In questions involving hypothetical cases, your answer should have the following three parts: a. the conclusion,
b. the statement of the rule, and c. the statement of fact.
The statement of fact refers to the relevant fact and its relationship to the rule.
Each part should be written as one paragraph.
The length of your answer depends on the point assigned to the question. If the question has only 5% credit, you don’t need to include a statement of fact. If the question has a 10% credit, you need to expound on the statement of the rule (e.g. you might need to state the applicable law and rules of court or jurisprudence.)
When the question is long, read the last portion first so you would immediately know what is being asked. You can write on the questionnaire, so underline or encircle the essential parts of the questions.
If you did not encounter the question in your review, skip it. Return to the skipped questions after you answered those you are familiar with. If you are unfamiliar with the question, write down the closest legal concept you can think of.
Example of an Answer to a Short Question
Explain the automatic renewal clause of collective bargaining agreements. (3%) (2008 Bar)
Suggested Answer:
The automatic renewal clause is a provision found in collective bargaining agreements which requires the parties to maintain the status quo and continue the terms and conditions of the expired agreement until a new one is reached.
Example of an Answer to a Long Question
Nationwide protests have erupted over rising gas prices, including disruptive demonstrations in many universities throughout the country. The Metro Manila State University, a public university, adopted a university-wide circular prohibiting public mass demonstrations and rallies within the campus. Offended by the circular, militant students spread word that on the following Friday, all students were to wear black T-shirts as a symbol of their protest both against high prices and the university ban on demonstrations. The effort was only moderately successful, with around 30% of the students heeding the call. Nonetheless, university officials were outraged and compelled the student leaders to explain why they should not be expelled for violating the circular against demonstrations.
The student leaders approached you for legal advice. They contended that they should not be expelled since they did not violate the circular, their protest action being neither a demonstration nor a rally since all they did was wear black T-shirts. What would you advise the students? (6%) (2008 Bar)
Suggested Answer:
I would advise the students to explain to the university officials that they should not be expelled because they did not violate the school’s circular against demonstrations.
I would further advise them to explain that their act of wearing black T-shirts is a form of symbolic speech and not a mass demonstration. Symbolic speech is protected by the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and of expression. Lastly, I would advise them explain that they should not be punished since their act is protected by the Constitution.
Example of an Answer to a Question with Follow-up
Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage and secured a copy of the marriage contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines.
(a) Will the case prosper? Explain. (4%)
(b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage, what will your answer be? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar)
Suggested Answer:
(a) No, the case of bigamy against Hubert will not prosper.
Under the principle of territoriality, our penal laws are enforceable only within the bounds of the Philippine territory.
Since the second marriage of Hubert was celebrated in New York, he cannot be successfully prosecuted for bigamy in the Philippines.
(b) My answer would still be the same even if Eunice consented to the second marriage.
The consent of Eunice does not affect the criminal liability of Hubert since bigamy is a public crime.
However, the case of bigamy against Hubert will still not prosper since our penal laws are not enforceable for acts committed outside the Philippine territory.
コメント