Evolution of PH legal education

HISTORICALLY, legal education was introduced in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period with the establishment in 1734 of a Faculty of Civil Law at the University of Santo Tomas. In 1911, the American civil government set up the first staterun College of Law at the University of the Philippines (UP). The ratification of the 1935 Constitution paved the way for the introduction of law programs in various private colleges and universities in Manila.

Bar examinations as a step toward general law practice were conducted during the early years of the 20th century at which future presidents of the country figured prominently among the top 10 placers. They include Sergio Osmeña (2nd), 1903; Manuel Quezon (4th), 1903; Manuel Roxas (1st), 1913; Elpidio Quirino (2nd), 1915; Jose Laurel (2nd), 1915; and Carlos Garcia (7th), 1923.

They were joined by a number of Filipinos steeped in American jurisprudence who became lawyers eager to assist in setting up a government under tutelage of America. The Tydings-McDuffie Act gave the Filipinos a 10-year transition period of self-rule which, under the arrangement, culminated in the grant of independence from the United States on July 4, 1946.

In this connection, it should be recalled that the 1935 Constitution needed the signature of the then-US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to be effective, which led to the abovementioned Tydings-McDuffie Act mentioned which a number of our pioneer Bar topnotchers worked on with gusto as emerging political leaders.

With independence from the US achieved, more Filipinos went into law as a profession. Even those who studied law in the US as pensionados of the US government decided to come home to participate in structuring an independent system of government for the Philippines.

At the same time, schools of law mushroomed not only in Manila but in the provinces as well. The Philippine Bar Examination continued as the professional licensure examination for lawyers conducted by the Supreme Court and a Supreme Court Bar Exams Committee.

Outmoded bar exams procedure

In 1961, on the occasion of the 50th year of founding of the UP College of Law, a Conference on Effective Legal Education was held. It was the precursor of the Legal Education Summit held in 2019, which concerned itself with the problems and issues perceived as besetting legal education, in particular, the lot of Filipino law students consigned to an antiquated Bar exam procedure no longer responsive to the challenges of contemporary times considering the role of lawyers as the medium of expression of justice according to law.

Blame was laid on, among others, the competition of law schools to have their graduates top the annual Bar exams, doing away in the process with the law school’s paramount task of preparing students for actual law practice.

In pursuance thereof, a Revised Model Law Curriculum and Clinical Legal Education Program, backed up by a website, were launched in 2021 that would focus on “practice readiness” of law students instead of simply concentrating on the Bar exams. Indeed, law school courses need to be revisited in view of the ever-changing needs brought about by the evolving definition of law practice that enhances social consciousness and responsibility as well as the highest ethical standards for which the law curriculum is the vehicle for preparedness.

All these are in the agenda of the Legal Education Board which was created as an independent government agency responsible for the regulation of legal education in the country by virtue of Republic Act 7662 (1993).

Among the key guides thought of for the modification of the law curriculum are: 1) to rethink the best possible formulation, combination and sequencing of courses as well as the introduction of new subjects to reflect the developments in society, both locally and internationally; 2) to rationalize mandated courses which removes the emphasis on Bar review and focus instead on ensuring that Bar candidates are given updates and ample amount of coaching or intensive training; and 3) full integration of clinical legal education for completion during their last year in law school. (By the way, there is a requirement already in place that before one is allowed to take the 2023 Bar exams, the candidate must have undergone clinical legal education.)

Reforms in legal education

A thought that needs attention is the matter of curriculum design in the prelaw course which was touched on in the Legal Education Summit of 2019. Reference is to the matter of how a law student could appreciate freedom of thought, speech, press and assembly if he has not been stirred by the history of man’s struggle to be free. We teach him the court rules on procedure but of what use are those rules unless he can evaluate and appraise processes and techniques in the light of man’s search for justice.

Briefly, curriculum design of the pre-law course should be “cultured” prior to entering law school proper. This calls for the integration of the undergraduate course with the law curriculum such that subjects taught in the first year of law proper be taught in advance in the senior year of the undergrad courses including government, legal research and legal history that are to form the cultural background for the law students’ subsequent labors: logic, history sociology, economics and philosophy.

Another topic of note is the suggestion for an elective subject in the model curriculum entitled “Judicial Mind” as a first step to the introduction of a full judiciary track in law schools.

Among legal innovations intro

duced by the Legal Education Board, clinical legal education was the one met with interest and enthusiasm. It is a training program that allows students to help resolve cases and legal issues under the supervision of a lawyer. It was envisioned as a way to increase public access to judicial services, especially as it relates to the marginalized sector of society.

Thus far, more than 50 legal clinics have been established nationwide, half of which have received certification as such while a few more have pending applications.

With the Clinical Legal Education Program, law students are exposed early to hands-on and experiential learning in an effort not only to develop their skills but purposely to arouse their social consciousness through best practices available.

In the words of Supreme Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, “Our duty is to foster an environment during law studies which will bring forth the next generation of lawyers who are not only practice-ready but who are equally prepared to assume the role of servant leaders in our country.”

The chief justice lamented the “Bar-centricity,” or the focus on passing the Bar exams instead of on practice readiness. With a revised model law curriculum, legal education will primarily be student and society centered and, along with the clinical legal education program, law students will be exposed early on to “hands-on” learning that will stimulate their social responsibility.

Flash forward. The Covid pandemic took a lot of things. One thing it gave? For us in the legal profession, it gave us time to think and reflect about the future of legal education in a world that is constantly and rapidly changing.