Possible Bar Topic

Last year's barristers were in for a horrifying surprise after reading several unusual and unfair questions that were either explicitly excluded from the coverage or were really out of this world. There were questions the examinees were expected to know just because the issue was published in the newspaper. If you only have six months or less (depending on whether you took a much needed vacation after graduation or not) to review all that you have studied for the past four years, and if all your waking hours are already devoted to reading, sino ba naman ang may panahon pa para mag extra reading at magbasa ng diyaryo? Ayun, for those who failed to read the excluded materials or the daily newspaper, major panic attack tuloy! Si JO, ung housemate ko, couldn't even get herself to go back to reviewing after the first Sunday. Talagang tulala lang buong araw.

Anyway, one of my favorite professors and one of the teachers i really look up to wrote this article for Newsbreak Online. It might or might not be included sa exam but for good measure, and for barristers who have extra time or dun sa mga taong hobby lang talaga nilang magbasa tignan niyo na rin. Also, if you want to read the entire article (and I hope you do kasi the article in its entirety is interesting and informative) you can access it at:
http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3469&Itemid=88889094

SC Takes New Role in National Debate
By Theodore Te
Monday, 25 June 2007

The Supreme Court has always been perceived to be the weakest of the three co-equal branches of government, because it possesses neither the power of the purse nor the might of the sword.

This perception of weakness is also brought about by the nature of its function of judicial review which, by the Court's own terms, makes the Court a passive arbiter and not an active intervenor. In his first few weeks in law school, the elements of judicial review are drilled into every constitutional law student's head: proper party, proper case or controversy ripe for resolution, and the absolute necessity of deciding on the constitutional question. These elements ensure that the Court remains a passive receptacle, waiting for a controversy to reach it.

However, recent pronouncements by Chief Justice Reynato Puno have surprised many and led them to reconsider their traditional views and perceptions of the High Court.

First, the Chief Justice announced, in response to the Philip Alston Report on extrajudicial killings and disappearances, that the Court would designate special trial courts all over the country to resolve these cases with dispatch. Administrative Order No. 25-2007 defines as part of the mandate of the special trial courts the speedy resolution of cases involving the killing of political activists and journalists.

Second, he declared that the Court would exercise its power on judicial rule-making, which is little known to the general public but granted to the Court by the Constitution. Article VIII, section 5(5) vests the Supreme Court with the sole authority to "promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of human rights." It is a power that is not frequently invoked except by a few lawyers and then, only as a last resort.

Third, and in relation to the exercise by the Court of the power to promulgate rules on the enforcement of human rights, he also announced the holding by the Supreme Court of a multi-sectoral summit to discuss issues relative to the extrajudicial killings, stressing that the summit would have implications on the principle of "command responsibility."

The Court likewise stated aloud that it would review its own ruling on Executive Order 464 (which prohibits top government officials from appearing in congressional probes without clearance from the President) and that should an appropriate case arise, it would, in Puno's words, "plug the holes" in the decision.