The only issue left regarding the 2007 bar examination was the lowering of the passing mark. Its been some seven years since the Supreme Court decided on it last. Now, what are the main scenarios that would instigate a negative reaction?
Questions, questions..
1. Was there a possibility that information as to the result was leaked in advance in order to favor a few selected candidates? This is not a far-fetched idea considering the state of advanced communications.Its also a fact that somehow someone happens to be well connected with the powers that be.
2. Under what possible circumstances na hindi nagkaroon ng piring ang katarungan?
3. Does the structural setup of the Examination Body ensure reasonable fairness?
It's who knows What and When.
This is not to degrade the level or quality of the passers. Here, the conduct of the Supreme Court may be questioned by the Legislature with respect to the Rules and Mechanics to ensure fairness in the function. Through a legislative act. I suppose. Even through a "legislative inquiry in aid of legislation." After all, the power of the purse has the right to know as to whether or not government funds are spent in furtherance of a good government act. The doctrine parens patria dictates that the children are treated equally without favoritism.
Does the judiciary have an exclusive domain? I should say no. They're separate yet meant to fuse and compliment each other. That is to correct lapses in any branch of government. It's who you know that matters? MBA( May Backer Ako)? Culture of corruption and institutionalized greed? They carry that kind of corrosive attitudinal substance in a Republic.
When things like these matters are questioned. It is not fair even to the passers. They have the effect of a Pyhrric and hollow victory. They are robbed of a once in a lifetime state of self-confirmation and validation.
Ever wondered why even the blind are able to acquire a driver's license in our country?
REFORMS, reforms?
Enough of the deity type of examiners correcting the notebooks. It should be broadly assimilated. Any lawyer should qualify in a Body of Correctors. After all, the law is suppose to be understood by even the least of educated or learned and by all. Surely every lawyer is qualified to correct.
It could be on a voluntary or with a little financial reward per booklet corrected. This would hasten the process and cut-down the very long agonizing wait for the results.
Avoid subjectivity by allowing the use of laptops and computer software in the actual examination. We are no longer in 1901. We are living in the age of rapid technological advances. Eliminating the very subjective 'hand-writing' factor. As an excuse for an examiner being in a bad mood.
Its not that I have a bad penmanship. On the contrary, it has received numerous praises and admirations to the point that it no longer affects me.
FUTURE PREJUDICE: The adjusted average would tend to affect future examinations like the following year's exams in case it would result in a average lower than that which was allowed this year. Indeed, if they go below the average passing mark relative to the number of examinees and the ration with this in relation to this years results then that would proly result for clamor for an adjustment from those who did not make it. Indeed this year's results cannot be higher than any succeeding result based on comparative statistical data.
So, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The result is a constipated effect.LOL.
12 years ago
