tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27764746144955572792024-03-13T03:39:51.175-07:00Silliman Bar Review ProjectContaining hints for those preparing for the Philippine bar exam.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-39392197175806644012010-03-13T07:31:00.000-08:002010-03-13T07:35:19.208-08:00Libel jurisprudenceSee my <a href="http://foolawecon.wordpress.com/?s=libel">posts on libel</a> at <a href="http://foolawecon.wordpress.com/">FOO Law and Economics</a>.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-2025123513710765562009-07-23T09:22:00.000-07:002009-07-23T09:25:22.832-07:00Amnesty instead of cha chaPlease see <b><a href="http://foolawecon.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/thinking-the-unthinkable-%E2%80%93-amnesty-instead-of-martial-law-or-cha-cha/">my post at FOO Law and Economics</a> </b>for a primer on the law on pardon and amnesty.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-22614710500128219542009-07-19T07:30:00.000-07:002009-07-19T07:39:20.022-07:00Pilot testing - updateDue process seems an even more powerful argument to demand a proper pilot testing before full nationwide automation. The wonder is why Comelec wants to go with unseeming haste towards a potential disaster. See <a href="http://foolawecon.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/thinking-about-the-pilot-testing-requirement-for-automated-elections/"><b>my post at FOO Law and Economics</b></a>.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-71573289587119844912009-07-13T08:59:00.000-07:002009-07-15T01:47:31.041-07:00Automated elections law - the meaning of "pilot testing"See my post on <a href="http://foolawecon.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/pilot-testing-the-automated-polls-is-it-a-condition-precedent/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">whether pilot testing is a condition precedent</span></a> to nationwide automation.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-81197025135826946552009-06-30T19:38:00.000-07:002009-06-30T19:50:22.149-07:00Joint ventures in government contractsSee <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://foolawecon.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/poll-automation-and-the-corporation-law-–-a-bar-review-note/#more-1099/">my post at FOO Law and Economics</a></span>.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-9659421326995559972009-06-16T06:11:00.000-07:002009-06-16T06:48:16.188-07:00Comic reviewer on insurance and criminal law (arson)This is from a humor site called <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Lawyer.htm">Swapmeetdave.com</a></span>:<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#330099;">This is supposedly a TRUE news story. I have my doubts, but you decide....</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#330099;"><br /> A lawyer in Charlotte, NC purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed a claim with the insurance company.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#330099;"><br /> In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued....and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'trebuchet ms';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#330099;"><br /> But... After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.</span></span></div>Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-8007738876792730902009-06-07T23:03:00.001-07:002009-06-07T23:05:42.618-07:00The curious case of Manuel L. Quezon IIISee <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://foolawecon.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/the-curious-case-of-manuel-l-quezon-iii-anathema-as-a-defense-in-libel/">my post at FOO Law and Economics</a></span>. It seems that recantation is not an adequate legal remedy. But it works in the ecclesiastical sphere!Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-90389064899416782572009-03-30T23:12:00.000-07:002009-03-30T23:15:55.901-07:00Can the PDIC resist paying all claims on deposit insurance?In the case of certain failed rural banks, it seems the answer is yes, when the claimant is a "bad-faith" depositor. See <a href="http://foolawecon.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/when-the-deposit-insurer-should-resist-paying-all-claims/#more-660"><span style="font-weight: bold;">my post at FOO Law and Economics</span></a>.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-9882708024009652882009-03-27T01:37:00.000-07:002009-04-16T05:27:55.534-07:00How to think about and for a bar examSimplify, simplify.. Memorize but not too much. Keep your logic skills alive. You will survive..<br /><br />First, get two dictionaries. Black's and a standard Philippine law dictionary. You need them to have legal concepts down "cold" for the bar exam.<br /><br />Second, approach each bar subject as a collection of topics. For example, political law includes such topics as due process, presumption of innocence, the political question, separation of powers, etc. Your notes will probably come to something like 50 topics per bar subject.<br /><br />Third, within each topic, outline your thinking on three levels: concepts, doctrines, and rules. Concepts have to be complete. Doctrines have to be those important enough to be mentioned in the textbook and bar reviewer you use. Rules are based on statutes and cases. You don't have to remember a particular rule if it can be derived from concept and doctrine.<br /><br />Rules based on unusual cases have to be remembered. An example of an unusual case is <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Obrecido</span>, on how the Supreme Court decided to interpret the rule on divorce obtained by an alien against his Filipino spouse. It is unusual because it goes against a simplistic reading of the Family Code, but is consistent with the over-arching principle of the Civil Code (Art. 10 on how right and justice prevail when the court interprets a statute).