PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

Sisyphus’ Lament
Essays in Law Journal Management (2004-2010)
The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Academic Legal Writing Part I: 79 PHIL. L.J. 7 (2004) Editing, or the Student’s Art of Not Being One’s Own Worst Enemy Part II: 79 PHIL. L.J. 233 (2004) Citation and the Little Black Book Part III: 79 PHIL. L.J. 541 (2004) The Little Black Book (The Philippine Law Journal Legal Citation Handbook) 79 PHIL. L.J. 560 (2004)

Style and the Seduction of the Supreme Court Part IV: Published 79 PHIL. L.J. 876 (2004) Oscar Franklin B. Tan Chair, PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL (2005) Master of Laws, Harvard Law School (2007) Associate, Jones Day Reinvigorating the Philippine Law Journal as the Crucible of Legal Writing Part V: 83 PHIL. L.J. 5 (2008) Juan Paolo F. Fajardo Chair, PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL (2009) Associate, Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Laying Foundations and Reinforcing an Institution Through an Effective Internship Program Part V.I: 84 PHIL. L.J. i (2009) Johann Carlos S. Barcena Chair, PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL (2010) Associate, Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law

FOREWORD
SISYPHUS’ LAMENT, PART I: THE NEXT NINETY YEARS AND * THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING
Oscar Franklin B. Tan** I. THE THREE ROLES OF LAW JOURNALS
PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL in jurisprudence, in the profession, and in the academe. This role is articulated as three main functions. First, the JOURNAL must serve as a

During the first Board meeting for Volume 79, we discussed the role of the

handmaiden of jurisprudence. It must be the academe’s monitor and critic regarding the evolution of the Supreme Court’s doctrine.1 Table 1: PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL articles cited by the Supreme Court2
Decision Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003)3 Author and Article Numeriano Rodriguez, Jr., Structural Analysis of the 1973 Constitution, 57 PHIL. L.J. 104 (1982). Justice Vitug (separate) In Support Of A historical detail

* This article is substantially the author’s acceptance speech for the 2005 Student Editorial Board’s Induction and the JOURNAL’s 90th Anniversary Celebration on September 14, 2004. Cite as Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part I: The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Legal Writing, 79 PHIL. L.J. 7, (page cited) (2004). The Board would like to thank the following students who volunteered to help with Issue 1 and have been informally designated as the JOURNAL’s interns: John Fajardo (Head of Marketing), Gerald Joseph Jumamil, Janice Lee, Melissa Telan (Head of Features), Josh Trocino, and William Varias. All are from the Class of ’08, except for Mr. Varias who is from the Class of ’06. ** Chair, Philippine Law Journal; Member (2004). Fourth Year, Ll.B., University of the Philippines (2005 expected). B.S. Management Engineering / A.B. Economics Honors, Cum Laude, Ateneo de Manila University (2001). First Freshman Awardee, Justice Irene R. Cortes Prize for Best Paper in Constitutional Law (2002). Awardee, Professor Araceli T. Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Law (2003). First awardee, Professor Bienvenido C. Ambion Prize for Best Paper in Private International Law (2004). Founding Editor-in-Chief, Chinoy magazine, Ateneo Celadon (1997-2000). First Editor-in-Chief, MEAn magazine, Management Engineering Association (1999). Graphic Design Editor (2000), Operations Manager (1999), “Lord Lampoon” of The Loyola Lampoon (1999), TheGUIDON, Ateneo de Manila University. Editorin-Chief, Stallion (1997), Hoofprint (1993); Batch Editor, Metamorphosis yearbook (1994), Xavier School. 1 Scott Martin, The Law Review Citadel: Rodell Revisited, 71 IOWA L. REV. 1093, 1095 (1986); Charles Hughes, Foreword, 50 YALE L.J. 737, 738 (1941); Bart Sloan, Note, What are We Writing For? Student Works as Authoirty and Their Citation by the Federal Bench (1986-1990), 61 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 221, 226-27 (1992); Jane Schachter, Form, Function and Feminist Law Journals, 12 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. 574, 576 (2003); Michael Closen & Robert Dzeilak, The History and Influence of the Law Review Institution, 30 AKRON L. REV. 15, 22-23 (1996). 2 Prepared using a computer search of decisions from 1991 to 2003. This author thanks his PLJ Intern Josh Trocino from the Class of ’08 for his assistance in preparing this table. 3 G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003 (Vitug, J., separate opinion), at n.5.

7

8
Estrada v. Escritor (2003)4

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Hector Martinez, The High and Impregnable Wall of Separation Between Church and State, 37 PHIL. L.J. 748 (1962). Kalaw, The Constitutional Plan of the Philippine Revolution, 1 PHIL. L.J., 204 (1914) Fernandez, Law and Polity: Towards a Systems Concept of Legal Validity, 46 PHIL. L.J. 422 (1971) Puno

[VOL 79
A historical detail

People v. Sandiganbayan (2003)5 People v. Sandiganbayan (2003)6

Puno (separate) Vitug (separate)

A historical detail

“The efficacy of a legal order must be distinguished from the question of its existence.” A historical legal point

Lahom v. Sibulo (2003)7

Serafin Hilado, A Comparative Study of the Adoption Law under the Spanish Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, 4 PHIL. L.J. 313 (1918) Antonio Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law, 47 PHIL. L.J. (1972)

Vitug

MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines, Inc. (2003)8 Uy v. Sandiganbayan (2001)9 Estrada v. Desierto (2001)10

Carpio (dissentting)

Foundation of author’s conclusion

Irene Cortes, Redress of Grievances and the Philippine Ombudsman (Tanodbayan), 57 PHIL. L.J. 1 (1982) Pacifico Agabin, Presidential Immunity And All The King’s Men: The Law Of Privilege As A Defense To Actions For Damages, 62 PHIL. L.J. 113 (1987) Ma. Lourdes Aranal-Sereno & Roan Libarios, The Interface of National Land Law and Kalinga Law, 58 PHIL. .L.J. 420 (1983) Owen Lynch, Jr., Invisible Peoples and a Hidden Agenda: The Origins of Contemporary Philippine Land Laws (19001913), 63 PHIL. .L.J. 249, 288 (1988) Owen Lynch, Jr., Native Title, Private Right and Tribal Land Law, 57 PHIL. L.J. 268 (1982)

Puno

Anti-graft agencies were historically ineffective due to a lack of independence The 1973 Constitution expanded absolute immunity A historical legal detail; That Kalingas use community ownership The Spanish colonial government did not issue titles to Igorots. Discussion of the term “native title”

Puno

Cruz v. Sec. of DENR (2000)11

Puno (separate)

Cruz v. Sec. of DENR (2000)12

Puno (separate)

Cruz v. Sec. of DENR (2000)13

Puno (separate)

A.M. No. P-02-1651, 408 SCRA 1, 129 n.294, Aug. 4, 2003. G.R. No. 104768, 407 SCRA 10, 93 n.137 , Jul. 21, 2003 (Puno, J., separate opinion). 6 G.R. No. 104768, 407 SCRA 10, 136 n.10 , Jul. 21, 2003 (Vitug, J., separate opinion). 7 G.R. No. 143989, 406 SCRA 135, 141 n.9, Jul. 14, 2003. 8 G.R. No. 135306, 396 SCRA 210, 261 n.36, Jan. 28, 2003 (Carpio, J., dissenting). 9 G.R. No. 105695, 354 SCRA 651, 661 n.8, Mar. 20, 2001. 10 G.R. No. 146710, 353 SCRA 452, 519 n.106, Mar. 2, 2001. 11 G.R. No. 135385, 347 SCRA 128, 169 n.14, 190 n.102, Dec. 6, 2000 (Puno, J., separate opinion). 12 Id. at 199 n.131. 13 Id. at 205 n.146.
4 5

2004]

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING
Owen Lynch, Jr., The Legal Bases of Philippine Colonial Sovereignty: An Inquiry, 62 PHIL. L.J. 279 (1987); Land Rights, Land Laws and Land Usurpation: The Spanish Era (1568-1898), 63 PHIL. L.J. 82 (1988); The Colonial Dichotomy: Attraction and Disenfranchisement, 63 PHIL. L.J. 112 Perfecto Fernandez, Towards a Definition of National Policy on Recognition of Ethnic Law within the Philippine Legal Order, 55 PHIL. L.J. 383 (1980) Owen Lynch, Jr., The Legal Bases of Philippine Colonial Sovereignty: An Inquiry, 62 PHIL. L.J. 279 (1987) Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Procedural Aspects of the Political Offence Doctrine, 51 PHIL. L.J. 238 (1976) Rodrigo Kapunan, Labor-Only Contractors: New Generation of “CABOs”, 65 PHIL. L.J. 388 (1991) Puno (separate) For further reference

9

Cruz v. Sec. of DENR (2000)14

Cruz v. Sec. of DENR (2000)15

Puno (separate)

Cultural differences are exacerbated by imposing a national legal order that is foreign in origin A historical detail

Cruz v. Sec. of DENR (2000)16 Sec. of Justice v. Lantion (2000)17 Lim v. NLRC (1999)18

Kapunan (separate) Puno

Extradition does not determine the accused’s guilt An employment relationship may be established by a person who actually receives wages and can identify the person he received them from A technical detail and the definition of the Internet The benefits of coral reefs on nearby ecosystems. The Supreme Court has been accused of interfering too often with the political branches.

Quisumbing

Ople v. Torres (1998)19 Tano v. Socrates (1997)20

Kazuko Otani, Information Security in the Network Age, 70 PHIL. L.J. 1 (1995) Jay Batongbacal, Note, The Coastal Environment and the Small-Scale Fisherfolk: Advocacy for Community-Based Coastal Zone Management, 66 PHIL. L.J. 149 (1991) Romulo, The Supreme Court and Economic Policy: A Plea for Judicial Abstinence, 67 PHIL. L.J. 348 (1993); Fernandez, Judicial Overreaching in Selected Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Economic Policy, 67 PHIL. L.J. 332-347 (1993); Castro & Pison, The Economic Policy Determining Function of the Supreme Court in Times of National Crisis, 67 PHIL. L.J. 354-411 (1993)

Puno

Davide

Kilosbayan v. Guingona (1994)21

Kapunan (dissentting)

Id. at 205 n.147. Id. at 241 n.251. 16 Id. at 271 n.83 (Kapunan, J., separate opinion). 17 G.R. No. 139465, 343 SCRA 377, 386 n.13, Oct. 17, 2000. 18 G.R. No. 124630, 303 SCRA 432, 444 n.17, Feb. 19, 1999. 19 G.R. No. 127685, 293 SCRA 141, 162 n.58, 168 n.83, Jul. 23, 1998. 20 G.R. No. 110249, 278 SCRA 154, 184 n.35, Aug. 21, 1997. 21 G.R. No. 113375, 232 SCRA 110, 190 n.8, May 5, 1994 (Vitug, J., separate opinion).
14 15

10
People v. Malmstedt (1991)22

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Vicente V. Mendoza, Reflections on the Constitutional Law of Arrest, Search and Seizure, 63 PHIL. L.J. 241 (1988) Narvasa (concurrin g and dissenting)

[VOL 79
To refer to an American case cited in the article

From 1991 to 2003, the Court promulgated fourteen cases that cited twenty-three PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL articles, or roughly two citations a year. This figure, however, must be scrutinized qualitatively. For example, thirteen of these articles – over half – were cited by Justice Reynato Puno. Sixteen were merely appended to a historical or technical point in a preliminary discussion, or suggested for further reference. Of the remainder, only one formed the doctrinal bedrock of a Justice’s opinion, but this was Justice Antonio Carpio citing his own JOURNAL article to anchor his dissent. The articles closest to advancing doctrine were one by Rodrigo Kapunan on labor-only contracting and the series on indigenous peoples and land rights by Owen Lynch, Jr. The latter, in fact, has the most articles recently cited by the Court due solely to Justice Puno’s separate opinion in Cruz v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which dealt with the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.23 Note that Lynch is not a Filipino author; he was a visiting professor from Yale University. Finally, the Court referred to only one article published within the last ten years, and merely for a definition of the Internet.24 Let me make two propositions. First, it is not enough that the Court cite our articles to support doctrinal statements, not when the very best articles have been adopted as the very frameworks of decisions. My dream as a PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL student editor is to showcase the next Dean Irene Cortes, whose Constitutional Foundations of Privacy has been reiterated in every privacy ruling to date,25 or the next Justice Jose B. L. Reyes, whose interpretations of the Civil Code in periodicals were explicitly adopted by the Court.26 Second, it is not enough to be the best legal journal in the country. If the Court cited twenty-three PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL articles in the period 1991-2003, twenty-one of its rulings cited twenty-three Harvard Law Review articles.27 In fact,

