The Philippines is probably just about the only country on the planet where the results of the Bar Exams are treated very much like a kitschy spectacle. This is sad because in an idea world, the announcement of the results of the Bar Exams should be routine and matter of factly, not raucous and dramatic.
It doesn't help that the Supreme Court of the Philippines has continuously pandered to this fiesta-like tradition. This time of the year for so long, the Supreme Court would set up a platform at its courtyard in Padre Faura, Manila, complete with loud speakers and giant LCD monitors flashing the names of passers before a huge crowd.
For an institution insistent on decorum and rules of procedure, instigating a frenzy sounds positively mental.
This year, however, with the Philippines still reeling from the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court has decided to ditch the usual festivities at its building in Manila and instead opt for an online-only affair. It was quick to point out that while the shift to online release of results would mean foregoing the public fiesta in Padre Faura, all other traditions will remain in place, including the release of the top 10 Bar passers with the highest scores.
Again, the Philippines is just about the only country in the world that does this. Why the Supreme Court continues to do this bothers the mind. Clearly, it sees no urgency in setting itself apart from the Professional Regulatory Commission, which likewise routinely releases top 10 highest-scoring passers in all the licensure exams it conducts -- from the CPA Board Exam to the pen and paper Sub-Professional Civil Service Exam and everything else in between.
To say that releasing a top 10 list of passers is problematic amounts to a gross understatement. Beyond the usual question of whether doing such serves a vital public purpose (hint: it doesn't), there are also a host of attendant issues that necessarily come with it.
Here are some of the reasons why the Supreme Court of the Philippines should once and for all completely do away with the release of the top 10 list of Bar passers:
- It turns the Bar Exams into a competition, which it isn't. Taking the Bar Exam is no mean feat, especially when considering the associated costs that come with it financially, physically, emotionally, mentally, and even spiritually. It is an exhausting exercise that begins from the almost year-long review down to the four Sundays of November. The last thing examinees need is to be pitted against each other.
- It unnecessarily turns the public's attention away from school performance as it focuses (needlessly and rather unfairly) on individual performance. It has been said over and over that the most crucial thing to look at in the Bar Exams, or any other licensure exam for that matter, is the school performance. Gauging how schools fared is a better determinant of the quality of legal education in the country -- schools with high passing rates mean they provide their students with quality and topnotch education, while schools with low passing rates need to be investigated. This mindset allows regulators to accurately assess the kind of interventions that need to be done, including shutting down non-performing schools if warranted. Having a topnotcher in a school that has a dismal passing rate leads to the public perception that said school is doing better than a law school with a very high passing rate but without a topnotcher. There is clearly a dissonance in this situation that needs an urgent remedy.
- It gives those in the Top 10 an unfair advantage over others who managed to pass, too. With all the media attention showered on them, topnotchers get an undue edge over others who like them passed the Bar, too. This kind of obsession has even led schools to reward their topnotchers with cars and cash incentives, leading even further to the institutionalization of the topnotcher syndrome -- the mentality where a Bar examinee aspires to be in the Top 10 for fame, money, and glory.
- It promotes unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and personal affairs of those included in the top 10 list, thrusted as they are into the media limelight without their consent. Arguably, this does not apply to everybody as there are in fact passers who relish their newfound fame. Just the same, however, having your photo and name in front of national dailies and splashed across the TV in six o'clock news is verily a screaming reminder of the end of your privacy.
- It turns those included in the top 10 list into marketable commodities. Law firms and other organizations, including government agencies, seek to attract topnotchers because snagging one makes for a great marketing strategy. In fact, organizations with recruits consisting of Bar topnotchers parade such acquisitions with excessive pomp, as if to say, if we're good enough for a topnocher, then we must be a top organization. This is particularly true in law firms, where having topnotchers on their fold is used to enhance their reputation and attract clients. It's no secret that even before the conduct of Bar Exams, law firms and other organizations are already scouting potential Bar topnotchers (usually in the Top 10 or Top 20 of a law school's graduating class) and shower them with all sorts of signing bonuses.
- It fans flames of regionalism. In an ideal Bar Exam world, where you hail or graduate from shouldn't matter. All that counts is whether or not you have been adequately prepared by your legal education to conquer the Bar. Unfortunately, this isn't the case in reality. Most times, where you come from or which law school you graduated from becomes major media fodder and even a source of controversy, thanks to the release of the Top 10 Bar Passers list -- a useless list that really serves no public purpose other than promote regionalism and ignite divisiveness. The most usual narratives whenever such list is released are as follows: Metro Manila law schools versus provincial law schools, or popular law schools versus unknown law schools, and other dumbfounding strains of the same thought. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court needs to stop pandering to these narratives.
- It discounts the fact that the Bar Exams does not exist in a vacuum, and is in fact the culmination of years of hard work and steadfast dedication. When you have a Top 10 Highest Scorers list, it makes you think that the Bar Exams is a race with winners and losers. This couldn't be farther from the truth; the Bar Exams is a journey reached through years of legal education and steadfast learning. Passing it symbolizes the destination anyone who dreams of becoming a lawyer aspires to step foot on. The Top 10 List causes short-sightedness and does not help in making Bar examinees and law students appreciate the bigger picture.
- Finally, it cheapens the Bar Exams atmosphere. It fails to recognize that all Bar examinees, pass or fail, have devoted so much time and resources in completing the exams, put their lives on hold to achieve their dreams, and went through all sort of hoops to emerge from the experience scathed but sane.
The truth of the matter is that at the end of the day, there really isn't any difference between the person with the highest score and the one at the bottom of the passers list: they both passed. And most importantly, regardless of whether or not you passed the Bar Exams, this ultimate step to becoming a lawyer does not and should not define you.
The onus is now on the Supreme Court to decide whether to continue with the farcical tradition of releasing a Top 10 Highest Scorers list or give Bar examinees the dignity they deserve regardless of how they fared in the exams.