Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

OFFICE OF THE 2020/21 BAR CHAIRPERSON

BAR BULLETIN NO. 25, S. 2021

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BAR EXAMINERS

AND EXPLANATION OF THE COMPUTATION OF SCORES
IN THE 2020/21 BAR EXAMINATIONS

The Shift

“I’m not teaching my girl to rise above the rest.

I’m teaching her to rise with them.

“I’m not teaching her to compare or compete.

I’m teaching her to compliment and complete.

“I’m not teaching her to be better than her peers.

I’m teaching her to better her peers.

“I’m not teaching her to stand out from other girls.

I’m teaching her to stand with other girls.

“Do you see the difference?

“One changes the girl.

The other changes the world.

“Let's work together to shift the narrative.

Let's work together to shift the world!”

Mehr Lee
Raise Her Wild
 Upon the Bar Chairperson’s recommendation, the Supreme Court En Banc
has approved a modified grading system that shall be adopted pro hac vice for the
2020/21 Bar Examinations.

The Bar Examinations are qualifying licensure examinations that test for
minimum skills required of lawyers. The modifications, adopted pro hac vice by
the Court En Banc, are designed to enable a more equitable approach to appraising
and reporting on Bar Examination performance. They were adopted considering
the extraordinary circumstances engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic,
including the anxiety and uncertainties suffered by examinees.

Similarly, the modifications were adopted to initiate reforms that address the
debilities and inequities arising from traditional, competitive mechanisms, as well
as the false tendency to associate Bar Examination performance with overall legal
acumen and even future professional success.

The existing grading system for the Bar Examinations is a product of

longstanding tradition. However, the pandemic added complications that bar
examinees must contend with. The Court is aware of these challenges, which
permeate all aspects of an examinee’s preparation. These unique circumstances
presented an opportunity to introduce various reforms, with compassion and
understanding, but without sacrificing the core nature of the Bar Examinations.

Unlike in the previous Bar Examinations, the prospective examinees for the
2020/21 Bar Examinations have had to contend with unprecedented and prolonged
uncertainty occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. On top of that, the resetting
of the 2020 Bar Examinations also jeopardized financial security, as it entailed
forgoing livelihood opportunities.

While we are facing the same pandemic, not all of us have the same comfort
or resources to meet this crisis.

Between them, the two batches of law school graduates projected to take the
consolidated 2020 and 2021 Bar Examinations have also had disparities. On one
hand, those who had intended to take the Bar Examinations in 2020 either had
more time to review, or endured more time for waiting. The 2021 graduates, on the
other hand, had to endure the longer ordeal of preparing to graduate during the
pandemic, causing delays in the graduation dates. They have been put in a
constrained environment, with only a brief window of time to prepare.

Testing two batches of examinees that prepared under different

circumstances—not to mention the vast number of combined examinees, placing
an enormous demand on the examiners—compels the adoption of unique
mechanisms that aim to balance these inequities.

Thus, the Court has agreed to adopt a tiered grading system for appraising
entry-level legal competence.

The present situation will make it inequitable to adhere to exacting, minute

distinctions for exemplary performance. The Bar Examinations are plagued with
longstanding and inherent inequities, and the unique exigencies of the 2020/21 Bar
Examinations only compound them. Thus, the Court decided to be more inclusive
in how it recognizes exemplary performance by forgoing the traditional Top 10.

Drawing focus away from extraordinarily burdened examinees and how they
performed competitively against each other, reports on performance in the 2020/21
Bar Examinations will draw attention to law schools themselves. It is hoped that by
shifting the focus away from how select individuals excel and onto a school’s
collective performance, this will encourage deep-seated and wide-ranging
improvements in legal education. Law schools would inspire and aspire for
excellence that would uplift their entire studentry, rather than select bar bets only.

The underlying concerns for the Bar Examinations are not merely
operational. The way the examinations are conducted should also affirm collective
values. We do not just determine admission into a profession, we also allocate the
benefits that will be enjoyed by individuals in our community. The 2020/21 Bar
Examinations are an opportune time to facilitate—even if not permanently—
reforms that aim to address inequities inherent in our traditional mechanisms.