G.R. No. 91107, 198 SCRA 401, 414 n.7, Jun. 19, 1991. Rep. Act No. 8371 (1997). 24 There may be other articles cited but not listed here. The difficulty stems from the lack of uniform citation in Court decisions. Roughly half of the above recent citations cited the JOURNAL properly as “PHIL. L.J.,” while others listed “Philippine Law Journal,” “PHIL. L. J.” with an extra space, or “P.L.J.” This inconsistency means a computer search may not return a complete count. Parenthetically, each of Volume 79’s articles now has a sample citation on its first page. 25 THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF PRIVACY (1970) (adapted from the second Albino Z. SyCip Lecture Series delivered at the UP College of Law, Feb. 21 and 28, 1970), cited in Ayer Prod’ns Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong, G.R. No. 82830, 160 SCRA 861, Apr. 29, 1988; Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 293 SCRA 143, Jul. 23, 1998. 26 See, e.g., Diaz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66574, 182 SCRA 427, June 17, 1987, citing Jose B.L. Reyes, Reflections on the Reform of Hereditary Succession, 4 J. INTEGRATED B. PHILS. 40 (1976). 27 For comparison, the Court cited the following Harvard Law Review articles in 1991-2003:
22 23

2004]

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING

11

examine the impact of the first ten issues of the Harvard Law Review alone: Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis’s The Right to Privacy in Volume 4,28 James Bradley Thayer’s The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law in Volume

1. Estrada v. Escritor, A.M No. P-02-1651, 408 SCRA 1, 85 n.115, Aug. 4, 2003, citing Stephen Carter, The Resurrection of Religious Freedom, 107 HARV. L. REV. 118 (1993). 2. Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA at 126 n.284, citing Michael McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1409 (1990). 3. Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA at 175, n.420; Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 369 SCRA 394, 447 n.36 (Mendoza, J., concurring), both citing Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457 (1897). 4. Macalintan v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 405 SCRA 614, 721 n.203, Jul. 10, 2003, citing Harold Bruff & Ernest Gellhorn, Congressional Control of Administrative Regulation: A Study of Legislative Vetoes, 90 HARV. L. REV. 1369 (1977). 5. Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804, 405 SCRA 220, 225 n.13, Jul. 1, 2003, citing Note, Developments in the Law: Conflict of Interest, 94 HARV. L. REV. 1244 (1981). 6. MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 135306, 396 SCRA 219, 230 nn.34-35, Jan. 28, 2003, citing Magruder, Mental and Emotional Disturbance in the Law of Torts, 49 HARV. L. REV. 1033, (2003) 7. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 369 SCRA 394, 442 n. 22 (Puno, J.), 466 n.20 (Mendoza, J., concurring), Nov. 19, 2001, citing Richard Fallon, As Applied and Facial Challenges, 113 HARV. L. REV. 1321 (2000). 8. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 147571, 357 SCRA 496, 505 n.12, May 5, 2001, citing John Hart Ely, Flag Desecration: a Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis, 88 HARV. L. REV. 1482, 1497 (1975) 9. Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710, 353 SCRA 452, 542 n.5, Mar. 2, 2001 (Mendoza, J., concurring), citing Mendoza, Political Questions, 38 HARV. L. REV. 296, 305 (1925). 10. People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, 333 SCRA 699, 718 n. 67, Jun. 19, 2000, citing Note, Incompetency to Stand Trial, 81 HARV. L. REV. 454, 459 (1967). 11. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 133486, 323 SCRA 811, 827 n.43, Jan. 28, 2000, citing Note, Exit Polls and the First Amendment, 98 HARV. L. REV. 1927 (1985). 12. Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114508, 318 SCRA 516, 534 n.19, Nov. 19, 1999; Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91332, 224 SCRA 576, 624 n.36, Jul. 16, 1993, both citing Frank Schechter, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 HARV. L. REV. 813, 814 (1927). 13. Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 293 SCRA 141, 153 n.29 (Puno, J.), 172 n.2 (Romero, J., concurring), Jul. 23, 1998, citing Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1/890). 14. Osmena v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 132231, 288 SCRA 447, 486 n.8, Mar. 31, 1998 (Puno, J., concurring), citing Barron, Access to the Press – A New First Amendment Right, 80 HARV. L. REV. 1641 (1967) 15. Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, 297 SCRA 754, 790 n.65, Oct. 12, 1998, citing Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press to Gather Information, 87 HARV. L. REV. 1505 (1974). 16. Iglesia Ni Cristo, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, 259 SCRA 529, 577 n.20, Jul. 26, 1996 (Mendoza, J., concurring), citing Henry Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process”, 83 HARV. L. REV. 518, 520 (1970) 17. INC, 259 SCRA at 566 n. 26 (Kapunan, J., concurring and dissenting), citing Donald Gianella, Religious Liberty, Nonestablishment and Doctrinal Development: Part I The Religious Liberty Guarantee, 80 HARV. L. REV. 1381 (1967). 18. Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, 246 SCRA 540, 617, Jul. 17, 1995, citing Louis Jaffee, Standing Again, 84 HARV. L. REV. 633. 19. Almonte v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 244 SCRA 286, 295 n.12, May 23, 1995, citing Paul Freund, The Supreme Court 1973 Term — Foreword: On Presidential Privilege, 88 HARV. L. REV. 13 (1974). 20. Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, 235 SCRA 506, 519 Aug. 19, 1994 citing Note, Congressional Access To The Federal Courts, 90 HARV. L. REV. 1632 (1977). 21. Philconsa, 235 SCRA at 545, citing Note, Impoundment of Funds, 86 HARV. L. REV. 1505 (1973). 22. Salud v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100156, 233 SCRA 384, 389 n.11, Jun. 27, 1994 (Padilla, J., concurring), citing Note, Collateral Estoppel of Non-Parties, 87 HARV. L. REV. 1485 (1974). 23. Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno to the Court of Appeals dated 14 November 1990, A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA, 210 SCRA 589, 597 n.23, Jun. 29, 1992, citing Note, Political Rights as Political Questions: The Paradox of Luther v. Borden, 100 HARV. L. REV. 1125 (1987). 28 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890).

12

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

7,29 Oliver Wendell Holmes’s The Path of the Law in Volume 10.30 Simply, I take it as a challenge when I read a landmark case such as Francisco v. House of Representatives and see a Justice cite the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL in support of a point regarding medieval England,31 and then see Justice Puno ground a convincing separate opinion on an array of foreign law reviews.32 Going to the second role, the JOURNAL must also serve as a vehicle for education, one that stimulates both the academe and the profession.33 However, the JOURNAL has not been integrated into the academic routine. While a few articles are included in class reading lists, they are rarely discussed in depth, or merely assigned as supplemental reading. Thus, the average student’s first serious encounter with the JOURNAL is often in Senior year, when he is required to write a Supervised Legal Research paper before graduating. On this point, my dream is to have a journal released quickly enough that its latest articles may be used for class discussion. Finally, law reviews further the education of the select few chosen as student editors, giving them a venue to sharpen their English skills, build critical thinking, and take a broader view of law.34 Tongue-in-cheek, some writers cast law reviews’ last supposed role as one of advancing student editors’ careers.35 The PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL wants for nothing in terms of prestige, and I trust that this role is filled excellently in both senses. We conclude that much untapped potential remains to be harnessed, and there remains much room for the growth of legal writing. The JOURNAL has enjoyed ninety years of excellent groundwork, and we stand on the shoulders of giants. Allow me to describe , then, a vision – a transcendence – for the next ninety years. II. THE TRANSCENDENCE OF THE PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL Let me begin by saying that administering a law journal is like dancing on the edge of a knife. On one hand, a student editor cannot allow the institution to lose its moorings to tradition and lose itself in the tides of time. On the other, he
7 HARV. L. REV. 129 (1893). 10 HARV. L. REV. 457 (1897). 31 G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003 (Vitug, J., separate opinion), at n.5. 32 See, e.g., Robert Schapiro, Judicial Deference and Interpretative Coordinacy in State and Federal Constitutional Law, 85 CORNELL L. REV. 656 (2000); Thayer, supra note 29. 33 Martin, supra note 1, at 1097. 34 John Noonan, Jr., Law Reviews, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1117, 1117-18 (1995); E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Law Reviews’ Empire, 39 HASTINGS L.J. 859, 877 (1988); James Harper, Why Student-Run Law Reviews?, 82 MINN. L. REV. 1261, 1272-73 (1998); Wendy Gordon, Counter-Manifesto: Student-Edited Law Reviews and the Intellectual Properties of Scholarship, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 541, 543 (1994); Ronald Rotunda, Law Reviews – The Extreme Centrist Position, 62 IND. L.J. 1, 4 (1987). See, however, James Gordon III, Law Review and the Modern Mind, 33 ARIZ. L. REV. 265, 267 (1991) (relating the law review experience to mass psychosis). 35 Max Stier et al., Law Review Usage and Suggestions for Improvement: A Survey of Attorneys, Professors, and Judges, 44 STAN. L. REV. 1467, 1472-73 (1992); Rosenkranz, supra note 34, at 890-91; Richard Harnsberger, Reflections About Law Reviews and American Legal Scholarship, 76 NEB. L. REV. 681, 686 (1997).
29 30

2004]

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING

13

must nevertheless heed the call of impatient, hot-blooded youth36 and constantly incorporate new ideas and technologies. To paraphrase Dean Roscoe Pound, the JOURNAL must remain stable, but it cannot stand still.37 I have been involved in student publications since I was twelve years old, and I have found no greater passion in this life than to draw ideas and emotions from the soul and immortalize them in the written word. Articles, however, do not write themselves, so allow me to outline some steps this Board has taken. A. A MORE FOCUSED ARTICLE SOLICITATION PROCESS First, this Board strives for a more focused article solicitation process. Some bewail that the pillars of our profession are all too busy. However, I feel that this is but a marketing problem. Thus, this year’s Board is actually sending out less invitations to write, but selecting invitees more carefully and spending more time following them up. Senate President Franklin Drilon, for example, readily responded. To describe another tactic, this year’s Board actively courts younger authors, such as practitioners who have just returned from abroad with Master’s degrees. Three of the first issue’s authors come from this group. I hope experiments in article solicitation address the very high ratio of student works in recent volumes, such that the traditional article/student note distinction is no longer applied. I examined one recent volume, for example, and found that twelve out of twenty-two articles were student works, counting fresh graduates as students, or a ratio of 55%.38 Moreover, if one disregards short notes and comments, twelve out of seventeen full articles were student works, or 71%. Let me emphasize that student works concretely contribute to academic thinking. Moreover, student works tend to be more thoroughly researched than those of practitioners. However, I have had my apprehensions. One student article on Internet commerce, for example, discussed a framework for jurisdiction, but failed to note that it was grounded on the American Commerce Clause39 – which has no equivalent in the Philippine Constitution because we do not have a federal government.40 Another discussed the right to privacy and identified a “great gray

36 “The advice of the elders to young men is very apt to be as unreal as a list of the hundred best books.” Holmes, supra note 30, at 475. 37 ROSCOE POUND, INTERPRETATIONS OF LEGAL HISTORY 1 (1923). 38 I referred to Volume 78, or the immediately preceding 2003-2004 term. Papers written by authors when they were students but submitted after they began practicing were counted as student works. 39 Welson Chu & Nicolas Nangit, http://www.TaxingInternetTransactions.com, 75 PHIL. L.J. 312, 329-30 (2000), citing Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977). 40 One might argue that the Commerce Clause parallels principles found in the Local Government Code of 1991. LOCAL GOVT CODE, § 129, 130, 133. Although jurisdiction was a mere side point in the article’s very broad discussion, I feel it should have been treated more carefully. Parenthetically, the last, memorable Constitutional Law debate I had with Professor Samilo Barlongay in March 2003 was on parallels between the Commerce Clause and the Philippine Local Government Code, hence the point aroused my curiosity.

