"x x x.
So how do we fix the poor bar passing performance? We should nip the problem in the bud and start from the beginning. The law school admission process needs to be tightened. Not everyone who wishes to enter law school should be allowed to do so. While the study of law is not akin to rocket science, still there are basic communication and comprehension skills that are needed to withstand its rigor.
What comes back to mind is the eloquent ponencia of Justice Isagani Cruz in Department of Education v. San Diego (180 SCRA 533). The latter had been trying to enter medical school but had failed the national medical admission test (NMAT) thrice. Because DECS had adopted a three-strike rule, San Diego was barred from taking the test again (although in reality, he took the test for a fourth and fifth time but still did not make it). Arguing that his right to quality education and to choose one’s occupation were constitutionally protected, Justice Cruz ruled in response:
The right to quality education is not absolute. The Constitution provides that “every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.”
“While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor. This is true of any other calling in which the public interest is involved; and the closer the link, the longer the bridge to one’s ambition. The State has the responsibility to harness its human resources applied in a manner that will best promote the common good while also giving the individual a sense of satisfaction.
The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.”
Insofar as the legal profession is concerned, Justice Cruz had this to say: “If one who wants to be a lawyer may prove better as a plumber, he should be so advised and adviced. Of course, he may not be forced to be a plumber, but on the other hand he may not force his entry into the bar.”
He ended his disquisition as follows:
We cannot have a society of square pegs in round holes, of dentists who should never have left the farm and engineers who should have studied banking and teachers who could be better as merchants.
It is time indeed that the State took decisive steps to regulate and enrich our system of education by directing the student to the course for which he is best suited as determined by initial tests and evaluations. Otherwise, we may be “swamped with mediocrity,” in the words of Justice Holmes, not because we are lacking in intelligence but because we are a nation of misfits.”
Perhaps it is time that law schools adopt a national admission test. Other professions use one, so how come the noble profession does not? In the US, the law school admission test (LSAT) has been a reliable gauge for determining student success in law school. The Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) should take the lead in formulating a PLSAT which would combine international and local best practices to produce an aptitude exam for students wanting to enter law school. But first things first: there needs to be an admission that reform is urgently needed in legal education.
x x x."
