
identifying the issue or issues involved, organizing his thoughts,
constructing his arguments, and persuading his readers to his
point of view. The essays will not be bar subject specific.

5.1. One such essay examination shall require the candidate to

prepare a trial memorandum or a decision based on a documented
legal dispute. (60% of essays)
5.2 Another essay shall require him to prepare a written opinion
sought by a client concerning a potential legal dispute facing him.
(40% of essays)
6. The essays shall not be graded for technically right or wrong
answers, but for the quality of the candidates legal advocacy. The
passing standard for correction shall be work expected of a
beginning practitioner, not a seasoned lawyer.
7. The examiners in all eight bar subjects shall, apart from
preparing the MCQs for their respective subjects, be divided into
two panels of four members each. One panel will grade the
memorandum or decision essay while the other will grade the
legal opinion essay. Each member shall read and grade the
examination answer of a bar candidate independently of the other
members in his panel. The final grade of a candidate for each
essay shall be the average of the grades given by the four
members of the panel for that essay.
8. The results of the a) MCQ and b) essay-type examinations shall
be given weights of 60% and 40%, respectively, in the
computation of the candidates final grade.
9. For want of historical data needed for computing the passing
grade in MCQ kind of examinations, the Chairperson of the 2011
Bar Examinations shall, with the assistance of experts in
computing MCQ examination grades, recommend to the Court
the appropriate conversion table or standard that it might adopt
for arriving at a reasonable passing grade for MCQs in bar
examinations.
10. In the interest of establishing needed data, the answers of all
candidates in the essay-type examinations in the year 2011 shall
be corrected irrespective of the results of their MCQ
examinations, which are sooner known because they are
electronically corrected. In future bar examinations, however, the
Bar Chairperson shall recommend to the Court the
disqualification of those whose grades in the MCQ are so low that
it would serve no useful purpose to correct their answers in the
essay-type examinations.
11. Using the data and experience obtained from the 2011 Bar
Examinations, future Chairpersons of Bar Examination are
directed to study the feasibility of:
11.1. Holding in the interest of convenience and economy bar
examinations simultaneously in Luzon, the Visayas, and
Mindanao; and
11.2. Allowing those who pass the MCQ examinations but fail the
essay-type examinations to take removal examinations in the
immediately following year.
12. All existing rules, regulations, and instructions that are
inconsistent with the above are repealed.
This Bar Matter shall take effect immediately, and shall be
published in two newspapers of general circulation in the
Philippines.
January 18, 2011.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
B.M. No. 2265 5
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA MARIA LOURDES P. A.
SERENO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

B.M. No. 1161

RE: PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE BAR
EXAMINATIONS RESOLUTION ON REFORMS IN THE
BAR EXAMINATIONS

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";
WHEREAS, the Special Study Group, with Philippine
Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A.
Melencio-Herrera as chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. Feria
and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted to
the Supreme Court its Final Report, dated 18 September 2000,
containing its findings and recommendations;
WHEREAS, on 21 August 2001, the Supreme Court en
banc referred, for further study, report and recommendation, the
Final Report of the Special Study Group to the Committee on
Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM) headed by Justice
Jose C Vitug;
WHEREAS, in connection with the discussions on the
proposed reforms in the bar examinations, Justice Vicente V.
Mendoza, then a Member of the CLEBM, submitted a Paper,
entitled "Toward
Meaningful
Reforms
in
the
Bar
Examinations" 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 the essay questions in the bar examinations;
WHEREAS, 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, Arellano Law Foundation, the
Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association
and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar;
WHEREAS, considering her Memorandum to the Chief
Justice on Proposed Technical Assistance Project on Legal
Education, dated 27 February 2003, Program Director Evelyn
Toledo-Dumdum of the Program Management Office (PMO) was
invited to a meeting of the CLEBM;
WHEREAS, under the auspices of the PMO, the CLEBM
conducted four (4) regional round-table discussions with law
deans, professors, students and members of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for (a) the National Capital Region, at Manila
Diamond Hotel on 19 November 2003; (b) Mindanao, at the
Grand Regal Hotel in Davao City on 23 January 2004; (c) the
Visayas, at the Montebello Hotel in Cebu City on 30 January
2004; and (d) Luzon, at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Manila on 6
February 2004.
WHEREAS, in a Special Meeting of the CLEBM at the Pan
Pacific Hotel on 23 April 2004, the Committee heard the views of