14

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

area”41 where I felt well-defined freedom of speech doctrines existed,42 specifically a line of jurisprudence credited to Justice George Malcolm.43 In fairness, were I to submit my own first published article to myself today, I might consider rejecting it.44 Thus, I hope to experiment and shift some of the JOURNAL’s space to young practitioners and academics. B. STRONGER EDITOR-AUTHOR RELATIONSHIPS Second, this Board strives to make it as easy as possible for authors to contribute. Among other things, I have personally experienced the agony of waiting three to four months only to discover that my article was rejected. This will no longer happen, and this Board has made it policy to give authors an answer within one week – in one case, we gave an answer by the next day. This is part of a conscious attitude of deference towards authors, given a student editorial board’s inherent limitations. While law students are a good representation of the general legal audience,45 they will rarely know the topic more

41 “The great gray area covers the situations wherein private citizens are involved in public matters…..” Lemuel Lopez, The Right to Privacy in Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, 78 PHIL. L.J. 163 (2003). 42 “[F]air commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged….” Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1, 23, G.R. No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999. “The public’s primary interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content, effect and significance of the conduct, not the participant's prior anonymity or notoriety.” Id. at 27. Note that if one subscribes to Griswold v. Connecticut, the freedom of speech is a right from whose penumbras the right to privacy springs forth. 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). 43 In Phil. Comm’l & Ind’l Bank v. Philnabank Employees’ Ass’n, Chief Justice Enrique Fernando attributed the New York Times doctrine to a much older ponencia by Justice Malcolm. G.R. No. 29630, 105 SCRA 314, 319, Jul. 2, 1981, citing United States v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918) (Malcolm, J.). More recently and four years before the above article was written, Borjal concretized a Philippine doctrine more liberal than the American. It unites two strands of jurisprudence: the person-centered Ayer “public figure” doctrine, and the issue-centered Rosenbloom “private persons involved in matters of public interest” doctrine now rejected in the United States. Ayer Productions v. Capulong, G.R. No 82380, 160 SCRA 861, Apr. 29, 1988; Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 116, 126-27, G.R. No. 26549, Jul. 31, 1970, citing Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 44-45 (1971), overruled by Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 346 (1974). The article’s privacy discussion centered around Ayer, but mentioned neither Borjal nor Rosenbloom, though it curiously used Rosenbloom’s language at some points that cited Ayer, despite the two cases’ completely different doctrines. See, e.g., Lopez, supra note 41, at 172. Thus, while the article gave a commendable discussion of the history of legislative investigation, a seasoned Constitutional Law professor might have taken a broader approach, and come to a slightly different conclusion. 44 Oscar Franklin Tan, Touch Me Not: Expanding Constitutional Frameworks to Challenge LTO-Required and Other Mandatory Drug Testing, 76 PHIL. L.J. 618 (2002). For example, while the article initially discussed the problem from a Due Process perspective, it failed to integrate how American doctrine points to Due Process as the source of the right to privacy. Compare Griswold, 381 U.S. at 484; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973). Were I to revise the article today, although there was technically nothing wrong with it in terms of doctrine, I would have more explicitly distinguished the evolutions of American and Philippine doctrine. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977). Compare Jeb Rubenfeld, The Right to Privacy, 102 HARV. L. REV. 737 1989); IRENE CORTES, THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF PRIVACY (1970). 45 Phil Nichols, Note, A Student Defense of Student Edited Journals: In Response to Professor Roger Cramton, 1987 DUKE L.J. 1122, 1127-28; Howard Denmark, The Death of Law Reviews Has Been Predicted: What Might Be Lost When the Last Law Review Shuts Down?, 27 SETON HALL L. REV. 1, 21-24 (1996). See Bernard Hibbitts, Last

2004]

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING

15

than the author, and I say this having opened an envelope from Justice Vicente V. Mendoza as my first submission. Thus, for example, we have made it policy to strive to submit written comments to an author and have him make the initial revision.46 Editing has also been restrained, and we have endeavored to preserve an author’s original words and tone as much as possible.47 We have also instituted a more disciplined deliberation process. I have seen the likes of Volume 77’s Gerard Chan and Joemer Perez at work, who would submit written memoranda to authors complete with paragraph references. On the other hand, I once heard a story about a PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL editor who took a hundred-page article and wanted to reject it over a perceived mistake on Page 20. Another wanted to reject a Remedial Law article because he disagreed with an introductory point on Legal Philosophy.48 The JOURNAL’s editorial policy cannot change dramatically from year to year, or even from editor to editor.49 We have thus implemented a more structured deliberation process that focuses on an article’s main subtheses and basic structure, leaving minor points for later editing.50 We have also required editors to submit their deliberation comments in writing, subject to clear guidelines.51 With a more cooperative editor-author relationship, for example, we were able to create a timely Political Law issue after contributors emphasized current issues in their work while revising these. This way, we can publish not just excellent articles, but excellent issues whose impact is greater than the sum of their parts.52 Finally, we are tailoring article formats to suit authors’ ability to contribute. For example, in the case of busy, senior practitioners, we would gladly accept brief but insightful legal essays with minimal footnoting. We are also having younger students write short, nondoctrinal essays, and having them interview senior professors and resource persons. Our first issue, for example, features pieces on clinical legal education, with a nod to Dean Irene Cortes.
Writes? Reassessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 615, 653-54 (1996), revised online version at http://www.law.pitt.edu/hibbitts/lastrev.htm. 46 See Juan Perea, After Getting to Yes: A Survival Guide for Law Review Editors and Faculty Writers, 48 FLA. L. REV. 867, 870-71 (1996); Carol Sanger, Editing, 82 GEO. L.J. 513, 526 (1993); Gregory Maggs, Just Say No?, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 101, 103 (1994); Richard Graves III, Advice to New Student Works Editors, 30 STETSON L. REV. 559, 562-63 (2000). 47 Sanger, supra note 46, at 517, 520; University of Chicago Law Review Articles Editors, A Response, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 553, 556-57 (1994). 48 See Carl Tobias, Manuscript Selection Anti-Manifesto, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 529, 532, 538-39 (1995); Michael Vitiello, Journal Wars, 22 ST. MARY’S L.J. 927, 937-38 (1991). 49 See Richard Posner, The Future of the Student-Edited Law Review, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1131, 1134 (1995); Sonali Kolhatkar, Law’s Greatest Influence: The Law Review Process, 30 STETSON L. REV. 571, 572-73 (2000). 50 Anne Enquist, Substantive Editing Versus Technical Editing, How Law Review Editors Do Their Job, 30 STETSON L. REV. 451, 453-56 (2000). 51 See Terri LeClercq, The Nuts and Bolts of Article Criteria and Selection, 30 STETSON L. REV. 437, 447-49 (2000). 52 Modern law reviews have been criticized for publishing increasingly “esoteric titles.” Kenneth Lasson, Comment, Scholarship Amok: Excesses in the Pursuit of Truth and Tenure, 103 HARV. L. REV. 926, 928 (1990). See also Leo Martinez, Babies, Bathwater, and Law Reviews, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1139, 1142-43 (1995).

16

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
C. MORE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION

[VOL 79

Third, this Board strives to pay more attention to small but crucial administrative details. For example, our job is not complete until the JOURNAL is in the reader’s hands. Thus, we will be tracking issues after publication more closely. To cite another example, we have taken pains to implement elegant citation formatting, and I guarantee that issues are technically on par with any publication from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, and largely free of embarrassing typographical, format, and citation errors. If one logs all the activities undertaken to finish an issue of the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL, one will realize that article deliberations actually consume a very small

fraction of the total time expended. Far more time is spent, for example, on simple but time-consuming tasks such as source checking and formatting.53 Recognizing this, we have formed a mainly freshman intern pool under the Vice-Chair. They deload the editors and give the latter more time to review articles and do background research. I must note that our interns can be more fanatical than the editors themselves. I will not forget how one doggedly combed my own editorial exam submission and corrected a couple of mistakenly cited cases in front of me. Finally, we would also like to implement a more formal feedback mechanism to allow better communication with the segments of our readership, from the faculty to alumni and even foreign readers. Modern technology, it is hoped, will make this very easy. At the same time, we would also like to introduce new articles to professors for classroom use, and invite authors for extended lectures when feasible. D. MAXIMIZE USE OF TECHNOLOGY Finally, this Board strives to use every technological advantage available to them. First of all, we upgraded the cover into a full-color design. Although law journals maintain traditions54 and have maintained a particular resemblance to the Harvard Law Review for over a century, we cannot deny that we live in an increasingly visual, multimedia world.55 As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV.”56

53 Rosenkranz, supra note 34, at 903; Gregory Maggs, Self-Publication on the Internet and the Future of Law Reviews, 30 AKRON L. REV. 237, 241 (1996); Shawn Pearson, Comment, Hype or Hypertext? A Plan for the Law Review to Move into the Twenty-First Century, 1997 UTAH L. REV. 765, 794. 54 They have also been criticized for taking themselves the most seriously in the entire range of academic and professional literature. Lasson, supra note 52, at 931. 55 Hibbitts, supra note 45, at 661; Trotter Hardy, Review of Hibbits’ Last Writes?, 30 AKRON L.J. 249, 253 (1996). 56 Holmes, supra note 30, at 469.

2004]

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING

17

Corollarily, we will be purchasing new computers very soon. We realized the imperative need for this when one author submitted an article in a compact disc, because it contained very detailed maps from the National Mapping Information and Resource Agency. I had to check it using my home computer because none of the outdated equipment in the LAW JOURNAL room had enough memory to open the file. Aside from upgrading the computers, I hope to have at least one powerful enough to serve as a platform for graphic and website design. Speaking of websites, we will also be concretizing our online presence. More than a passive website with a few pages of information, however, we identify a far more interactive venue. For example, we hope to technologically facilitate discussion of and with authors, and hope to use a website as a tool to more closely integrate the JOURNAL’s output with classroom discussion. Aside from a website, we will also push for the encoding of the JOURNAL and take pains to raise the required money. At present, the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL is too cumbersome a research source compared to American and international electronic databases.57 The ability to search for key words or phrases electronically, without the tediousness of flipping through pages in the library, will be indispensable in making the JOURNAL more accessible to readers and researchers. All this requires money and we have also formed an informal marketing team to assist us. To cite a last project, these marketing volunteers are also exploring the feasibility of having trust funds set up for author honoraria, to add even more prestige to a JOURNAL submission. CONCLUSION These are, to my mind, bold but necessary strokes, timely measures designed to keep pace with the fast-changing legal landscape. Everything returns to the twin interests I described: the need to keep ties with tradition, and the need to innovate for the institution’s growth. Hopefully, we will able to maintain the delicate balance. All this is summed up in one transcendental vision: to make the JOURNAL even more relevant and effective in the years to come. More focused article solicitation and closer editor-author ties will hopefully result in better content. More efficient administration will hopefully result in quicker releases, which in turn means more timely articles. The use of graphic technology, finally, means a more aesthetically beautiful JOURNAL, one that can entice a busy lawyer or judge to open its cover at the end of a busy day, amidst an ever-growing mound of legal papers.

57 Hibbitts, supra note 45, at 658-59; Robert Berring, On Not Throwing Out the Baby: Planning the Future of Legal Information, 83 CAL. L. REV. 615, 619-22 (1995).

18

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

APPENDIX A: THE PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL SYLLABUS

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Oscar Franklin B. Tan, Syllabus for 2004-2005***
(the main articles are required reading; the ones in bullet points are optional) I. THE HISTORY OF LAW REVIEWS (You are also required to read page one of the Harvard Law Review’s Volume 1.) a. Michael Swygert & Jon Bruce, The Historical Origins, Founding, and Early Development of StudentEdited Law Reviews, 36 HASTINGS L.J. 739 (1985) b. Michael Closen & Robert Dzielak, The History and Influence of the Law Review Institution, 30 AKRON L. REV. 15 (1996) c. Amelia Custodio, History of the Philippine Law Journal, 35 PHIL. L.J. 1461 (1960) d. Charles Hughes, Foreword, 50 YALE L.J. 737 (1941)  Edwin Greenlee, The University of Pennsylvania Law Review: 150 Years of History, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 1875 (2002)  Robert Batey & Scott William Fitzpatrick, The Early Years of the Stetson Law Review, 30 STETSON L. REV. 213 (2000)  David Williams, Looking Back and Looking Ahead, 9 ROGER WILLIAMS U. L. REV. 321 (2004)  Mark Rahdert & Laura Little, The Future of Temple Law Review: Stasis and Change, 75 TEMP. L. REV. 13 (2002)  David Bederman & Jonathan Hamilton, Agents of International Discourse: A Conspectus on the Future of International Law Journals, 40 VA. J. INT'L L. 817 (2000)  Gerard La Forest, The Law Journal at 50, 46 U.N.B. L.J. 3 (1997)  Randall Bezanson, Reflections on the Iowa Law Review Past and Future, 75 IOWA L. REV. 829 (1990) II. THE ROLE OF LAW REVIEWS IN JURISPRUDENCE, IN THE ACADEME, AND IN THE PROFESSION (You are also required to do a Lex Libris search for the terms “Phil. L.J.” and “Philippine Law Journal.” Note the last JOURNAL articles to be squarely cited as basis for a Supreme Court decision, as well as the last articles cited parenthetically.) a. Irene Cortes, Legal Education in the Philippines: The Role of the Philippine Law Journal, 65 PHIL. L.J. 1 (1990)  Stanley Fuld, A Judge Looks at the Law Review, 28 N.Y.U. L. REV. 915 (1953)  John Noonan, Law Reviews, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1117 (1995) b. Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews, 23 VA. L. REV. 38 (1936)

*** The listed articles were actually compiled and photocopied for the new editorial board members and student volunteers, and used to ground discussions on editorial policy during the new Board’s first meetings.