The 2020/21 Bar Examinations will maintain fidelity to the basic nature of
the Bar Examinations: They are qualifying licensure exams whose purpose is only
to facilitate entry into the legal profession by those who possess and manifest the
requisite minimum for inclusion in that profession.

The Bar Examinations measure individual knowledge. It is no race or

competition. Neither will it predict who among the examinees will become the best
qualified within their batch, the better lawyer, the more relevant practitioner, or the
more compassionate individual. Those come after the examinees pass the
examinations and contend with the challenges posed by their clients’ situations,
considering the demands of social justice and their individual ethical choices.

In short, good lawyering requires skill and a view to making choices that
match the nobility of the profession and its desire for social justice. This is not
entirely measured by the Bar Examinations.

II

The modifications introduced in the 2020/21 Bar Examinations aim to be

more inclusive by not limiting recognition to an exclusive circle of topnotchers.
Limiting recognition to a circle of 10 risks being beholden to statistical minutiae.

The likelihood of statistical minutiae deserves particular emphasis. Bar

examiners, in going through tens of thousands of exam answers, are hard put to
render grades that capture fine distinctions among the best answers that would,
eventually, pave the way for the Top 10.

When law professors grade answers to exam questions, they examine the
answers of an extremely limited sample—say, 40 individuals for a single class, or
perhaps a little more than a hundred when giving an exam to several sections.
Working with a small sample—nowhere near the vast pool of answers that must be
graded in the Bar Examinations—enables finer grading that rewards the truly
exceptional. In such a case, a professor even has the luxury of time to revisit
previously read answers, to compare and contrast them with others, and to
ruminate on which among the several exceptional answers is truly a cut above the
rest, and thus, deserves the best grade, even if only marginal. This is impracticable
in the Bar Examinations.

By force of necessity, bar examiners are constrained to have significantly

less time in evaluating each answer. Rather than dwelling on fine details, they are
compelled to approach answers based on general categories—unsatisfactory,
satisfactory, above average, and exceptional. This is not necessarily a defect of the
Bar Examinations. Again, the purpose of the Bar Examinations is to determine
whether the examinee has the minimum knowledge to be a lawyer.
 III

Accordingly, for purposes of the 2020/21 Bar Examinations, each Bar

subject will have a total of 15 to 18 straightforward questions designed to address
entry-level legal competency. There will be no sub-questions.

The following are examples of straightforward questions:

1. CRIMINAL LAW: Without permission or consent, A took a pencil

from his seatmate B. Later on, A returned it to B. Was theft
committed? Explain briefly.

2. LEGAL ETHICS: X, a civil service eligible, filed a petition to apply

as notary public, invoking as her sole credential her civil service
eligibility. Should the petition be granted? Explain briefly.

3. REMEDIAL LAW: Z filed a complaint for forcible entry against Y

before the Regional Trial Court of Isabela. Can the Regional Trial
Court dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction? Explain briefly.

Answers to each question can earn up to five points. Thus, in a 15-question

exam, the maximum possible score is 75 points.

Answers shall be graded according to a tiered qualitative system. In grading

answers, examiners shall be guided by the following standards:

1. A grade of five (5.0) shall be earned by an answer that, in relation

to the data and/or situation/s presented by a question: (1) presents
the correct legal conclusion; (2) is supported by correct legal bases;
and (3) is delivered in a complete but succinct, clear, and polished
manner with minimal errors in grammar.

