University of Mindanao-College of Law now Accepts Enrollees

You want to study law, but don't know what to do or where to go. Here's the enrollment procedure for the incoming first year law students of the University of Mindanao-College of Law (1st Semester SY 2013-2014).

Step 1.

For pre-evaluation, submit the following requirements to the Records and Admissions Center (RAC) located at the 2nd Floor, Main Building, UM Bolton:

1. Photocopy of Transcript of Records (TOR) with remarks: "Graduated";
2. Certification of General Weighted Average (GWA) which shall have at least an average of 80% based on the submitted TOR issued by the school where the applicant graduated;
3. Photocopy of Birth Certificate from NSO;
4. Photocopy of Marriage Certificate from NSO, for married female applicant only;
5. Special Order school file, if applicable; and
6. Certificate of Good Moral Character from the school where the applicant graduated

Step 2.

1. After pre-evaluation and approval from RAC, proceed to the College of Legal Education Dean's Office;
2. Bring with you your evaluation sheet which the RAC issued for scheduling of your CEM-LSQT (Law School Qualifying Test) and Essay Exam; and
3. Pay Php 300.00 only.

The schedule of exam for 1st Semester SY 2013-2014 is as follows:

Exam	When	Where
CEM-LSQT	All Saturdays of April and May (8:00 AM to 12:00 NN)	LE 103, UM Bolton
Essay	All Saturdays of April and May (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM)	LE 103, UM Bolton

The schedule for 2nd Semester will be announced later.

Upon taking the exam, submit the following requirements to the Dean's Office:

1. Photocopy of TOR;
2. Photocopy of Certification of GWA;
3. 1 pc. 1x1 ID picture (White Background); and
4. 1 pc. long brown folder with fastener.

Note that your CEM-LSQT score shall be at least 476 to be admitted to the College of Law. The results of the test will be released two weeks after the applicant took the test. The qualified applicant will be notified (usually, via text message) for the schedule of the interview.

Step 3.

1. Submit to the Dean's Office the Pre-Law Evaluation for the notation "OK to enroll."
2. Proceed to the Admissions Office for the enrollment proper.

For more questions, visit or call: 

University of Mindanao-College of Legal Education 

Bolton Street, Davao City, Philippines

Tel: (082) 227-5456 Loc. 133 

What pre-Law course is best to take?

By now those students who will go to college must have already decided what course to take. I've been asking my students about their plans. As with the many Pinoys who answer a question with another question, a few of them ask me back so that the interviewer became the interviewee now.

"What's a good pre-Law course to take, Sir?"

Well, that question could be answered on two different levels.

First, law schools don't prescribe a particular pre-Law course. Whatever course will do, provided your pre-Law course complied with the required number of units in Math, English, and Social Science. But that depends on the university. For example, in the University of Mindanao College of Law, the requirements are: 6 units in Math, 12 units in English, and 9 units in Social Science (History, Psychology, or Sociology).

Second, if by a good pre-Law course means that what course will better prepare your for law school, the answer is there is none.

True some may say it should be AB English or Communication Arts since in law school what matters is not what answers you give, but how to give what you give. Other may say it should be Philosophy, for it trains you to be a critical thinker.

I think it depends on what kind of lawyer you want to be. I have Law professors whose pre-Law courses were varied. My teacher in Constitutional Law 2 took up an Engineering course. My Statutory Construction teacher used to be a MedTech before he took up law. My Persons and Family Relations teacher is a CPA and an MBA holder, then she proceeded to Law.

The field of law is vast. What matters is you have to think first what kind of lawyer you want to be. Then you can fairly determine what pre-Law course to take.

Thus, if you want to be a Commercial Lawyer, a background in Business Administration, Accounting, or Management might come in handy. If you want to enter the government service, a Political Science or a Public Administration course might be useful. Those who relish a courtroom drama and all that verbal brawl might take up AB English or Philosophy.

The Criminals' Right

All humans have basic rights. Criminals are humans. Therefore, criminals have basic rights.

This syllogism, although to my mind is valid, is for some hard to accept,  or is simply unacceptable. For how can someone possess a right and yet trample upon another's right? How can someone's constitutional right to due process be protected when other's right to life is violated? Which right should be given more weight? To whom should the balance be tilted?

Take the Vic Siman et al ambush or rub-out or checkpoint-gone-bad (depending on whom you are listening to), which happened in Atimonan, Quezon on January 6, 2013. Vic Siman and 12 others who were with him were believed to be members of a criminal group.

If indeed Vic Siman et al were members of a criminal group, then they shall punished. But how? The answer is, they shall be punished in ways that do not violate the law and the Constitution. The rule of law must be upheld at all times.

That criminals must be pursued is beyond debate. But, to cite Justice Isagani Cruz, “Zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors."

Nag-iisang Isagani A. Cruz

Reading Supreme Court decisions is dreary. The decisions are so long that after reading them, all you want to do is sleep. But rarely does one experience it if one were to read a decision written by former Associate Justice Isagani A. Cruz. They say Justice Cruz is one of those rare breed of lawyers who could both write and reason well. Here's a random sample and you be judge:

"Zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors." (Bagalihog vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 96356 June 27, 1991)

"Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets...The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn." (Tañada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 December 29, 1986).

"The possible exception is the lawyer whose income is derived from teaching ballroom dancing or escorting wrinkled ladies with pubescent pretensions." (Dissenting, Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991)

"[S]ocial justice –– or any justice for that matter –– is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law." (Gelos vs. CA, G.R. No. 86186 May 8, 1992)

"Unless we are vigilant of our rights, we may find ourselves back to the dark era of the truncheon and the barbed wire, with the Court itself a captive of its own complaisance and sitting at the death-bed of liberty." (Dissenting, Valmonte vs. De Villa,G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989)

Update: See Justice Cruz's concurring opinion in Adiong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 103956 March 31, 1992 and dissenting in National Press Club vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 102653 March 5, 1992.