2004]

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING

19

 Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews—Revisited, 48 VA. L. REV. 279 (1962)  Scott Martin, The Law Review Citadel: Rodell Revisited, 71 IOWA L. REV. 1093 (1986) c. Bernard Hibbitts, Last Writes? Reassessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace, 71 N.Y.U. L. REV. 615 (1996) (revised and illustrated version at http://www.law.pitt.edu/hibbitts/lastrev.htm)  Bernard Hibbitts, Yesterday Once More: Skeptics, Scribes, and the Demise of Law Reviews, 30 AKRON L. REV. 267 (1996)  Kenneth Lasson, Scholarship Amok: Excesses in the Pursuit of Truth and Tenure, 103 HARV. L. REV. 926, 949 (1990)  Max Stier et al., Law Review Usage and Suggestions for Improvement: A Survey of Attorneys, Professors, and Judges, 44 STAN. L. REV. 1467 (1992)  Leo Martinez, Babies, Bathwater, and Law Reviews, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1139 (1995)  Howard Denmark, The Death of Law Reviews Has Been Predicted: What Might Be Lost When the Last Law Review Shuts Down?, 27 SETON HALL L. REV. 1 (1996)  Howard Denmark, How Valid is the Often-Repeated Accusation That There are Too Many Legal Articles and Too Many Law Reviews?, 30 AKRON L. REV. 215 (1996)  Richard Delgado, Eliminate the Middle Man?, 30 AKRON L. REV. 233 (1996)  Gregory Maggs, Self-Publication on the Internet and the Future of Law Reviews, 30 AKRON L. REV. 237 (1996)  Thomas Bruce, Swift, Modest Proposals, Babies, and Bathwater: Are Hibbitts’s Writes Right?, 30 AKRON L. REV. 243 (1996)  Trotter Hardy, Review of Hibbitts’s Last Writes, 30 AKRON L. REV. 249 (1996)  Henry Perritt, Reassessing Professor Hibbitts’ Requiem for Law Reviews, 30 AKRON L. REV. 255 (1996)  William Ross, Scholarly Legal Monographs: Advantages of the Road Not Taken, 30 AKRON L. REV. 259 (1996)  Joshua Rosencranz, Law Review’s Empire, 39 HASTINGS L.J. 859 (1988)  Michael Vitiello, Journal Wars, 22 ST. MARY'S L.J. 927, 929 (1991)  Richard Harnsberger, Reflections about Law Reviews and American Legal Scholarship, 76 NEB. L. REV. 681, 682 (1997)  Robert Berring, On Not Throwing Out the Baby: Planning the Future of Legal Information, 83 CAL. L. REV. 615 (1995)  Shawn Pearsons, Comment, Hype or Hypertext? A Plan for the Law Review to Move into the Twenty-First Century, 1997 UTAH L. REV. 765 (1997) c. James Harper, Why Student-Run Law Reviews?, 82 MINN. L. REV. 1261 (1998)  Stephen Heifetz, Efficient Matching: Reforming the Market for Law Review Articles, 5 GEO. MASON L. REV. 629 (1997) d. Bart Sloan, Note, What are We Writing For? Student Works as Authority and Their Citation by the Federal Bench, 1986-1990, 61 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 221 (1992) e. Jane Schacter, Form, Function and Feminist Law Journals, 12 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. 574 (2003) f. James Gordon, Law Review and the Modern Mind, 33 ARIZ. L. REV. 265 (1991) III-A. ARTICLE SELECTION, EDITORIAL POLICY, AND AUTHOR RELATIONS a. Juan Perea, After Getting to Yes: A Survival Guide for Law Review Editors and Faculty Writers, 48 FLA. L. REV. 867 (1996) (May Ann Rosales certified article on “Rambo editing”) b. Anne Enquist, Substantive Editing Versus Technical Editing: How Do Law Editors Do Their Job?, 30 STETSON L. REV. 451 (2000) c. Terri LeClerq, The Nuts and Bolts of Article Criteria and Selection, 30 STETSON L. REV. 437 (2000)

20
     

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

d. Carol Sanger, Editing, 82 GEO. L.J. 513 (1993) Ira Lupu, Six Authors in Search of a Character, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 71 (1994) Mark Tushnet, Death of an Author, By Himself, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 111 (1994) Carl Tobias, Manuscript Selection Anti-Manifesto, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 529 (1995) Richard Graves, Advice to New Student Works Editors, 30 STETSON L. REV. 559 (2000) Arthur Austin, The “Custom of Vetting” as a Substitute for Peer Review, 32 ARIZ. L. REV. 1 (1989) Roger Cramton, Comment, Demystifying Legal Scholarship, 75 GEO. L.J. 1 (1986)

e. Gregory Maggs, Just Say No?, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 101 (1994) f. Randy Barnett, Beyond the Moot Law Review: A Short Story with a Happy Ending, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 123 (1994)  The Symposium Format as a Solution to Problems Inherent in Student-Edited Law Journals: A View from the Inside, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 141 (1994)  Jean Stefancic, The Law Review Symposium Issue: Community of Meaning or Re-inscription of Hierarchy?, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 651 (1992) g. James Lindgren, Reforming the American Law Review, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1123 (1995)  George Priest, Triumphs or Failings of Modern Legal Scholarship and the Conditions of Its Production, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 725 (1992) h. Richard Bales, Electronically Submitting Manuscripts to Law Reviews, 30 STETSON L. REV. 577 (2000) III-B. STATISTICAL AND HISTORICAL STUDIES ON ARTICLE SELECTION a. Fred Shapiro, The Most-Cited Law Review Articles Revisited, 71 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 751 (1996)  William Landes & Richard Posner, Heavily Cited Articles in Law, 71 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 825 (1996)  Louis Sirico, Jr. & Beth Drew, The Citing of Law Reviews by the United States Courts of Appeals: An Empirical Analysis, 45 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1051 (1991)  Fred Shapiro, The Most-Cited Law Review Articles, 73 CAL. L. REV. 1540 (1985)  Fred Shapiro, The Most-Cited Articles from the Yale Law Journal, 100 YALE L.J. 1449 (1991)  Fred Shapiro, The Most-Cited Legal Books Published Since 1978, 29 J. LEGAL. STUD. 397 (2000)  Fred Shapiro, The Most-Cited Legal Scholars, 29 J. LEGAL. STUD. 409 (2000)  Colleen Cullen & Randall Kalberg, Chicago-Kent Law Review Faculty Scholarship Survey, 70 CHI.KENT L. REV. 1445 (1995)  James Lindgren & Daniel Seltzer, The Most Prolific Law Schools and Faculties, 71 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 781 (1996) b. Deborah Merritt & Melanie Putnam, Judges and Scholars: Do Courts and Scholarly Journals Cite the Same Law Review Articles?, 71 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 871 (1996)  Michael McClintock, The Declining Use of Legal Scholarship by Courts: An Empirical Study, 51 OKLA. L. REV. 659 (1998) c. Michael Saks et al., Is There a Growing Gap Among Law, Law Practice, and Legal Scholarship?; A Systematic Comparison of Law Review Articles One Generation Apart, 28 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 1163 (1994)

2004]

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING
III-C. THE (ALLEGED) INCOMPETENCE OF STUDENT EDITORS

21

a. Phil Nichols, Note, A Student Defense of Student Edited Journals: In Response to Professor Roger Cramton, 1987 DUKE L.J. 1122 (1987)  Ronald Rotunda, Law Reviews: The Extreme Centrist Position, 62 IND. L.J. 1, 10 (1986)  Wendy Gordon, Counter-Manifesto: Student-Edited Law Reviews and the Intellectual Properties of Scholarship, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 541 (1994)  Articles Editors of the University of Chicago Law Review, A Response, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 553 (1994)  Richard Posner, The Future of the Student-Edited Law Review, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1131 (1995) b. James Lindgren, An Author’s Manifesto, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 527 (1994)  Richard Epstein, Faculty-Edited Law Journals, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 87 (1994)  James Lindgren, Student Editing: Using Education to Move Beyond Struggle, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 95 (1994)  Ann Althouse, Who’s to Blame for Law Reviews?, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 81 (1994) c. Robert Weisberg, Some Ways to Think about Law Reviews, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1147 (1995) (a Critical Legal Studies view of editing for Marlon!)  Harry Edwards, The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal Profession, 91 MICH. L. REV. 34 (1992)  Richard Delgado, The Imperial Scholar: Reflections on a Review of Civil Rights Literature, 132 U. PA. L. REV. 561 (1984)  Richard Delgado, The Imperial Scholar Revisited: How to Marginalize Outsider Writing, Ten Years Later, 140 U. PA. L. REV. 1349 (1992)  Richard Delgado, Legal Scholarship: Insiders, Outsiders, Editors, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 717 (1992) d. Ralph Mawdsley, Plagiarism Problems in Higher Education, 13 J.C. & U.L. 65 (1986) IV. THE EVILS OF FOOTNOTING AND CITATION a. Richard Posner, Goodbye to the Bluebook, 53 U. CHI. L. REV. 1343 (1986) b. Darby Dickerson, Citation Frustrations – and Solutions, 30 STETSON L. REV. 477 (2000)  Darby Dickerson, An Un-Uniform System of Citation: Surviving with the New Bluebook, 26 STETSON L. REV. 53 (1996)  Ronald Collins & David Skover, Paratexts, 44 STAN. L. REV. 509 (1992) c. Arthur Austin, Footnote Skulduggery and Other Bad Habits, 44 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1009 (1990)  Arthur Austin, Footnotes as Product Differentiation, 40 VAND. L. REV. 1131 (1987) d. Arthur Austin, The Reliability of Citation Counts in Judgments on Promotion, Tenure and Status, 44 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1009 (1990), 35 ARIZ. L. REV. 829 (1993) e. THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (latest available edition) f. MYRNA FELICIANO, PHILIPPINE MANUAL OF LEGAL CITATIONS (UP Law Complex, 1999) g. United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938) (note: Footnote Four) h. J.M. Balkin, The Footnote, 83 NW. U. L. REV. 275 (1989)

22

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
V. STYLE, JARGON, LEGALESE, AND GOBBLEDYGOOK

[VOL 79

a. WILLIAM STRUNK ET AL., THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE (4th ed. 2000) b. Eugene Volokh, Writing a Student Article, 48 J. LEGAL EDUC 247 (1998) (see e-group file) c. Lawrence Church, A Plea for Readable Law Review Articles, 1989 WIS. L. REV. 739 (1989)  Alfred Conard, A Lovable Law Review, 44 J. LEGAL EDUC. 1 (1994)  Ronald Lansing, The Creative Bridge Between Authors and Editors, 45 MD. L. REV. 241 (1986)  John Nowak, Woe Unto You, Law Reviews!, 27 ARIZ. L. REV. 317 (1985)  Bernard Hibbitts, “Coming to Our Senses”: Communication and Legal Expression in Performance Cultures, 41 EMORY L.J. 873 (1992) d. James Lindgren, Fear of Writing, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1677 (1990)  James Lindgren, Book Review, Style Matters: A Review Essay on Legal Writing, 92 YALE L.J. 161 (1982)  James Lindgren, Return to Sender, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1719 (1990) e. David Bryden, Scholarship About Scholarship, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 641 (1992)  Pierre Schlag, The Brilliant, the Curious, and the Wrong, 39 STAN. L. REV. 917 (1987) f. James Gordon, How Not to Succeed in Law School, 100 YALE L.J. 1679 (1991) VI. AND IF YOU’RE STILL SANE… a. Vincent Branton, Now That I’ve Got It, What Do I Do With It? Practical Advice on Managing a Law Review, 30 STETSON L. REV. 533 (2000) b. Catherine Shannon, Lessons Learned From My First 100 Days as Editor in Chief, 30 STETSON L. REV. 541 (2000) c. James Vallee, Big Shoes to Fill: Stepping Into the Position of Managing Editor, 30 STETSON L. REV. 553 (2000) d. Sonali Kolhatkar, Law’s Greatest Influence: The Law Review Process, 30 STETSON L. REV. 571 (2000) e. Andrea Kurak, Showcasing Student Scholarship: The Scholarship Luncheon, 30 STETSON L. REV. 603 (2000)

2004]

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF ACADEMIC LEGAL WRITING

23

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE INTERNAL DOCUMENTS
Outline for Editors’ Article Selection Preliminary Memoranda****
Within one week from receipt of the article by the JOURNAL (not from the date of your deliberations), submit a memorandum that answers all these guide questions to the Chair, including specific proposed corrections, other recommendations, and lovelife updates. Preliminary reminder to exercise restraint 1. When was the last time you watched Rambo or any similar movie?***** 2. Have you read the article straight through once, without stopping to note errors? 3. What is the name, institution or office, and professional background of the author? What is the article’s title? When and how was it submitted to the Journal? Overview of the thesis and stand 4. What is the thesis statement? What are the subtheses for each section? 5. Does the author take a concrete position or stand? Or merely describe a field of law? 6. Rate the thesis itself. Is it novel? Intriguing? Timely? What impact does it make? Review of structure 7. Describe the article’s structure. How is its length distributed among subtopics? 8. Does this structure convey the thesis and position in an organized, logical manner? Review of general logical flow and quality of supporting sources 9. Are the thesis and position generally supported by sound, credible sources? 10. Are there logical or other flaws in the thesis on the article or section level? 11. Are there landmark sources or relevant doctrines missing from the article? 12. Is the piece supported by similar/relevant articles used for background comparison? Review of writing style and overall reader impact 13. Evaluate the style, tone and grammar, though these are rarely grounds to reject. 14. What was your initial reaction to the article? What struck you as its highlights? 15. Do you have criticism on recurring collateral (not structural) errors? Any plagiarism? Recommendation 16. In summary, why are you recommending to: a. Accept the article, with minor corrections? b. Accept the article, subject to major recommended corrections by the author? c. Return the article with your recommendations, without accepting it? d. Reject the article outright?