2. A grade of four (4.0) shall be earned by an answer that, in relation

to the data and/or situation/s presented by a question, presents the
correct legal conclusion and is supported by correct legal bases,
although its delivery may be attended by flaws in communication;

3. A grade of three (3.0) shall be earned by an answer that, in relation

to the data and/or situation/s presented by a question, presents the
 correct legal conclusion, but is supported by incorrect legal bases
or, even if invoking some correct legal bases, simultaneously
invokes other incorrect, inapplicable, and/or inappropriate legal
bases;

4. A grade of two (2.0) shall be earned by an answer that, in relation

to the data and/or situation/s presented by a question, presents an
incorrect legal conclusion, although in discussing legal bases, the
examinee exhibits a capacity for effective legal reasoning and
communication, such as through coherent and cogent formulation
of answers and adequate reference to legal authorities;

5. A grade of one (1.0) shall be earned by an answer that, in relation

to the data and/or situation/s presented by a question, presents an
incorrect legal conclusion and demonstrates the examinee’s
inability to reason and communicate effectively, although there
remains to be a bona fide attempt on their part to deliver an answer
befitting the question; and,

6. A grade of zero (0) shall be rendered in instances where the

examinee offers no answer whatsoever, as by leaving the space for
the answer blank, or when the examinee places information or text
in the space, but it is gibberish, irrelevant, or nonsensical.

To summarize:

Legal
GRADE Legal Bases Language or Style
Conclusion
Correct Exclusively correct Examinee delivered the answer
5 in a complete, succinct, clear,
and polished manner, with
minimal errors in grammar
Correct Exclusively correct Examinee delivered the answer
4
with flaws in their ability to
communicate
Correct Incorrect; or even if
invoking some correct legal
3 bases, simultaneously
invokes other incorrect,
inapplicable, and/or
inappropriate legal bases
2 Incorrect Examinee exhibits capacity
 for effective legal reasoning
and communication through
coherent and cogent
formulation of answers and
adequate reference to legal
authorities
Incorrect Examinee demonstrates Examinee exhibits a bona fide
1 inability to reason and attempt to deliver an answer
communicate effectively befitting the question

No answer Examinee lacks a genuine

0 given attempt to answer, writes
gibberish, irrelevant, or
nonsensical text

No partial points will be given.

From the three sample questions given earlier, answers such as the following
will earn a grade of 5.0:

1. Yes, all of the elements of the crime of theft are present. The essential
elements of theft are: (1) taking of personal property; (2) the property
taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the owner’s
consent; (4) there was intent to gain; and (5) the taking was done
without violence against or intimidation of the person or force upon
things. It is not an exempting or justifying circumstance to return the
thing taken.

2. No. There is no showing that the petitioner satisfies all the requirements
to be eligible for commissioning as notary public, particularly that she is
a member of the Philippine bar. Thus, the petition should not be granted.

(The following is an optional addition, though ultimately ineffectual

as the brief answer above already warrants the highest possible grade:

To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner: (1)

must be a citizen of the Philippines; (2) must be over 21 years of age;
(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one year and
maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province
where the commission is to be issued; (4) must be a member of the
Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the
Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the
 Philippines; and (5) must not have been convicted in the first instance
of any crime involving moral turpitude.)

3. Yes. Under the law, metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts,
and municipal circuit trial courts have exclusive original jurisdiction
over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Here, the Regional
Trial Court of Isabela has no jurisdiction over the complaint for
forcible entry and can therefore dismiss it outright.

(The following is an optional addition, though ultimately ineffectual

as the brief answer above already warrants the highest possible grade:

Being conferred by law, the issue of jurisdiction over the subject

matter is one of the exceptional grounds when the court may dismiss a
case, if it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that this
ground exists.)

The points earned by an examinee’s answer to each Bar subject’s questions

shall be added to determine the examinee’s raw score for a given Bar subject. To
compute an examinee’s overall score in the Bar Examinations, the scores obtained
in each Bar subject shall be given a relative weight.

IV

The relative weight of each Bar subject, as provided by Rule 138, Section 14
of the Rules of Court, shall be maintained. The Bar subjects and their relative
weights shall be as follows:

a. Remedial Law – 20%

b. Political and International Law – 15%
c. Civil Law – 15%
d. Commercial Law – 15%
e. Labor and Social Legislation – 10%
f. Criminal Law – 10%
g. Taxation – 10%
h. Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises – 5%

To successfully pass the 2020/21 Bar Examinations, an examinee’s total

weighted score across all Bar subjects must be at least 75%, computed in
accordance with the relative weight per subject. A total weighted score below 75%
will mean that an examinee has not passed the Bar Examinations.