<br /><br />A good guess is that each topic contains up to 10 concepts, 5 doctrines, and 30 legal rules.<br /><br />Because of overlap across topics, the number of concepts per bar subject may be about 200, doctrines about 40, and rules about 700. These constitute a core minimum of "knowledge elements" numbering about 1,000 that have to be on "instant recall" for the exam for one who will get a grade of at least 75%.<br /><br />Fourth, knowing all the above is not enough. You should also know <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">how to write out the essay answer</span>. This is not a memory-dependent skill.<br /><br />The usual approach is to break any question down as an "issue spotter," and to draft out an answer using <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">IRAC</span> (issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion). It seems that in the Philippines, the order of a good bar exam answer is somewhat different: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">CIRA</span>. This is because a typical question asks the examinee to "decide" a hypothetical case based on an actual Supreme Court decision. Thus, the first part is a Yes/No/I qualify. The second part states the legal issue or issues that the court should decide (this is the hardest, but when "spotted" it ensures a correct answer). The third part cites the legal rules that apply (the "codals" or the case law).<br /><br />The last part is the analysis. It cannot be taught or memorized, except when the question is "on all fours" with an actual case. But it is a matter of logic -- how the rules apply to the facts. Here, one should think fast but not too fast. Thinking too slowly or "over-thinking" is usually fatal because it means you do not have the necessary concept, doctrine, and/or rule "on the ready" for making out an answer.<br /><br />Each examinee memorizes and thinks in his own idiosyncratic way. But the three-part (concept, doctrine, rule) breakdown of the memorized elements, and the individualized execution of IRAC are universally necessary components of thinking for a bar exam.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-6826465640124550852009-03-20T05:40:00.000-07:002009-03-20T05:51:22.466-07:00Parent-subsidiary rules - Corporation Code<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:78px;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:15px;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (This question is prompted by developments relating to AIG and its subsidiaries in the Philippines, such as PhilAm Life, an insurance company).</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Facts: A parent corporation P is in financial difficulty. It has a subsidiary S that is in good financial condition. </span><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">(a)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Is it legal for the subsidiary to lend to the parent? </span>It seems this would be legal if the transaction is allowed by the corporate purposes of S (after all P and S have separate corporate personalities). It is probably not among the corporate purposes of S to “bail out” its parent P, but investment of funds of S in a “secondary purpose” is allowed, if provided for in the corporate charter of S. Of course the transaction is likely barred by the rules that require the subsidiary to maintain adequate capital under banking or insurance laws. Thus, regulation of the insurance and banking industries is an argument to support the idea that the Philippine subsidiaries of AIG are safe. But this argument may be weakened if the regulatory framework has loopholes that would allow AIG access to the liquidity of its subsidiaries.</p><p class="MsoNormal">If S lends to P, and P goes bankrupt, S can suffer since it is a creditor of P. <br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">If P lends to S, and this causes P to become insolvent, the lending could be attacked as a transaction in fraud of creditors of P. In short, the ability of P to “support” S is obviously weakened when P is in financial difficulty, and creditors of S would be more careful dealing with S. In this case, potential customers of S may go to a competitor knowing that the parent P is in trouble. There is a view on the working of the insurance industry in the US that customers of an AIG subsidiary there would have some incentives to switch to another insurance company, particularly if the customer chooses an insurer on the basis of the financial strength of its parent company. (Maybe this is because it is either possible or practiced that the parent is a reinsurer for the subsidiary.) <br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Thus, it seems generally that the financial condition of S is to some (unclear) extent potentially or actually affected by the financial problems of P.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">(b)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">If the parent is insolvent, what is the effect on the subsidiary?</span> None, because insolvency of a stockholder (P) does not affect the corporation (S), unless P owes money to S. But if S owes P, and P goes under, the creditors of P may demand that P “call” its loans to S, which could trigger a liquidity problem for S (thereby affecting the creditors or customers of S). More likely, perhaps, as discussed in (a) above, the business of S may be affected by “reputational” considerations, since the parent is usually there to give the public some assurance that the subsidiary is in good shape. After all, the normal event is for the parent to be financially stronger than the subsidiary. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">(c)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">If the parent is an insurance company, and the subsidiary is a bank, will the answer to (b) be the same?</span> It seems yes, subject to the safety net given by special laws as discussed in (a) above.</p><p></p><p></p>Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-16087920637404795542009-03-16T23:21:00.000-07:002009-03-16T23:37:03.694-07:00BAR Q - PRE-NEED PLANS<span style="font-style: italic;">D is the controlling stockholder of a pre need firm BBC that becomes insolvent amidst allegations of fraud. Unpaid plan holders contend that D operated the pre need firm as a Ponzi scheme. Can D be held personally liable on the pre need plans issued by BBC?</span><br /><br />Yes. This is a case where a piercing of the corporate veil is warranted. A corporation is considered an alter ego of an individual if he uses the corporation in conducting personal business; and under the alter ego doctrine, shareholders will be treated as real parties in interest, when this is necessary to prevent fraud or to do justice (Black’s). In a 1962 case, the Philippine Supreme Court held that the corporate veil may be pierced to prevent evasion of civil liability by a stockholder who uses a business conduit or alter ego (<span style="font-style: italic;">Palacio et al v Fely Transportation Co.</span>). In the given facts of this problem, D is charged with fraud, and if such fraud is proved, he is liable, being a controlling owner of BBC, as a real party in interest (BBC is his alter ego), and therefore his personal assets may be held answerable for the liabilities of BBC.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Note</span>: There are other specific grounds for a proper piercing of the corporate veil, which fall under the general ground of “doing justice.” These grounds exist when the corporate veil is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, or commit crime. The corporate veil will also be pierced to enforce laws on nationalization, labor, tax, and succession.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-48449541632358543802009-01-26T05:28:00.000-08:002009-02-04T23:03:28.599-08:00Sample quiz questions in criminal lawWhen is malice not presumed in a libel case? [Choose one or more]<br />(a) When communication is made privately in the performance of duty.<br />(b) When the complainant is a public figure, but the action is based on a private act. <br />(c) When the defamatory statement is true. <br />(d) Fair comment on acts of a public officer.<br />(e) Fair comment on matters of public interest, including judicial proceedings.<br />(f) When the defamatory statement is made with reckless disregard of the truth. <br />(g) When the defamatory statement is made in lawful exercise of a right.<br /><br />Correct answers: (a), (d), (e), (g). (a) and (d) are based on Art. 354, Revised Penal Code (RPC). (e), Borjal v CA. (g), because there is no mens rea, which is a justifying circumstance in Art. 11, RPC. The rest follows the general rule that malice is presumed even if the defamatory statement is true. Art. 354, RPC.<br />Classifications: Easy, Criminal, concepts<br /><br /><br />What is not fair comment in the context of the criminal laws on libel? [Choose those that apply]<br />(a) One made by a disinterested observer on a matter of public concern.<br />(b) One that is absolutely true but relates to something that is not a matter of public concern. <br />(c) When made by a “fighting journalist” who publicizes what is an “open secret” among those in power. <br />(d) One that, although false or mistaken, is based on established facts or might reasonably be inferred from the facts. <br />(e) None of the above<br /><br />Correct answer: (b), by elimination. Fair comment is defined as a statement based on honest opinion about a matter of public concern. Black’s. (a) and (c) fit the definition of fair comment in (d), as implied in People v Velasco, as cited in Borjal v CA, 1999. <br />Classifications: Easy, Criminal, concepts<br /><br /><br /><br />X, a columnist, published an article contending that Y, a famous movie star, is impotent because of sexually transmitted disease. X wrote the article because he had a personal feud with Y. In fact, Y is impotent because of old age. What liability, civil or criminal, attaches to X? [Choose one]<br />(a) None, because the article is considered privileged communication, and Y is a public figure. Under the jurisprudence, a public figure such as Y is “fair game” for the exercise of the right to free expression. Borjal v CA, citing NY Times v Sullivan.<br />(b) X is criminally and civilly liable because he committed libel when he imputed to Y a defect which tended to cause the latter’s dishonor. Art. 353, RPC. <br />(c) X is not criminally liable because of the justifying circumstance in Art. 11, paragraph 5, where the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. X was merely exercising his occupation as a columnist, and besides, the public has a right to know, in case Y might spread disease to unknowing fans. <br />(d) X is not criminally liable but he is nonetheless civilly liable for damages for violating Y’s right to privacy. <br /><br />Correct answer: (b). The matter is not properly one subject to the fair comment doctrine. As to incorrect answers: (a) is not correct because, although Y is a public figure, the defamatory article is not fair comment, defined as honest opinion on a matter of public concern. Here, Y’s sexual health is a private matter, and even public figures have a right to privacy. (c) is incorrect because the exercise of X’s right or office must be lawful for Art. 11 to apply. Besides, under the facts, X had malicious intent. (d) is wrong, because X is criminally liable. <br />Classifications: Easy, Criminal, rulesOrlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-67038470107957559382009-01-26T04:30:00.000-08:002009-02-04T23:03:46.768-08:00Sample quiz questions on political lawEqual protection is not violated by a reasonable classification. What are the requirements of a reasonable classification? [Choose more than one]<br />(a) It is substantive.