PROFILE THE EXAMINER

Did you know that our Constitution and some of our laws, such as the NIRC or Tax Code, are among the longest in the world? It is impossible to memorize all the provisions. Hence, you need to select topics that are more likely to be asked in the bar exam.

One of the filters in predicting the question is who is the bar examiner. The formulation of bar questions is a highly human process and thus, it is susceptible to cognitive biases. This will highly factor in determining which topics or provisions of law are likely to be asked in the bar exam.

It is the same in preparing for an exam in a law school. It is advisable to research on the professor administering the exam. It is equally important to know the "who" as well as the "what" as these two factors often interplay in predicting what questions will be asked.

For example, in  preparing for your exam for Criminal Law Review, you might want to take note of the topics he frequently emphasizes during your class. You might also want to determine if your professor is highly bar-oriented. These will help you further trim down the articles you need to memorize and study in depth or even trim down the materials you need to access. There's a significant difference in impact between studying  topics which are likely to be asked, and studying extensively to cover the entire coverage (or studying even those which will not be asked in the exam).

Think about this: two professors teach criminal law, and that is all that makes the difference.

Conscientious/Moral/Religious Objector

In "Burwell vs Hobby Lobby" (US, June 2014) and in "Imbong vs Ochoa" (April 2014), the Court ruled in favor of conscientious objector (religious or moral objector) because, among others, the government failed to discharge its burden ("compelling interest" test in the Philippine case; while the government did demonstrate sufficient compelling interest, it failed to show "meaningful difference" between non-profit religious (which are exempted under Affordable Care Act) and for-profit religious organization in the US case).

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY; RIPENESS

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY; RIPENESS

xxx

Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness.101 A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of

xxx

J. Mendoza, "Imbong vs Ochoa" (2014)

See ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

xxx

"In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial determination. Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it not only becomes a right, but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute."

xxx

J. Mendoza, "Imbong vs Ochoa" (2008)

Separation of Powers

Separation of Powers

xxx

In its relationship with its co-equals, the Judiciary recognizes the doctrine of separation of powers which imposes upon the courts proper restraint, born of the nature of their functions and of their respect for the other branches of government, in striking down the acts of the Executive or the Legislature as unconstitutional. Verily, the policy is a harmonious blend of courtesy and caution

xxx

J. Mendoza, "Imbong vs Ochoa" (2014)

Supreme Court: "Passive Yet Reflexive"

xxx

"Seemingly distant is the judicial branch, oftentimes regarded as an inert governmental body that merely casts its watchful eyes on clashing stakeholders until it is called upon to adjudicate. Passive, yet reflexive when called into action, the Judiciary then willingly embarks on its solemn duty to interpret legislation vis-a-vis the most vital and enduring principle that holds Philippine society together - the supremacy of the Philippine Constitution." 

xxx

J. Mendoza in "Imbong vs Ochoa" (2014)