This outline was used for this issue, and this author feels it greatly structured article deliberations. A running Editorial Board inside joke. See Juan Perea, After Getting to Yes: A Survival Guide for Law Review Editors and Faculty Writers, 48 FLA. L. REV. 867 (1996) (on the highly discouraged “Rambo editing”).
**** *****

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Issue 1 Lineup as of September 5, 2004 (Target date: August 30) (Page 1 of 3)
Article
013/ Randy Barlongay Goodbye, Dad!

Deliberations
Chair’s Prerog Deadline Accepted August 31 Deadline Accepted Deadline August 21 Accepted August 16 Deadline Accepted -

Chair’s Approval
Approved August 31

Style & Grammar Edit Article Formatting
Deadline Completed August 31 Deadline Completed Deadline August 27 Completed August 30 Deadline Completed -

Cite and Source Footnote Formatting
Deadline Sep. 1 Completed Sep. 1 Deadline Completed Deadline August 27 Completed August 30 Deadline Completed -

Chair’s Edit
Approved August 31 Proofread Sep. 1 Approved Proofread Approved August 30 Proofread Sep. 1 Approved Proofread -

Page Numbers
Pages 1-6 Closed Sep. 1 Pages 7-26 Closed Pages 27-34 Closed Sep. 1 Pages 35-37 Closed -

Oscar

-

014/ Chair’s Foreword

Chair’s Prerog

Approved -

-

-

003/ V.V. Mendoza Implmenting an Effective Appellate Jurisdiction

1st Div Oscar Mon (Gerard)

Approved August 16

Mon

Mon

015/ Franklin Drilon Judging Congress

Chair’s Prerog

Approved (Author submits after press, Sep. 8)

-

-

All citations must be in Harvard Bluebook format. All Philippine citations must be in Philippine Manual format. All articles must use the PLJ Template, as uploaded.

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Issue 1 Lineup as of September 5, 2004 (Target date: August 30) (Page 2 of 3)
Article
001/ Oscar Tan It is Emphatically the Province and Duty of Congress to Say What Congress Is 002/ Gerard Chan Ascertaining the Vox Populi Within a Democratic and Republican Context 008/ John Virgino Power Without Accountability

Deliberations
2nd Div Gerard May Ann (*Francis) 1st Div Oscar Mon (Marlon) Deadline Accepted August 26 Deadline August 21 Accepted August 18 Deadline August 21 Accepted August 17 Deadline August 21 Accepted August 16

Chair’s Approval
Approved August 26

Style & Grammar Edit Article Formatting
Deadline Completed Sep. 5 Deadline August 30 Completed August 30 Francis Mon May Ann Deadline -

Cite and Source Footnote Formatting
Deadline August 30 Completed Sep. 1 Deadline August 30 Completed Sep. 1 Deadline Francis Completed Sep. 3 Deadline August 28 Completed August 28

Chair’s Edit
Approved Sep. 5 Proofread Sep. 5 Approved Sep. 5 Proofread Sep. 4 Approved Sep. 4 Proofread Sep. 5 Approved Proofread Aug. 30

Page Numbers
Pages 39-105 Closed Sep. 5 Pages 106-129 Closed Sep. 5 Pages 130-150 Closed Sep. 5 Pages 151-181 Closed Aug. 30

Mon

Hyacinth

Approved August 18

May Ann

May Ann

1st Div Oscar Mon (Gerard)

Approved August 17 (author resubmits Sep. 3, 3:00 PM) Approved August 16 (author resubmits August 27)

Completed Sep. 3 Deadline August 29 Completed August 29

005/ Daniel Nicer The Law That Giveth Life to a Watershed

En banc

Oscar

Mon Oscar

All citations must be in Harvard Bluebook format. All Philippine citations must be in Philippine Manual format. All articles must use the PLJ Template, as uploaded.

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Issue 1 Lineup as of September 5, 2004 (Target date: August 30) (Page 3 of 3)
Article
010/ Iris Baguilat The Surging and Receding Issue on the Delineation of Municipal Waters 004/ Freddie Soto Comment, Analysis of the Probable Cause Doctrine in U.S. Extradition Cases 012/ Izzy Laluna & Melissa Telan Feature, Office of Legal Aid 011/ Teresita Sia & Ia Lee Feature, OLA and Beyond

Deliberations
3rd Div Marlon Francis (Gerard) Deadline August 24 Accepted August 24 Deadline August 21 Accepted August 16 Deadline Accepted Sep. 3 Deadline Accepted Sep. 3

Chair’s Approval
Approved August 24 (Transfer to Issue 1) (computer can’t read) Approved August 16 (author resubmits August 29)

Style & Grammar Edit Article Formatting
Deadline Oscar Completed Sep. 5 Deadline August 31 Completed August 31 Oscar (authors resubmit Sep. 3, 6:00 PM) Oscar (authors resubmit Sep. 2, 6:00 PM) Deadline Sep. 3 Completed Sep. 3 Deadline Sep. 2 Completed Sep. 2

Cite and Source Footnote Formatting
Deadline Oscar Completed Sep. 5 Deadline August 31 Completed Sep. 2 Deadline Sep. 3 Completed Sep. 3 Deadline Sep. 2 Completed Sep. 2

Chair’s Edit
Approved Proofread Approved Sep. 3 Proofread Sep. 3 Approved Sep. 3 Proofread Sep. 3 Approved Sep. 3 Proofread Sep. 3

Page Numbers
Pages 182-198 Closed Sep. 5 Pages 199-209 Closed Sep. 3 Pages 210-220 Closed Sep. 3 Pages 221-231 Closed Sep. 3

1st Div Oscar Mon (Gerard)

Mon

Mon

1st Div Oscar Mon (Gerard) 1st Div Oscar Mon (Gerard)

Approved Sep. 3

Oscar

Approved Sep. 3

Oscar

All citations must be in Harvard Bluebook format. All Philippine citations must be in Philippine Manual format. All articles must use the PLJ Template, as uploaded.

FOREWORD
SISYPHUS’ LAMENT, PART II: EDITING, OR THE STUDENT’S ART OF NOT BEING ONE’S OWN WORST ENEMY*
Oscar Franklin B. Tan** Handling publications throughout my grade school, high school, and college years, I described writing as the art of coaxing ideas from the innermost recesses of one’s soul, wrapping them around one’s perspective of life to highlight its myriad aspects, and immortalizing the unique product that results. If writing is such a personal, creative act in the most liberating Hegelian sense,1 then editing can be no less. Professor Carol Sanger’s much cited “brief plea for a revival of common sense in editing”2 captures this broad, human beauty:

* This article discusses Volume 79’s philosophies in law review management, and continues from what was substantially the speech delivered by the author at the JOURNAL’s 90th Anniversary celebration. Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part I: The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Legal Writing, 79 PHIL. L.J. 7 (2004). This was held last September 14, 2004, and was at the same time the Volume 79 Board’s induction and the release of its Issue 1. Cite as Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II: Editing, or the Student’s Art of Not Being One’s Own Worst Enemy, 79 PHIL. L.J. 233, (page cited) (2004). The Board would like to thank the following students who volunteered to help with Issue 2 and have been informally designated as the JOURNAL’s interns: Melissa Telan (Head of Features), Janice Lee, Josh Trocino, Gerald Joseph Jumamil, Leandro Angelo Aguirre, and William Varias. All are from the Class of ’08, except for Mr. Varias who is from the Class of ’06. ** Chair, PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL; Member, Student Editorial Board (2004). Fourth Year, Ll.B., University of the Philippines (2005 expected). B.S. Management Engineering / A.B. Economics Honors, Cum Laude, Ateneo de Manila University (2001). First Freshman Awardee, Justice Irene R. Cortes Prize for Best Paper in Constitutional Law (2002). Awardee, Professor Araceli T. Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Law (2003). First Awardee, Professor Bienvenido C. Ambion Prize for Best Paper in Private International Law (2004). 1 GEORG HEGEL, THE PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT, § 57 (T.M. Knox trans. 1971) (1821), in 46 GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD 26 (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Maynard Hutchins ed. 1982). 2 Carol Sanger, Editing, 82 GEO. L.J. 513, 514 (1993).

233

234

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

Editing is a highly complex set of functions, and no individual is capable of exercising them all with equal aplomb. The editor who wines and dines the agents and charms authors may be a clumsy negotiator; the brilliant dealmaker may have no patience for the tedious and demanding word-by-word task of copy-editing; the copy editor who brilliantly brings a book to life word by word, line by line, may be completely at sixes and sevens when it comes to handling authors.3

For all its beauty, however, my personal frustration is that the art of editing is not always approached studiously and scientifically in law reviews. This, I feel, is exacerbated by the fact that PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL editors are chosen solely on the basis of a legal essay written in two hours and the equivalent of a thesis paper written in one week, meaning that it is quite possible for the majority of editors to assume office without any prior publication experience whatsoever, and especially without a deeper appreciation of the perspective and discipline an editorial position entails. No less than Judge Richard Posner calls student editors “inexperienced not only as students of the law but also as editors, writers, supervisors, and managers.”4 Sanger puts it more bluntly: “Most student editors have likely had no editorial experience before sitting down to your paper other than having had their own work hacked to bits by students who experienced the same thing the year before.”5 It is quite possible, in other words, for a set of highly intelligent but otherwise clueless law students to claim the words “editorial discretion” as unbridled license to be the academic equivalents of bulls in china shops – and do as much damage to the law review institution. This, most curiously, in a profession that thrives on rules and frowns on unbounded discretion. I. THE INHERENT INCOMPETENCE OF STUDENT EDITORIAL BOARDS The most shocking statement I have ever heard from law review editors goes something like, “Once the article is submitted to us, we can do whatever we want with it.” This is not simply the fault of my mind’s brusque

3 Id. at 518, quoting Richard Curtis, Are Editors Necessary?, in EDITORS ON EDITING: WHAT WRITERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT EDITORS DO 33 (Gerald Gross ed., 3d ed. 1993). 4 Richard Posner, The Future of Student-Edited Law Review, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1131, 1132 (1995). 5 Sanger, supra note 2, at 517.

2004]

FOREWORD

235

phrasing since sterilizing the thought into the euphemism “editorial discretion” hardly makes it more palatable. This statement feels wrong primarily because of an undeniable fact: student editors are inherently incompetent. This is not to say that they lack intelligence, though as Professor James Lindgren quips, “it’s a fallacy to mistake brightness and effort for competence.”6 To give a concrete example, the incumbent PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL Chair felt rather incompetent when he first stepped into the Justice Alex Reyes Room, opened the first envelope addressed to him, and read the words “Justice Vicente V. Mendoza” on the stationery. It is thus a reality that student editors’ knowledge of the extremely specialized fields and narrow lines of jurisprudence discussed in submissions will never come close to the authors’.7 This is especially true with Volume 79, where five out eight editors are sophomores, and I must commend these five for handling articles on Commercial, Remedial, International and even Taxation Law without a single complaint. Thus, what some editors mistake as “editorial discretion” may well be hubris. This attitude – which brings a macabre twist to Justice Louis Brandeis’s immortal line, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding”8 – is the root of most howls of agony raised in the academe. Professor Sanger complains of “the multilayered attack on the draft by which editor after editor in the review hierarchy rethinks the commas and reassesses the arguments — what one friend calls ‘recreational paraphrasing.’”9 Judge Posner articulates:
Law review editors are notoriously erratic in attempting to improve an author’s style. … These inexperienced editors, preoccupied with citation forms and other rule-bound approaches to editing, abet the worst tendencies of legal and academic writing.10

Professor Lindgren actually compiled various anecdotes:

6 James Lindgren, Student Editing: Using Education to Move Beyond Struggle, 70 CHI.KENT L. REV. 95, 99 (1994). 7 Richard Epstein, Faculty-Edited Law Journals, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 87, 88 (1994). 8 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 9 Sanger, supra note 2, at 523. 10 Posner, supra note 4, at 1134.