<br />(b) It is not oppressive.<br />(c) It employs reasonable means.<br />(d) It is germane to the purpose of the law.<br />(e) It is justified by public interest .<br />(f) It is not limited to existing conditions.<br />(g) The law applies equally to all the members of the class identified by the law.<br /><br />Correct answers: (a), (d),(f), and (g), Pp v Cayat. Note that a law that does not meet (g) is called class legislation. Incorrect answers: (b), (c), and (e), which are the requirements of a law that does not violate substantive due process. Kwong Sing v City of Manila.<br />Classifications: Easy, Political, Bill of rights, concepts<br /><br />What is the liberal or rational approach to determining an allowable classification that does not violate the equal protection clause? [Choose one]<br />(a) It is used when the claim on equal protection is on economic matters. Here, the court will uphold a law where there is a rational, if not conclusive, basis for classification.<br />(b) It is used to measure classifications based on race, national origin, religion, alienage, denial of right to vote, interstate migration, access to courts, and other rights recognized as fundamental.<br /><br />Correct answer: (a), Bernas. Note the settled rule that equal protection is consistent with a reasonable classification. Incorrect answer: (b), which is the strict scrutiny approach to determining whether a classification made in a law is reasonable. Bernas.<br />Classifications: Easy, Political, Bill of rights, conceptsOrlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-88972962611855836342009-01-25T09:08:00.000-08:002009-02-04T23:04:04.580-08:00Sample quiz questions in civil lawWhat is accession? [Choose one]<br />(a) The point at which a fixture becomes a part of the real property to which it is attached.<br />(b) The right of the owner to the products (or fruits) of, or to things that are inseparably united to, the principal thing. <br />(c) The transfer of rights from one party to another. <br />(d) The acquisition of rights or property by inheritance, through a will or by operation of law.<br />(e) A right by which a representative is raised to the place and degree of the person represented, and the former acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited.<br /><br />Correct answer: (b), Art. 440 and Tolentino, citing Castan. Other definitions of accession are: (1) acquisition of title to personal property by bestowing labor on a raw material to convert it to another thing; (2) a property owner’s right to all that is added to the land, including improvements made by others. Black’s. As to incorrect answers: (a) is annexation (Black’s); (c) is assignment of rights (Black’s); (d) is succession (Art. 774, Black’s); and (e) is representation (Art. 970).<br />Classifications: Easy, Civil, Property, Concepts<br /><br />Which of the following are examples of accession continua? [Choose those that are]<br />(a) a litter of puppies <br />(b) alluvion, i.e. an addition of land caused by running water<br />(c) formation of island<br />(d) building, planting, or sowing<br />(e) dividends<br />(f) growing crops<br />(g) dividends<br />(h) rent on a building<br />(i) making of wine from grapes<br />(j) metal alloy<br />(k) land reclamation<br />(l) fruits that have already been harvested and gathered from the land<br /><br />Correct answers: Accesion continua refers to ownership of the accessory thing that is united with or incorporated to the principal thing. Thus, (b), (c), (d), are accession continua with respect to real property; and (i) or (j), which is the same with respect to personal property. The rest are incorrect answers. Those in (a), (e), (f), (g), and (h) are examples of accesion discreta because they are fruits of the principal thing. Tolentino, Art. 441. (k) is incorrect because there is no accession to land reclaimed from the sea, which is property of public dominion (Art. 420, Insular Govt v Aldecoa, 1911). (l) cannot be accession continua because such fruits are no longer united with or incorporated to the principal thing. <br />Classifications: Easy, Civil, Property, ConceptsOrlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-73837085575247275652009-01-25T09:00:00.000-08:002009-02-04T23:04:41.224-08:00Supplementary notes for question authorsThese are "housekeeping" rules.<br /><br />1. Please indicate whether the questions is binary (yes/no or true/false), or multiple-choice single response (only one response is correct), or multiple-choice multiple-response (more than one response may be correct).<br /><br />2. Please indicate the bar subject, the sub-bar subject, the degree of difficulty (easy, medium, hard), and whether the question is on concepts, doctrines, or "rules."<br /><br />3. Your authorities must cover both the correct and incorrect responses. For guidance, please go to the Qedoc.org site, download a quiz, and attempt to answer some questions. You will find varieties of feedback given to the quiz taker, ranging from a simple citation to a specific codal provision, to quotations from a case decision.