The total weighted score for the 2020/21 Bar Examinations is the sum of the
weighted scores per subject. The weighted score per subject is the product of: first,
the Bar subject’s relative weight; and second, the raw score as a percentage of the
maximum possible score, e.g., 75 in a 15-question exam.

To illustrate:

Bar Subject Raw Raw Score as % Relative Weighted Score

Score of Max Score Weight per Subject
Remedial Law 72 96.00% 20% 19.20%
Political and International Law 70 93.33% 15% 14.00%
Civil Law 60 80.00% 15% 12.00%
Commercial Law 63 84.00% 15% 12.60%
Labor and Social Legislation 57 76.00% 10% 7.60%
Criminal Law 64 85.33% 10% 8.53%
Taxation 52 69.33% 10% 6.93%
Legal Ethics and Practical 70 93.33% 5% 4.67%
Exercises
Total Weighted Score 85.53%

In this example of a 15-question exam in all subjects, the examinee has

passed the Bar Examinations given that their total weighted score of 85.53%
exceeds the requisite minimum of 75.00%.

NOTE: The Supreme Court En Banc reserves the right to, upon the Bar
Chairperson’s recommendation, reduce the requisite total weighted score to
pass the 2020/21 Bar Examinations.

The Supreme Court shall make the list of passers publicly available in
appropriate media, at a date to be recommended by the Bar Chairperson. Names
shall be arranged alphabetically.

After the Supreme Court En Banc has approved the list of passers and the
rankings of law schools, each examinee will receive through e-mail their individual
raw scores along with a pronouncement on whether they: (1) passed with
exemplary performance; (2) passed; or (3) did not pass.
 There will only be one disqualifier: when an examinee violates the honor
code or has committed serious misconduct in relation to the Bar Examinations.

An examinee who obtains a total weighted score of 85.00% or higher for the
2020/21 Bar Examinations shall be recognized for exemplary performance in the
Bar Examinations.

Thus, in the example from Part IV, the examinee, in addition to having
passed the Bar Examinations, shall also be recognized for their exemplary
performance given the total weighted score of 85.53%.

The names of examinees who earned recognition for exemplary performance

shall be made publicly available simultaneously with the list of passers, through
the same media. Apart from this, no fanfare shall be devoted in releasing
information on examinees who rendered exemplary performance.

The names in this list shall be arranged alphabetically, and shall also appear
in the list of passers. This list shall replace the traditional Top 10.

VI

The Supreme Court shall issue a report on law schools’ performance, as

follows:

1. Law schools shall be sorted into categories depending on their total

number of first-time examinees.

For example:

a. Those with 100 or more first-time examinees;

b. Those with 50 to 99 first-time examinees; and
c. Those with less than 50 first-time examinees.

2. Law schools in each category shall be ranked according to the passing

rate of their first-time examinees.
 NOTE: In addition to indicating each law school’s passing rate and its
ranking, each law school’s total number of first-time examinees and raw
number of passers among first-time examinees shall also be indicated. The
actual categories of law schools will be agreed upon by the Bar Chairperson
and the Philippine Association of Law Schools.

Law schools having examinees who were recognized for exemplary

performance shall be identified in a separate report. This report shall list and rank
law schools from those with the most to the least number of examinees recognized
for exemplary performance.

For the 2020/21 Bar Examinations, statistics on the performance of those

who did not pass or did not finish past Bar Examinations shall not be made public,
but will be given to the law schools themselves.

It is true that we should own responsibility for what we achieve in our

lifetimes. But it is likewise true that we do not all come from the same starting
points. Some are more privileged than the rest. Others have to face more
challenges due to the circumstances they were born into, the communities they live
in, the dearth of opportunities within their geographic areas, or the inherent
discrimination that comes with their ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or expression. Understanding this is basic to understanding inequality, and more
so, to finding the normative means to grant just rewards.

Study well. Find your passion. Persevere. The harder your challenges, the
better you can become.

For your information and guidance.

August 27, 2021

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice and
2020/21 Bar Examinations
Chairperson