[LAW SCHOOL] Learning the law through the Socratic method

The Socratic method is a teaching method that is often used in law school. It is a form of inquiry in which the teacher asks the student a series of questions to help them think critically about a legal issue. The teacher may also challenge the student's assumptions and reasoning. The goal of the Socratic method is to help the student develop their own understanding of the law and to learn how to think like a lawyer.

The Socratic method is named after the Greek philosopher Socrates, who used it to teach his students. Socrates believed that the best way to learn was through questioning and debate. He would ask his students questions about their beliefs and assumptions, and then challenge their answers. This process would help the students to clarify their thinking and to develop their own ideas.

The Socratic method is a challenging teaching method, but it can be very effective. It can help students to develop their critical thinking skills, to learn how to argue effectively, and to think like a lawyer. However, it is important to note that the Socratic method is not for everyone. Some students may find it to be too stressful or challenging.

In any event, Socratic method helps students to develop their critical thinking skills. The Socratic method requires students to think critically about legal issues. They must be able to analyze the facts of a case, identify the relevant legal rules, and apply those rules to the facts.

It also helps students to learn how to argue effectively. The Socratic method requires students to defend their positions in the face of challenges. This helps them to learn how to argue effectively and to present their arguments in a clear and concise way.

Moreover, the Socratic method helps students to think like a lawyer. The Socratic method forces students to think like lawyers. They must be able to understand the law, to apply the law to the facts, and to advocate for their clients.

However, there are also some drawbacks to using the Socratic method in law school.

[CASE DIGEST] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The decision overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, which had established a constitutional right to abortion.

The case arose out of a challenge to Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which prohibited most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law made exceptions for medical emergencies and severe fetal abnormalities, but it did not allow for abortions based on the woman's personal decision.

The Jackson Women's Health Organization, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, challenged the law as unconstitutional. The clinic argued that the law violated the undue burden standard established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The district court agreed with the clinic and struck down the law. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit's decision. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. The majority also argued that the right to abortion is not essential to the concept of ordered liberty.

[LAW SCHOOL] Overcoming the disappointment of failing an exam in law school

Failing an exam in law school can be a very discouraging experience. It can be easy to feel like you are not cut out for law school or that you will never be a successful lawyer. However, it is important to remember that failing an exam is not the end of the world. It is just a setback. 

Here are some tips on how to deal with failures in law school exams:

1. Allow yourself to feel the disappointment. It is important to allow yourself to feel the disappointment of failing an exam. Bottling up your emotions will only make it harder to deal with the failure in the long run.

2. Identify the reasons for your failure. Once you have allowed yourself to feel the disappointment, it is important to identify the reasons for your failure. This will help you to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

3. Make a plan to improve your study habits. Once you have identified the reasons for your failure, you need to make a plan to improve your study habits. This may involve creating a study schedule, finding a study partner, or getting help from a tutor.

4. Don't give up. It is important to remember that failing an exam is not the end of the world. It is just a setback. If you are willing to put in the work, you can still be a successful law student and lawyer.

Here are some additional tips on how to deal with failures in law school exams:

[CASE DIGEST] Lagman v. Medialdea (G.R. No. 231658)

July 4, 2017 

FACTS: 

A group of congressmen challenged the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 216, which declared martial law in the Mindanao region. The petitioners argued that the proclamation was issued without sufficient factual basis and that it violated the 1987 Constitution by suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 216, finding that the President had sufficient factual basis to believe that the rebellion in Mindanao posed a threat to public safety and order. The Court also found that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was justified, as it was necessary to prevent the escape of suspects and to ensure the success of the military operations.

However, the Court did place some limitations on the President's powers under martial law. The Court held that the President could not use martial law to suppress dissent or to target political opponents. The Court also held that the President was required to report to Congress on the progress of the martial law and to lift the martial law once the threat to public safety had been eliminated.

Lagman v. Medialdea is an important case that clarifies the powers of the President under martial law. The case also sets out some important safeguards to prevent the abuse of martial law powers.

Here are some of the key points of the decision:

[CASE DIGEST] Kilosbayan v. Ermita, (G.R.No.177721)

July 3, 2007

FACTS: 

This was a case filed by Kilosbayan, a civic organization, challenging the appointment of then-Mayor Jose de Venecia III of Ermita, Manila as Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.

Kilosbayan argued that de Venecia's appointment was unconstitutional because he was not a natural-born Filipino citizen. De Venecia was born in the United States to Filipino parents. He renounced his American citizenship in 1991, but Kilosbayan argued that this was not enough to make him a natural-born Filipino citizen.

The Supreme Court held that: 

1. A natural-born Filipino citizen is a person who is born in the Philippines to Filipino parents.
2. A person who is born outside of the Philippines to Filipino parents is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, even if they renounce their foreign citizenship.
3. The appointment of a person who is not a natural-born Filipino citizen to a high government office is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court agreed with Kilosbayan and struck down de Venecia's appointment as Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. The Court held that de Venecia was not a natural-born Filipino citizen because he was born outside of the Philippines to Filipino parents. The Court also held that de Venecia's renunciation of his American citizenship did not make him a natural-born Filipino citizen.

The decision in Kilosbayan v. Ermita is a significant decision that has implications for the definition of "natural-born Filipino citizen." The decision clarifies that a natural-born Filipino citizen is a person who is born in the Philippines to Filipino parents. This decision will likely be used to challenge the appointments of other persons who were born outside of the Philippines to Filipino parents.