Strive for Simplicity, Not Legal Pugnacity

Justices, judges, lawyers, and law students are a brilliant lot. Too often, however, their brilliance is lost when they start writing down their ideas. The case of Leonor vs. CA  drives home this point.

The decision of the Trial Court regarding the merits of the case is as repugnant as the manner by which the decision was written. This is the first paragraph of the judge's decision, quoted in Footnote 13:

This is an action for “Cancellation of Entry in the Civil Registry” particularly on the marriage contract of one Mauricio Leonor, Jr. and Virginia Amor supposedly to have taken place in a long distance past on March 13, 1960 and after a Rip Van Winkle sleep and dormancy liken to a Mt. Pinatubo explosion that rocked the peace and quiet in the lives of the supposedly participants to this drama in Calatrava and San Carlos City, Negros Occidental when out of the blue one party in the person of an aggrieved left-behind spouse revived and revealed an ancient piece of marital bond between her and a reluctant spouse.

What's wrong with the paragraph? Everything, except perhaps for the spelling.

No less than the Supreme Court, through Justice Panganiban, called the language of the decision "convoluted," "painfully a sophomoric and pathetic portrayal" of Virginia, the petitioner in this case.

Further, the Court tersely remarked, "The said decision’s crude attempt at literary sophistication is matched only by its jarring syntax and grammatical incongruencies."

In his essay "On Developing My Decision-Writing Style," former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, this time not writing for the Court, shared the motive behind every decision he wrote.

"Even though my decisions are written primarily to resolve legal issues and are thus emblazoned with a considerable amount of legalese," he said, "I have endeavored to write in simple English, comprehensible as much as possible to a high school graduate.  I want to be understood not only by the legal profession but also by the parties themselves, especially by persons accused of crimes, and by the public at large as regards cases involving interpretation of the Constitution."

"More than lingual elegance and even legal pugnacity," he further said, "I strive for simplicity, clarity and precision in nuances and shades of meanings.  I believe the trend in all professions and occupations -- be they medicine, theology, science or music -- is to be understood not just by the members of that particular discipline but by the public at large."

Thus, lawyers and law students alike should strive for the same simplicity, clarity, and precision. After all, writing aims to reveal rather than conceal.

Creating a Better World, Oppan Onyot Style

I want to be a lawyer because, for me, it’s a good way not only to earn a decent living but to help mankind at the same time.

My family is poor. My father never had a stable job. He used to work as a truck driver, a passenger-jeepney driver, and a taxi driver. My mother is not rich either. Although she inherited a small piece of land from her mother, she sold it to pay for my sisters’ college tuition fees. She also tried her hand selling native delicacies like suman, puto, and biko. She also peddled detergent soaps and viands. Now she runs a small laundry business that she’s struggling to keep alive. Our family is so hard up that I was able to finish college only because I got a scholarship that required me to work in the library in the morning and study in the evening.

If you live this kind of life that I live, you’d think of nothing else but a way out. To become a lawyer is my choice of a way out because, well, lawyers tend to be better off among the professionals, if not among the really rich ones. The idealist in me, however, finds becoming a lawyer merely for profit too small a dream. For sure, we need to aspire for the creature comforts because if the body is weak, we couldn’t possibly perform even the simplest of tasks. Yet I believe that our responsibility is not only to make ourselves better off, but, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, also to “share the passion and action of his time.”

That makes the profession of law most fascinating. No other profession is so immersed in the passion and action of life than the practice of law. Sadly, however, lawyers get such a bad rap from typical portrayals of them as bad guys in movies and books. Even so, there are a few lawyers who are truly admirable. There are lawyers whose concern is not so much about making a nest-egg from their profession but about leaving a legacy.

To my mind, Antonio Oposa, Jr. of the Philippines is one such lawyer.

Having seen the wanton plunder of the environment in our country, Mr. Oposa decided to use the law—the only available weapon in his arsenal—to defend and protect its forests. He sued Fulgencio Factoran, the then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to demand, among others, the cancellation of all the timber-license agreements that the Philippine government had been wantonly giving. The case, which came to be known as Minors Oposa vs. Factoran, was the first of its kind in the world, for its plaintiffs are thegenerations yet unborn; it used the principle of “intergenerational equity,” a concept developed by Georgetown Law Professor Edith Brown Weiss. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case on the ground that the unborn generations didn’t have a legal standing. In 1993, however, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision.

The Supreme Court said in its judgment: “...[E]very generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology...the right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.”

Protecting the environment is just one of the many battles that Mr. Oposa has been valiantly carrying out, and his efforts have not gone unnoticed. In 2009, he was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award—the Asian counterpart of Nobel Prize—for “his path-breaking and passionate crusade to engage Filipinos in acts of enlightened citizenship that maximize the power of law to protect and nurture the environment for themselves, their children, and generations still to come.”

Mr. Oposa belies the popular belief that lawyers are crooks and liars. I believe that like Mr. Oposa, there are many more self-abnegating men and women of law out there. They may not drive fancy cars. They may not hold office in high-rise buildings. Instead, what they seek to leave behind is far more lasting: a better, safer, and just world.

I myself aspire to become a crusading lawyer like Mr. Oposa. I have no illusion, though, that the problems of the world will go away instantly simply because I decided to become a lawyer and a good lawyer at that. For indeed, what can one individual like me do? My answer is this: A great edifice is built not by a single person but by many people working side by side. Alone, I may not be able to build the edifice for a better world. But by being a good lawyer, I will help construct that great edifice brick by brick until it becomes a reality.