Ms Erica Moeser, the Chief Executive Officer and President oft

the National Conference of Board Examiners in the United States
of America on a number of proposed bar reforms;
WHEREAS, the CLEBM, after extensive deliberation and
consultation, has arrived at certain recommendations for
consideration by the Supreme Court and submitted its report,
dated 21 May 2004, to the Court en banc;
NOW,
THEREFORE, the
Court,
sitting en
banc, hereby RESOLVES to approve and adopt the following Bar
Examination Reforms:
RE: PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE BAR
EXAMINATIONS
A. For implementation within one (1) up to two (2) years:
1. Initial determination by the Chairman of admission to
the bar examinations of candidates (on the merits of
each case) to be passed upon by the Court en banc.
2.

Submission by law deans of a certification that a

candidate has no derogatory record in school and, it
any, the details and status thereof.

3. Disqualification of a candidate after failing in three (3)

examinations, provided, that he may take a fourth and
fifth examination it he successfully 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 completing a one (1) year
refresher course.
4.

Promulgation of disciplinary measures for those

involved in (a) attempts to violate or vitiate the
integrity and confidentiality of the bar examination
process; (b) improper conduct during the bar
examinations; and (c) improper conduct of "bar
operations."

5. Disqualifications of a Bar Examination Chairperson:

(a) kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or
relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
(b) having a member of his or her office staff as an
examinee; or when the spouse or child of such staff
member is an examinee; and
(c) being a member of the governing board, faculty or
administration of a law school.
6. Desirable qualifications of Examiners:
(a) membership in good standing in the Philippine
Bar;
(b) competence in the assigned subject;
(c) a teacher of the subject or familiarity with the principles
of test construction; and

(d) commitment to check test papers personally and

promptly pending the creation and organization of the
readership panels provided for in item B(6) below.
7. Disqualifications of Examiners:
(a) kinship with an examinee who is his or her spouse or
relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity;
(b) having a member of his or her office staff as an
examinee, or when the spouse or child of such staff
member is an examinee;
(c) being a member of the governing board, faculty or
administration of a law school;
(d) teaching or lecturing in any law school, institution or
review center during the particular semester and in the
next semester following the bar examination;
(e) having any interest or involvement in any law school,
bar review center or group; and
(f) suspension or disbarment from the practice of law or the
imposition of any other serious disciplinary sanction.
8.

Personal preparation, by handwriting or using a

typewriter, of fifty (50) main questions, excluding
subdivisions, and their submission to the Chairperson
in a sealed envelope at least forty-five (45) days before
the scheduled examination on any particular subject;
examiners should not use computers in preparing
questions;

9.

Apportionment of examination questions among the

various topics covered by the subject;

10.

Burning and shredding of rough drafts and carbon

papers used in the preparation of questions or in any
other act connected with such preparation;

11. Publication of names of candidates admitted to take the

bar examinations;
12.

Disqualification of a candidate who obtains a grade

below 50% in any subject;

13. Fixing at 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;
and
14. Consideration of suggested answers to bar examination
questions prepared by the U. P. Law Center and
submitted to the Chairperson.

3. Introduction of performance testing by way of revising

and improving the essay examination;
4. Designation of two (2) examiners per subject depending
on the number of examinees;
5. Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an
incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson;
6. Creation and organization of readership panels for each
subject area to address the issue of bias or subjectivity
and facilitate the formulation of test questions and the
correction of examination booklets; and
7. Adoption of the calibration method m the correction of
essay questions to correct variations in the level of test
standards.
C. For implementation within five (5) years and beyond is the
further computerization or automation of the bar
examinations to facilitate application, testing, and reporting
procedures.
D. Items not covered by this resolution, such as those that pertain
to a possible review of the coverage and relative weights of
the subjects of the bar examinations, are maintained.
E. For referral to the Legal Education Board:
1. Accreditation and supervision of law schools.
2. Inclusion of a subject on clinical legal education in the
law curriculum, including an apprenticeship program in
the Judiciary, prosecution service, and law offices.
3. Imposition of sanctions on law schools that fail to meet
the standards as may be prescribed by the Legal
Education Board.
4. Mandatory Law School Admission Test.
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.
Promulgated this 8th day of June 2004.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Carpio-Morales,
Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez and Corona, JJ., on leave.