<br /><br />You may also want to look at some sample questions (given here in other posts).Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-29637937446926723652009-01-25T08:57:00.000-08:002009-02-04T23:04:57.128-08:00Manual for question authors and copyright agreementGUIDELINES ON FORMULATING QUESTIONS<br /><br />1. For Concepts and Doctrines, it is ok to have a simple “What is ….? [choose one]” question. However, the choices offered must be definitions of related, similar, or confusing actual legal concepts. For example, a question on the renvoi doctrine will have as possible but incorrect answers the definitions of the transmission theory and the processual presumption. Alternatively, the multiple-response question (see 2 below) works for a concepts question which asks for examples or illustrations of a concept.<br /><br />2. For Rules, aim for a multiple choice question where more than one answer is correct. This is called the multiple-choice multiple-response question. This format is very good for questions asking the student for an enumeration (such as the grounds for legal separation in the Family Code, or the justifying circumstances in criminal law). All the incorrect answers must seem correct to the average student who has not yet adequately prepared himself for the bar. All the answers (correct and incorrect) must have an explanation (“authorities”) why they are correct or incorrect. The explanation should be long enough to help the student remember the essence of the correct legal rules; it can be as short as a reference to a particular codal provision, such as Art. 777 of the Civil Code.<br /><br />3. Some unusual case law decisions are good bases for Yes-No questions. An example is the Obrecido case on Art. 26 of the Family Code. Here, you should make an incorrect response that has an attached explanation that seems to make sense, usually one based on an actual dissenting opinion, or on the apparently clear language of a statute. You can give, in the explanation, the dissent as a reference, but state that the majority opinion held otherwise. <br /><br />4. For each bar subject, we will aim for 100% coverage of concepts and doctrines, and a selection of the important rules. Thus, we have to focus on rules that are not obvious in that they do not readily follow from concept or doctrine. For example, if the basis of a rule is that no one should be unjustly enriched, or the equal-protection clause, it is not a good candidate for a question, since the answer would be too easy, particularly for a multiple-choice or yes-no question. <br /><br />AGREEMENT ON COPYRIGHT: Each author of a question agrees expressly to assign his/her copyright to the Silliman Bar Review Project administrator (Orlando Roncesvalles) upon submission of his/her question for consideration.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2776474614495557279.post-19395054666430093512009-01-25T08:42:00.000-08:002009-02-04T23:05:30.266-08:00How we muse and amuse the museGOAL AND CONSTRAINTS:<br />- To provide a bar exam taker an aid to determine his/her preparation for an exam.<br />- Based on a philosophy that presumes the student can think and write, but needs to ensure that he has enough “instantaneous recall” of material needed to pass an exam.<br />- The required knowledge is obviously to be contained in the question bank of a quiz that can be given to a test-taker, with a computer choosing the questions by a random process.<br /><br />QUESTION BANK COVERAGE:<br />- As to the “material needed,” they consist of knowledge built up from legal concepts, doctrines, and “rules” (mostly codal provisions, plus case law).<br />- A basic grounding of concepts and doctrines is essential, so the coverage of the “question bank” in these two areas must be comprehensive.<br />- As regards “rules,” it is a calculated gamble to decide what is “important enough” to be a good candidate for use in the real exam.<br />o An important test of whether to include a particular provision is whether it can be derived from concepts and doctrines. If so, it need not be included, since a smart student can deduce the provision.<br /> o Another important test is empirical: have these provisions appeared in more than 3 previous bar exams. If so, then it is a “must.”<br /> o Another test is judgmental: Would a bar examiner think of a question in this area? Example of such a question: Can a dog benefit from a trust set up by its deceased owner? Other examples are probably from recent events, such as questions on the right of stockholders to information on corporate activities (as in the GSIS-Meralco disputes).<br />- An “objective” type question (typically, multiple-choice) can usually test about 2-5 elements, particularly if it involves enumeration or distinctions. <br /><br />IMPLEMENTATION:<br />- One practical approach is to build up a question bank where each question is categorized according to sub-subjects in a bar exam (for example, Property Law in Civil), type (concept, doctrine, rule), and degree of difficulty.<br />- A test-taker can take “bites” from the data base in the form of sub-quizzes on concepts only, doctrines only, rules only, or all-types of questions, or focused on sub-subjects until he can satisfy himself that he has the necessary mastery of the material.<br />- Samples of test questions are given in another post.<br />- As may be seen from the sample questions, the “feedback” or explanation of the answer key is, in the end, the key ingredient in determining whether the test-taker “understood” why he is right or wrong in answering a particular question.Orlando Roncesvalleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15787159826210287420noreply@blogger.com0