236

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

One review accepted a manuscript and edited it, introducing over two hundred style errors into the manuscript. The author responded with a letter detailing the errors and providing excerpts from style manuals to illustrate them. The author requested either no style editing or a new, competent editor. The review refused. A law journal recently tried to change case citations in a historical article to courts listed in The Blue Book, rather than the courts that actually decided them. One law review editor thought that many uses of the word “the” were errors. Following this bizarre rule of thumb, he took as many “thes” out of manuscripts as he could, thus reducing many sentences to a kind of pidgin.11

Professor Roger Cramton even went to the extent of drawing up a fictional conversation:
[T]hat must be a hot topic. We got about sixty pieces on that in the last couple weeks. We better take one of them. Well, this one has more footnotes than any of them. Look guys, I skimmed through that piece. If we take it – it hasn’t got any historical section, and it only gives a couple page explanation of the first amendment. No problem, we’ll just send it back to her to fill in that stuff. Better get her to beef up some of these footnotes: this one section looks a little thin. O.K. I guess it's settled, we’ll take the piece. Anyone here take a first amendment course? … well, that’s all right – we all had constitutional law. Anything else we gotta take care of today? Yeah – some jerk author called. That economics piece. He’s all bent out of shape because we fixed his piece up without telling him. I knew we shouldn't have taken that piece. That’s the last piece we take without footnotes. What was wrong with it? It had all this gibberish about some new theory I couldn't figure out, so I changed it to fit traditional economic doctrine.

11

James Lindgren, An Author’s Manifesto, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 527, 529 (1994).

2004]

FOREWORD
Well the hell with the author. We’re publishing it, not him. Anything else?12

237

I can attest to such frustration myself. Allow me to present a hypothetical experience where the editor responsible for deliberations, an abstract figure in my imagination designated X for convenience, was so remiss that I received a reply only four months after I submitted a manuscript. X then detailed revisions he was requiring me to make by listing each of the five deliberating editors’ comments in bullet point form – many of which contradicted each other. Suppose that was only the beginning. The article was very complex, to the point that when I requested a former dean to review it, he recommended that I explain a number of highly technical points further, and add analogies and imagery because even he had trouble with the nonlegal, mathematical principles I had to use in support of my Constitutional arguments. X later removed all these, claiming they were redundant and lengthy – which is in itself a justifiable judgment, of course – but did so in such a crude fashion that summaries and restatements at the ends of sections were preserved but the original discussions were deleted. Nevertheless, the paper retained numerous references to portions that had been removed. X also insisted on removing my critique of a case’s dissenting opinion claiming it was irrelevant, never mind that the article dealt with proposed legislation and the dissent had been converted into a key House bill. (And while I was fuming, another student approached me and complained that someone, perhaps another manifestation of the abstract X, had almost deleted half of the substantive points in his professor’s paper, which was eventually published in full in the same journal.) But suppose this impromptu fiction’s end is not yet in sight. X insisted on applying the Philippine Manual of Legal Citation, where I had recommended the Harvard Bluebook. That editor also felt that the Philippine Manual prohibited the use of “id.,” and since my originally hundred-page article discussed mainly two cases, the printed version repeated the same two lengthy citations several dozen times, and at some points I even saw the same full citation five times on the same page – in consecutive footnotes. Even the formatting was salt in my wounds; some text was misaligned and headings were inconsistently capitalized. Finally, the last draft I was shown
Roger Cramton, ‘The Most Remarkable Institution’: The American Law Review, 36 J. LEGAL EDUC. 1, 8 (1986), quoted in Phil Nichols, Note, A Defense of Student-Edited Journals: In Response to Professor Roger Cramton, 1987 DUKE L.J. 1122, 1122 (1987). See also Carl Tobias, Manuscript Selection Anti-Manifesto, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 529, 538 (1995).
12

238

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

even omitted my full name, my academic credentials, and – the unkindest cut of all! – the note of heartfelt thanks to my professor placed on the first page. Sadly, while one would readily sue a surgeon who insists on operating with a meat cleaver, there is little recourse against editorial hacks, except perhaps to turn the author-editor relationship into a counterproductive power struggle.13 The greatest dangers and men of zeal indeed. II. HARNESSING THE STRENGTHS OF THE STUDENT EDITORIAL BOARD Although mere students are, naturally, far from masters of doctrine, their seeming greatest weakness is actually their greatest strength. Precisely because they are students, they are the lowly cogs in the legal machinery that allow its academe to function, because no one else has the time to devote to the law review’s minutiae.14 They even have both the time and the skill to check authors’ references, which is a rare service.15 Tongue-in-cheek allusions to slave labor aside, however, law students’ inexperience is a great strength because it allows them to function as a sounding board for the larger audience of lawyers. Though lacking specialized experience in any particular field, students are nevertheless equipped with the latest knowledge in every general field. Thus, while they could not possibly write almost all the articles they review, student editorial boards make excellent referees, and what they publish are presumably appropriate for the general practitioner.16 They serve admirably as “first readers”17 who can point out how to focus discussions of specialized, complex doctrines. Student panels are also free of professional bias that may creep into faculty panels with particular research interests.18 In short, once they disabuse themselves of delusions of grandeur and editorial discretion, these inherent incompetents stand to become the profession’s most effective handmaidens of academic exchange.

Gregory Maggs, Just Say No?, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 101, 101-02 (1994). James Harper, Why Student-Run Law Reviews?, 82 MINN. L. REV. 1261, 1274-75 (1998). 15 Posner, supra note 2, at 1134. 16 Nichols, supra note 10, at 1129-30. 17 Sanger, supra note 1, at 519. 18 Nichols, supra note 12, at 1127-28.
13 14

2004]

FOREWORD
A. ARTICLE DELIBERATION STRUCTURE

239

In order to harness these strengths, Volume 79 formulated a simple but more structured article deliberation process, which is the core of the law review process. Noting journal articles such as Sanger’s, Posner’s and Lindgren’s, we agreed to maintain a deferential approach to authors. First and foremost, this entailed a commitment to refrain from “Rambo” editing, a Volume 79 inside joke better explained by Professor Juan Perea:
A Rambo edit was one of the worst experiences of my professional life. … The first editor with whom I worked did a good job, concentrating on matters of organization and repetition, and suggesting that an additional section might be helpful. I agreed and implemented the changes he suggested, and everything seemed to be going smoothly. Then a higher-level editor decided, on his own initiative, to “take a fresh crack” at my article. In hindsight, I can see that his choice of words revealed a Rambo editor. The second editor didn't like my writing style nor my diction throughout a long manuscript, so he resolved to make my article sound like him. He proceeded to slash and burn almost every sentence and paragraph in my entire manuscript, and in the process introduced many outright errors. The one that I remember best is that, after his edit, he had John Jay, one author of the Federalist papers and an early Supreme Court Justice, quoting contemporary sociologist Milton Gordon. Think about that. I cannot publish what I said and thought after receiving the still-smoking, smoldering ruins of my manuscript.19

Second, we made sure that authors were informed of our decisions to accept or reject an article within a week of receipt by the JOURNAL. This anti-Rambo and pro-author attitude is facilitated by the deliberation structure suggested by Vice-Chair Gerard Chan. Instead of handling articles en banc, the Board divided itself into four divisions of two, with the Chair or Vice-Chair breaking ties. This ensures that every article receives both a thorough and a speedy review. Further, since each pair also serves as the Issue Editors of a particular issue, clear lines of accountability and authority are drawn. This has allowed each division to complete issues in record time, yet solicit articles thematically.20 At the same time, the

Juan Perea, After Getting to Yes: A Survival Guide for Law Review Editors and Faculty Writers, 48 FLA. L. REV. 867, 871 (1996). 20 Issue 1, the Professor Samilo Barlongay Political Law Memorial Issue, was handled by myself and Ramon Sarmiento. This issue has an economics and commercial law theme, and was handled by Gerard Chan and May Ann Rosales. Issue 3, sent to
19

240

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

workload becomes more manageable in that, except for the Chair, each editor expects to focus on only the submissions of one senior practitioner, two junior practitioners, and one student author, and he even has more time to communicate at length with them. And so we have been able to Rambo sparingly, and in all cases gave the author the first opportunity to shoot his own horse instead of firing a bullet into the air,21 trusting that he is the most capable of implementing editors’ recommendations. This structure actually enhances the Board’s collegial nature. Each division is required to provide a written summary of deliberations for each article. These are e-mailed to each editor, and each recipient is able to reply with questions, similarly reproduced to the rest of the Board. Further, the Chair retains his traditional certiorari powers to reverse the review of a division or, more often, bring it to the attention of the entire Board. The fact that speeches of Justices Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban22 had recently been published in the Manila Bulletin but accepted by our Second Division, for example, was quickly resolved through e-mail during the semestral break, without need for a physical meeting. Parenthetically, this greatly benefits the Board’s working students, and even corrections to article drafts are efficiently circulated through e-mail. In contrast, I actually believe that the traditional structure makes for less effective collegiality. Given the constraints of setting up meetings between students with different schedules, including evening students, larger deliberating panels can degenerate into a simple declaration of votes even before discussing each editor’s reasons. When the article is then assigned to a specific member for editing, specific arguments or conditions for acceptance may well be disregarded, which is important for articles of borderline quality.

press at the same time as this one, deals with procedure and was handled by Francis Joseph Cruz and Charles Cheng. 21 Otherwise, one gets anecdotes such as: “[T]he editor sent back a completely rewritten piece which converted my article attacking an S.E.C. policy into a practitioneroriented article advising lawyers how to comply with the S.E.C. position. The last instructions from the editor were to ‘write the conclusion within one week and return.’ I called the editor and told her that she had misunderstood the purpose of my article, and that her deadline was unrealistic.” Ronald Rotunda, Law Reviews – The Extreme Centrist Position, 62 IND. L.J. 1, 10 (1987). 22 Reynato Puno, Judicial Review: Quo Vadis?, 79 PHIL. L.J. 249 (2004); Artemio Panganiban, Judicial Activism in the Philippines, 79 PHIL. L.J. 265 (2004).

2004]

FOREWORD

241

A deliberation structure in itself addresses administrative problems, but not uncontrolled editorial discretion itself. The main problem in the context of deliberation remains that different Boards, different panels or even different individual editors can have wildly differing standards of review. This creates a problem of inconsistency, and is hard to check on a case to case basis. For example, invoking editorial discretion, I once heard of an editor vote to reject a hundred-page article because of a single perceived error on page twenty. I heard of another who voted to reject another lengthy article because of a perceived error in an introductory discussion on legal philosophy, although he had been deliberating on a Remedial Law paper. Such problems can only be addressed with clear editorial policies.23 Volume 79 uses a very simple one-page set of guidelines, which is used to prepare written memoranda required for each article. At its heart is a simple distinction between what Professor Anne Enquist calls substantive and technical editing. B. SUBSTANTIVE EDITING The distinction is explained:
Substantive editing is the process of examining and commenting on an article’s substance, that is, the ideas, arguments, and the overall organization. Substantive editing is concerned with what the article says. Technical editing, on the other hand, is the process of examining and commenting on an article’s technical features, that is, the words, sentences, and minor details. Technical editing is concerned with how the author expresses his or her ideas.24

The article deliberations for acceptance or rejection are confined only to substantive editing, and Volume 79’s simple guidelines require an editor to first read the article once without stopping to note perceived errors, and then review only: 1) the thesis and subtheses, and their novelty, significance and impact; 2) the structure and flow; 3) the general quality of sources and substantiation of points; and 4) the general quality of writing.25

23 See Terri LeClerq, The Nuts and Bolts of Article Criteria and Selection, 30 STETSON L. REV. 437, 441-43 (2000). 24 Anne Enquist, Substantive Editing Versus Technical Editing: How Law Review Editors Do Their Job, 30 STETSON L. REV. 451, 452 (2000). See Perea, supra note 18, at 869. 25 Id. at 453. Professor Enquist uses six points: (1) the thesis; (2) the line of reasoning and arguments; (3) the large-scale organization; (4) what is not in the article; (5) what is in the text versus what is in the footnotes; and (6) the author’s voice.