BAR MATTER NO. 730 June 13, 1997

B. For implementation within two (2) years up to five (5)

years:
1.

2.

Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for

30% to 40% of the total number of questions;
Formulation of essay test questions and model
answers" as part of the calibration of test papers;

Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the
Court En Banc dated June 10, 1997.

IN RE: NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING

UNDER RULE 138-A BE ACTUALLY SUPERVISED
DURING TRIAL (BAR MATTER NO. 730).

The issue in this Consulta is whether a law student who appears

before the court under the Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138A) should be accompanied by a member of the bar during the
trial. This issue was raised by retired Supreme Court Justice
Antonio P. Barredo, counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No.
BCV-92-11 entitled Irene A. Caliwara v. Roger T. Catbagan filed
before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite.
The records show that the plaintiff in civil Case No. BCV-92-11
was represented by Mr. Cornelio Carmona, Jr., an intern at the
Office of Legal Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-OLA). Mr.
Carmona conducted hearings and completed the presentation of
the plaintiff's evidence-in-chief without the presence of a
supervising lawyer. Justice Barredo questioned the appearance of
Mr. Carmona during the hearing because the latter was not
accompanied by a duly accredited lawyer. On December 15,
1994, Presiding Judge Edelwina Pastoral issued an Order
requiring Mr. Carmona to be accompanied by a supervising
lawyer on the next hearing. In compliance with said Order, UPOLA and the Secretary of Justice executed a Memorandum of
Agreement directing Atty. Catubao and Atty. Legayada of the
Public Attorney's Office to supervise Mr. Carmona during the
subsequent hearings.
Justice Barredo asserts that a law student appearing before the
trial court under Rule 138-A should be accompanied by a
supervising lawyer. 1 On the other hand, UP-OLA, through its
Director, Atty. Alfredo F. Tadiar, submits that "the matter of
allowing a law intern to appear unaccompanied by a duly
accredited supervising lawyer should be . . . left to the sound
discretion of the court after having made at least one supervised
appearance." 2
For the guidance of the bench and bar, we hold that a law student
appearing before the Regional Trial Court under Rule 138-A
should at all times be accompanied by a supervising lawyer.
Section 2 of Rule 138-A provides.
Section 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student
authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and
control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly
accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions,
briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed the
by supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
The phrase "direct supervision and control" requires no less than
the physical presence of the supervising lawyer during the
hearing. This is in accordance with the threefold rationale behind
the Law Student Practice Rule, to wit: 3
1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result
of incompetence or inexperience of law students, who, not having
as yet passed the test of professional competence, are presumably
not fully equipped to act a counsels on their own;
2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school
clinic may be able to protect itself from any potential vicarious
liability arising from some culpable action by their law students;
and

3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no

person is allowed to practice a particular profession without
possessing the qualifications, particularly a license, as required by
law.
The matter of allowing a law student to appear before the court
unaccompanied by a supervising lawyer cannot be left to the
discretion of the presiding judge. The rule clearly states that the
appearance of the law student shall be under the direct control and
supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
duly accredited by law schools. The rule must be strictly
construed because public policy demands that legal work should
be entrusted only to those who possess tested qualifications, are
sworn to observe the rules and ethics of the legal profession and
subject to judicial disciplinary control. 4 We said in Bulacan v.
Torcino: 5
Court procedures are often technical and may prove like snares to
the ignorant or the unwary. In the past, our law has allowed nonlawyers to appear for party litigants in places where duly
authorized members of the bar are not available (U.S. vs.
Bacansas, 6 Phil. 539). For relatively simple litigation before
municipal courts, the Rules still allow a more educated or capable
person in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer. But for the
protection of the parties and in the interest of justice, the
requirement for appearances in regional trial courts and higher
courts is more stringent.
The Law Student Practice Rule is only an exception to the rule.
Hence, the presiding judge should see to it that the law student
appearing before the court is properly guided and supervised by a
member of the bar.
The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before
an inferior court, where the issues and procedure are relatively
simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his
personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34
Rule 138 provides;
Section 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the court of a
justice of the peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person,
with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party
may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and
his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized
member of the bar.
Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an
agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a member of
the bar.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hold that a law student appearing
before the Regional Trial Court under the authority of Rule 138-A
must be under the direct control and supervision of a member of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law
school and that said law student must be accompanied by a
supervising lawyer in all his appearance.
Padilla and Francisco, J.J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of court