242

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

The ideal is a well-structured piece with a strong thesis, and a thesis is more than a topic sentence in that it incorporates a concrete stand on an issue. (Parenthetically, some student articles may fall short of this in that they have impressive research but take the wishy-washy thesis, “This is an important emerging field of law and the author hopes this article will inspire further research on the matter.” Such a thesis makes for an excellent bibliography, but a poor legal article.) The key is to force the reviewing editor to deliberate using a broad view, dealing with the structure of sections instead of going into individual paragraphs and sentences. Most obviously, this approach avoids the absurdity of rejecting a hundred-page article based on a perceived error in one paragraph, or nitpicking over points collateral to the author’s actual thesis. The initial focus is solely on overall substance, a sensible notion I believe inexperienced editors confuse with other areas for improvement that are less significant and less immediate in the initial deliberations. The approach further saves a lot of time when dealing with less than excellent articles because the editor is forced to identify structural problems that cannot be solved merely by correcting individual sentences. And even with already good articles, the mindset becomes one of being able to propose enhancements rather than unilaterally effecting what one feels are corrections. One common comment, for example, is that an author did an excellent job researching but spent relatively few pages articulating his analysis. One important result, I feel, is that Volume 79 has been able to accommodate authors with more substance than style who would otherwise be rejected. I remember one especially difficult article that was put to an en banc vote. Four editors voted to return it to the author for revision, and the other four voted to reject it outright. The Board, it seemed, unanimously believed that the author had religious objections to certain usages of the English language, and he even quoted preambles and whereas clauses of laws verbatim at some points. I assigned it to myself and discussed with the author my outline of the article and my co-editors’ memoranda, and he agreed to submit a restructured draft within the week. I then took the draft and spent twenty-five hours further reorganizing his scattered ideas and rephrasing his sentences solely to cure verbosity, eventually trimming fiftyfive pages into seventeen. After it was published, we discovered that the article reflected an important government position, and no member of the Board regrets accepting it. Similarly, for that same issue, another editor had to restructure another article that could scatter a single point across three to

2004]

FOREWORD

243

five different places, yet the reorganized article turned out to be a very interesting, novel, and practical piece. I recall countless such incidents from college. Handling inexperienced aspiring freshman writers, I would review draft outlines and proposed interview questions with them in great detail only to get a disorganized, confused draft. Nevertheless, I would tell them they had done well, before proceeding to delete two out of every three words. I would explain that they had done such thorough research that the article could be reorganized and rephrased. What, again, is the editor’s task but to help an author find his voice?26 The truly disastrous authors were those who submitted well-written but ultimately superficial material and filled space by waxing poetic for several paragraphs. They, for example, failed to build rapport with interviewees and take the time to ask detailed follow-up questions, sometimes just asking resource persons to answer a questionnaire. In these cases, I found myself deleting close to three out of every three words, and asking them to add content. In legal writing, the equivalent would be authors who paste lengthy excerpts from decisions with barely any analysis, without even so much as a train of thought revealed by the selection of decisions and particular excerpts, nor any buildup towards a discernable thesis. No amount of structural buttressing by editors can salvage such. C. TECHNICAL EDITING Technical editing deals with the devils in the details, and amounts to what most people associate with editing. One generally checks for grammar, spelling, punctuation, organization of ideas on a paragraph level, paragraph and sentence structure, and precision and conciseness of wording.27 If substantive editing is done properly and the article’s structure is sound, technical editing is thus a very simple matter of checking individual paragraphs and sentences against the rules of grammar. As Professor Perea puts it:
If you conceive of your role as that of rewriting an article…. you are probably not thinking enough about the “macro” issues discussed

26 Ann Althouse, Who’s to Blame for Law Reviews?, 70 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 81, 84 (1994). 27 Enquist, supra note 24, at 461-62.

244

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

above which you should be thinking about. You are beginning with a microscopic view of your role.28

I believe good substantial editing leads to more deferential, less invasive technical editing as well, since the editor initially examines the article as a whole, including the author’s particular tone and voice. Inexperienced editors are tempted to feel obliged to make as many changes as they can, but that is as much the measure of successful editing as the number of footnotes is a measure of substance. There are, rather, true corrections justified by principles of grammar or conciseness, and there are “corrections” dictated by an editor’s sense of style. The latter are generally left alone, lest the article lose its personality.29 In Volume 79, individual editors have on occasion expressed apprehension that a particular author is written in such simple language that the tone may not be formal or even scholarly enough for a legal publication, or simply sounds less impressive compared to others in the lineup. Nevertheless, if the piece is grammatically correct and hardly verbose, we leave it alone and let the author be judged as he is. It would be unrealistic, for example, to fire every article with the flourish of a Justice Reynato Puno, Isagani Cruz, Jose Laurel, or Gregorio Perfecto. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, for example, writes simply, yet his style has innate strength driven by its meticulousness and incisiveness, and in the end inspires as much respect as the other names I have mentioned. The same surely holds true for younger authors, any of whom could be the next V.V., and it would not do to ask them to masquerade as someone else while their style ripens and matures. Of course, when an article and especially a student article is characterized by impossible passive sentences and liberally substitutes the elusive spark of wit with legalisms such as “aforecited,” “be that as it may,” and the malevolent “said,” it must be translated into English, and such a tone bereft of all personality cannot be immortalized in print. As Professor Sanger cautions editors:
Many revisions seem to emanate from an unhappy idea of what legal writing, especially law review writing, ought to sound like. An antiquated sense of legal rhetoric has resulted in a bureaucratic impulse toward the impersonal, the flattened, and the pompous.30

Perea, supra note 18, at 871. Sanger, supra note 2, at 525. 30 Id. at 520.
28 29

2004]

FOREWORD

245

Especially atrociously written articles aside, the bulk of Volume 79’s technical editing focuses on footnotes, which have a special significance in a profession that emphasizes precedent. The policy is not to merely format footnotes while taking one’s turn cursing the unbelievable complexity of the Bluebook, but to check the accuracy of each one, down to opening physical copies of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated and identifying the exact pages an author meant to refer to. While one primarily checks the existence and proper context of references, one may be surprised by what a disciplined check reveals. We take pains to footnote all direct quotations, for example. In Issue 1, this paid off after we found out that supposedly classic lines from the likes of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Alexander Bickel had been misquoted without citing the source, and we corrected these and placed the footnotes. Such attention to detail is, again, part of the student editorial board’s job. And even with footnoting, we maintain a level of deference. Some authors use them sparingly, while others mark very clear research trails, especially students who must clearly establish their legal bases. So long as main sources and sources of direct quotes are properly cited, we accept both styles as they are as well. What we have discouraged, however, are articles that push discussion into lengthy footnote parentheticals. III. THE HEART OF LAW REVIEW Having discussed Volume 79’s attempt to concretize editorial policy, I cannot end without discussing how daunting a task running the JOURNAL is. It is all the more daunting because in many respects, the institution itself works to undermine student editorial boards. Consider that a new Board is usually constituted towards the end of September, which is the thick of Bar Operations work and immediately before final exams in October. Yet, the Board that realistically convenes in November is expected to produce the year’s quota of journal issues by early March, or graduating editors are not recognized at their ceremony and lowerclassmen are barred from taking the next editorial exam. Further, the Board is officially prohibited from creating a staff because faculty and alumni believe that crediting students who have not passed the editorial exam in the editorial box diminishes the exam. To appreciate the gravity of this restriction, consider that American law reviews recommend allotting thirty hours per fifty footnotes to be checked, and my editorial exam paper alone had 461.

246

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

Nevertheless, it is actually easy for unscrupulous student editors to beat the odds. One need only lapse into the stereotype of editing, and merely take articles and produce a stream of red marks, then cut all the corners one can and hope one graduates by the time any truly atrocious oversights are discovered – and that no one familiar with the Bluebook actually checks your footnote formats. Again, there is an undue focus on producing four issues of whatever quality come March that there is sometimes an impression that the truly important aspects of the process are not under scrutiny. One past JOURNAL issue, in fact, merely took all the papers from a recent conference on tuna and published them as a special issue to help meet the quota. Student editors’ simplest trick is liberally raiding the last batch of graduates for their theses and research papers, particularly those that won legal writing awards. By the second semester of the Board’s term, it is a simple matter to cite these authors as fresh junior associates instead of as student authors. There is a world of difference, of course, between a student-edited publication and a student publication, and the student article ratio may well be the acid test of a Board’s dedication. I emphasize, of course, that there is nothing wrong with student articles – aside from the usual nightmare of editing them – and I dream of featuring the next Antonio Carpio-esque student piece during my watch, one so legendary that the author is already sitting in the Supreme Court yet it remains standard in class reading lists.31 I merely wish to avoid having student pieces dominate. I am glad that, so far, Volume 79 had the luxury of keeping very conscious of other aspects of quality. However, as I opened this piece, editing is as beautifully a human art as writing itself, and although this is more difficult to see in a law review process where author-editor relationships are not as close as those in one’s high school and college publications, editors should not lose sight of this beauty. While, as Sanger pointed out, the editor is often peon and proofreader, he must also be maestro, cheerleader and even evangelist in relating to the authors under his care.

31 Antonio Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law, 47 PHIL. L.J. (1972). This student piece only takes on greater significance today because of its application to the right to privacy’s Civil Law aspects, and I suppose I would consider it the Philippines’ equivalent of William Prosser, The Assault upon the Citadel (Strict Liability to the Consumer), 69 YALE L.J. 1099 (1960), the second-most widely cited article in the Yale Law Journal. Fred Shapiro, The Most-Cited Articles from the Yale Law Journal, 100 YALE L.J. 1449, 1461 (1991).

2004]

FOREWORD

247

One early but unforgettable Volume 79 moment came when, at our induction, Dean Raul Pangalangan held up a copy of our freshly released Professor Samilo Barlongay Political Law Memorial Issue in front of his children, seated in the audience. Atty. Randy Barlongay, who wrote the foreword, was approached by another Issue 1 author, Atty. Daniel Nicer, who told him at length how much he appreciated his father. Even a FilipinoAmerican law student, Freddie Soto, requested the Board to dedicate his article to Professor Barlongay, even though he did not have the opportunity to study law in the Philippines. We were formally inducted in the middle of September, in the middle of the bar examinations and roughly at the time Professor Barlongay would busy himself finalizing comments on the Political Law exam. Advising student writers through the years, I always emphasized that it is too late to begin editing when one receives the final drafts. Rather, one must proactively influence the process from the moment articles are conceived or solicited, and take opportunities to communicate with authors to build an issue-level vision, anticipating and stimulating debate in particular fields that will find its way into the JOURNAL.32 I am glad we were able to come close to such a vision for our Political Law-themed first issue, and honor our dear professor with the coin he valued the most and freely gave. That triumph of editorial planning brought out the best of the JOURNAL’s academic and human spirit, and reminded me how truly alive this institution is. The ultimate personal challenge, then, is for student editors to stay conscious that their task not a passionless, mechanical abstraction of correcting grammar and checking footnotes, but a fulfilling, dynamic partnership and human endeavor with authors striving to find their voices.33 Practitioners often advise students, after all, to enjoy student life while they still can.

Nichols, supra note 12, at 1133. See Ronald Lansing, The Creative Bridge Between Authors and Editors, 45 MD. L. REV. 241 (1986).
32 33

248

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

APPENDIX A: OUTLINE FOR DELIBERATION MEMOS
Within one week from receipt of the article by the JOURNAL (not from the date of your deliberations), submit a memorandum that answers all these guide questions to the Chair, including specific proposed corrections, other recommendations, and lovelife updates. Preliminary reminder to exercise restraint 1. When was the last time you watched Rambo or any similar movie?*** 2. Have you read the article straight through once, without stopping to note errors? 3. What is the name, institution or office, and professional background of the author? What is the article’s title? When and how was it submitted to the Journal? Overview of the thesis and stand 4. What is the thesis statement? What are the subtheses for each section? 5. Does the author take a concrete position or stand? Or merely describe a field of law? 6. Rate the thesis itself. Is it novel? Intriguing? Timely? What impact does it make? Review of structure 7. Describe the article’s structure. How is its length distributed among subtopics? 8. Does this structure convey the thesis and position in an organized, logical manner? Review of general logical flow and quality of supporting sources 9. Are the thesis and position generally supported by sound, credible sources? 10. Are there logical or other flaws in the thesis on the article or section level? 11. Are there landmark sources or relevant doctrines missing from the article? 12. Is the piece supported by similar/relevant articles used for background comparison? Review of writing style and overall reader impact 13. Evaluate the style, tone and grammar, though these are rarely grounds to reject. 14. What was your initial reaction to the article? What struck you as its highlights? 15. Do you have criticism on recurring collateral (not structural) errors? Any plagiarism? Recommendation 16. In summary, why are you recommending to: a. Accept the article, with minor corrections? b. Accept the article, subject to major recommended corrections by the author? c. Return the article with your recommendations, without accepting it? d. Reject the article outright?

*** See Juan Perea, After Getting to Yes: A Survival Guide for Law Review Editors and Faculty Writers, 48 FLA. L. REV. 867 (1996) (on the highly discouraged “Rambo editing”).

FOREWORD
SISYPHUS’ LAMENT, PART III: CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK*
Oscar Franklin B. Tan** As a newly-minted student editor, you might imagine that I was apprehensive when I asked Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, himself a past JOURNAL chair, for feedback regarding our first issue. His initial comment, however, surprised me. Of all the encouragement such a paragon of Constitutional Law and legal education could offer to a greenhorn, the first thing the legendary V.V. noted was Volume 79’s adherence to the standard international citation format. Footnotes, then, for all the agonized groans and curt dismissals they elicit, must be important, if the likes of Justice Mendoza read them carefully. In fact, if I could place the Supreme Court in a brass lamp and rub it to get one wish, I would probably ask them to place paragraph numbers in all judicial decisions. It is simply impossible to discuss a landmark but

* This article continues the discussion of Volume 79’s philosophies in law review management, and serves as a companion to the second installment. Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II: Editing, or the Student’s Art of Not Being One’s Own Worst Enemy, 79 PHIL. L.J. 233, (2004); Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part I: The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Legal Writing, 79 PHIL. L.J. 7 (2004). Cite as Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part III: Citation and the Little Black Book, 79 PHIL. L.J. 547, (page cited) (2004). The Board would like to thank the following students who volunteered to help with Issue 2 and have been informally designated as the JOURNAL’s interns: Melissa Telan (Head of Features), Janice Lee, Josh Trocino, Gerald Joseph Jumamil, Leandro Angelo Aguirre, and William Varias. All are from the Class of ’08, except for Mr. Varias who is from the Class of ’06. ** Chair, PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL; Member, Student Editorial Board (2004). Fourth Year, Ll.B., University of the Philippines (2005 expected). B.S. Management Engineering / A.B. Economics Honors, Cum Laude, Ateneo de Manila University (2001). First Freshman Awardee, Justice Irene R. Cortes Prize for Best Paper in Constitutional Law (2002). Awardee, Professor Araceli T. Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Law (2003). First Awardee, Professor Bienvenido C. Ambion Prize for Best Paper in Private International Law (2004).

547

548

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

kilometric ruling such as Francisco v. House of Representatives1 with precision, and a user of Philippine electronic legal materials is likened to a provincial gawking at the sight of Rome when he accesses the American WestLaw and Lexis-Nexis databases.2 I stated at the Volume 79 induction that the JOURNAL must be the handmaiden of jurisprudence.3 If so, a reliable citation system is in turn the academic writer’s loyal servant girl. I. THE YEAS AND NAYS REGARDING CITATION The academe has seen extreme positions with respect to citation over the years. Yale legal research professor Fred Shapiro, for example, wrote:
[R]eaders often peruse the citation links (footnotes) with an occasional glance at the “top of the page” text, rather than the other way around, because the really interesting scholarly conversation is taking place at the bottom… [Footnotes] proliferate and become discursive because they are where the action is. If I am right that citations are the crux of legal documents, then it is inevitable that legal writers will be drawn to insert text in the footnotes where the citations live.4

Shapiro bewailed that Yale’s famous law review critic Fred Rodell “missed the point.”5 Rodell was, of course, famous for the assertion, “There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content.”6 One of Rodell’s prominent complaints against “the antediluvian or mock-heroic style in which most law review material is written”7 was “this business of footnotes, the flaunted Phi Beta Kappa keys

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003. These, for example, among many other features, use star pagination to mark the actual page numbers found in physical copies of law reviews and court reporters. Communication between someone using the physical copy and another person using the electronic copy is thus seamless. In lieu of star pagination, paragraph numbering presents the simplest but most logical solution. 3 Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part I: The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Legal Writing, 79 PHIL. L.J. 7, 7 (2004). 4 Fred Shapiro, The Most-Cited Law Review Articles Revisited, 71 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 751, 752 (1996). 5 Id. 6 Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews, 23 VA. L. REV. 38, 38 (1936). 7 Id.
1 2

2004]

CITATIONN AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

549

of legal writing, the pet peeve of everyone who has ever read a law review piece, for any other reason than that he was too lazy to look up his own cases.”8 Hesitant to paraphrase this classic polemic, let me share:
[T]he footnote foible breeds nothing but sloppy thinking, clumsy writing, and bad eyes. Any article that has to be explained or proved by being cluttered up with little numbers until it looks like the Acrosses and Downs of a cross-word puzzle has no business being written. And if a writer does not really need footnotes and tacks them on because they look pretty or because it is the thing to do, then he ought to be tried for willful murder of his reader’s (all three of them) eyesight and patience.9

This visceral antipathy is well alive today. A Harvard Law Review article, for example, read:
[M]any modern professors tend to toss their excess research into the annotation hopper and leave it to their readers (or editors) to separate the salient stuff from the mildly tangential. And it’s safer, both intellectually (allowing the writer to straddle any issue by taking a strong position in the text while waffling below) and morally (permitting him to stave off plagiarism with grudging acknowledgments in four-point type) - not to mention more egogratifying (enabling intricate citation of arcane sources at stupefying length).10

Another author complained:
Anyone who follows legal literature experiences the frustration of plowing through tedious and verbose notes. It is exasperating to lower your eyes from text only to discover meaningless signals like id. or supra. Having to jog your memory for the meaning of cf., but see, or but cf. is even worse.11

The same author argued that not only are hordes of long footnotes used to create the illusion of scholarship, they are abused in many other ways as well. Some writers attempt to superficially differentiate themselves by citing exotic material from both other disciplines and rock and roll lyrics,

Id. at 40. Id. at 41. See Abner Mikva, Goodbye to Footnotes, 56 U. COLO. L. REV. 647, 648 (1985). Judge Mikva is acknowledged as the crusade’s inheritor. 10 Kenneth Lasson, Comment, Scholarship Amok: Excesses in the Pursuit of Truth and Tenure, 103 HARV. L. REV. 926, 937 (1990). 11 Arthur Austin, Essay, Footnotes as Product Differentiation, 40 VAND. L. REV. 1131, 1134 (1987).
8 9

550

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

and “fugitive” sources have mutated from the “letter on file with the author” cite to informal – and unverifiable – hallway conversations with colleagues.12 He even accuses some circles of authors by inflating each others’ reputations through liberal acknowledgements in author’s footnotes.13 If one accepts the impression conveyed by the most colorful academic discussions, the only sure thing is that the original purpose of citations has long since been forgotten. Incidentally, the Bluebook states that footnotes support propositions made in the text.14 II. A STUDENT’S FENCE-STRADDLING IN THE FOOTNOTING DEBATE When I spoke to Justice Mendoza, I informed him that while he was in the United States, I had footnoted an innocuous quote he had attributed to Justice Louis Brandeis, “The most important thing we do is not doing.”15 I clarified that the specific quote had recently closed Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent in Bush v. Gore, which in turn quoted Professor Alexander Bickel’s book The Least Dangerous Branch,16 which in turn quoted Justice Brandeis. I explained that I wanted to be careful with direct quotations, if only to avoid trivial embarrassments to the JOURNAL because classic lines are so easily and so often misquoted. As a former chair, the good Justice reminded me that I did not need his permission to make such additions, but cautioned not to insert too many footnotes. They must be used sparingly, he explained, because not only is an overdose of citation distracting, it may well intimidate the reader. Of course, I cannot conceive of the academic material that would intimidate the likes of Justice Mendoza, but having researched the subject, I feel that the use of citation has never been discussed from the student’s viewpoint. Specifically, I feel that a student cannot possibly employ footnotes the way a luminary would, and this must be clearly articulated in the academe. In the Philippines, students do tend to footnote more heavily
12 Arthur Austin, Footnote Skulduggery and Other Bad Habits, 44 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1009, 1019, 1021 (1990). 13 Id. at 1023. 14 THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION, Rule 1.1, at 21 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 17th ed. 2000). 15 Vicente V. Mendoza, Implementing an Effective Certiorari Jurisdiction, 79 PHIL. L.J. 27, 33 (2004), quoting Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 158 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting). 16 THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH 71 (1962).

2004]

CITATIONN AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

551

than senior practitioners, but I feel they have important reasons for doing so, beyond the usual citation padding that attempts to impress professors. First of all, one wonders what is in fact wrong with being “too lazy to look up his own cases.” While a law review would ideally be read immediately to satisfy current interests – and should aim to be in part, so as not to be a dull product completely divorced from the editors’ brief stay in law school – its greater strength lies in how it facilitates later research. While an article that articulates a new point is valuable, one that does so while providing a bibliography that lays a foundation for that topic’s discussion may be even more valuable. Certainly, having the main sources regarding a point at arm’s length is helpful, but it is indispensable for a student exploring the topic for the first time. Unlike a professor, a student would be barely familiar with the point’s context, and would welcome a listing of more than the main related sources, especially when one moves to the more advanced fields of study, and more so when one needs to integrate several advanced fields. On this point, I have always been frustrated by the lack of citation with respect to the classic lines. If not for a Constitutional Law professor like Dean Raul Pangalangan who took care to point these out, I may never have realized that many of them were academic sound bites. For example, so many Constitutional discussions refer to the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch”17 but many footnote the quote with a vague “The Federalist” or omit the citation altogether. Only with the powers of the almighty Google did I find the original text. And so to aid other students similarly starved for a sense of history, Volume 79 made the effort to attribute the phrase to Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 78, as well as other choice thoughts from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to Georg Hegel that many professors may nevertheless consider ubiquitous. Student writers are in a position to more thoroughly map out the bibliographic contours of a topic. Senior practitioners certainly no longer have the time and many of their contributions lie in shorter pieces that organize the already familiar to articulate new ideas, pointing broadly to areas for development that junior writers can then tackle more comprehensively.

17 ALEXANDER HAMILTON, The Federalist No. 78 (“The Judiciary Department”), in 43 GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD 230 (hereinafter “GREAT BOOKS”) (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Maynard Hutchins ed., 1982).

552

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

Second, while a footnote most obviously identifies the source that supports a proposition, this is not so simple in practice, as the confusing array of citation signals implies. For example, a thought may be supported by many possible lines of thought, and identifying the specific trail may lend an indispensable context. I remember proposing to Dean Pacifico Agabin that the essential prerequisite of John Locke’s articulation of property is equality,18 and that this may underlie a criticism that globalization has created unequal access to property. When I proposed to substantiate this by quoting the likes of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Karl Marx, however, he gently advised me to review less ideologically-charged material, such as papal encyclicals.19 To cite another example, precision is needed when an author relies only on part of a source, but not the rest. This would be very relevant when dealing with a controversial case such as Roe v. Wade,20 since discussing its general due process doctrine in the Philippines may well be very different from discussing its specific holding on abortion. A citation of Roe v. Wade, in fact, would probably encourage a Philippine reader to take a second look, unlike a related but doctrinally different case such as Griswold v. Connecticut.21 Not only is establishing the context important for student readers, it is indispensable for student authors as well. It is one thing to fault a scholar for “waffling” short of a strong position, but quite another to fault a student. Naturally, the latter would be more cautious and would need to lay his bases more clearly. In fact, he may well lay a basis different or more evolved than the familiar ones. Encouraging students to lay detailed bases facilitates more incisive analysis, allowing journals to become more graceful handmaidens of jurisprudence. For example, the Class of 2004’s Neil Silva, of Pictet international moot court fame, was praised by international law professors for writing a controversial paper on just war theory justifications

18 JOHN LOCKE, CONCERNING CIVIL GOVERNMENT, SECOND ESSAY, chap. V (“Of Property”), ¶31 (1690) in 35 GREAT BOOKS 31. 19 See, generally, PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON, WHAT IS PROPERTY? OR, AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT 94 (chap. II, § 2 “Universal Consent no Justification of Property”) (Benj. Tucker trans., 1890) (1840); KARL MARX & FRIEDRICH ENGELS, MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (Samuel Moore trans., Friedrich Engels ed., London, 1888) (1848), in 50 GREAT BOOKS 419; POPE JOHN PAUL II, LABOREM EXERCENS: ON THE NINETIETH ANNIVERSARY OF RERUM NOVARUM, § 4, 10 (Sep. 14, 1981); POPE JOHN PAUL II, SOLLICITUDO REI SOCIALIS: FOR THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF “POPULORUM PROGRESSIO”, § 12 (Dec. 30, 1987). 20 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 21 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

2004]

CITATIONN AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

553

for the invasion of Iraq, a paper whose conclusion they thoroughly disagreed with but whose sources were unassailable. Needless to say, he won this year’s Sabido Prize for Best Legal Paper. To cite a final example, a student may want to support a point with a string citation not because he wants to pad his work, but because he wants to illustrate that the point has been widely held. A string citation showing dates, moreover, establishes that the point has been widely held through many years. It may also allow a reader to judge the quality or general nature of the sources presented, compared to one or two examples. Third and finally, aside from establishing one’s context, it helps the academe when writers establish clear research trails. Not only does this properly acknowledge all authors whose works were referred to, especially with the advent of electronic databases, it makes it easier to gauge a work’s authoritativeness. The United States Supreme Court, for example, explicitly credited a large part of its personal jurisdiction framework to Harvard professors Arthur Von Mehren and Donald Trautman. The explicit reference encourages future researchers to more closely examine discussion and critique of that particular Harvard Law Review piece.22 With the increasing ease of citing references, given easier access with the wonders of WestLaw and easier personal annotation and organization of material with the advent of electronic documents, establishing such research trails should be done if only to give credit where it is due. It costs little after all, and if the citations are not made cumbersome, it costs little even in terms of space and reader distraction. Again, it may benefit scholarship to err on the side of research overkill and an editor can rein such in, after all. The truly abominable excesses of Filipino law students lie in inflating footnotes with off-tangent parentheticals. I think this is true of certain other student-edited law journals where too many pages are bottomheavy and devote at least half the page to footnote discussion. I saw one international law issue, for example, with a running preliminary lecture regarding the basic terms state practice and opinio juris in one article’s footnotes, which is a stone’s throw away from including a special appendix explaining the difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. Another article devoted similar length to citations of the Revised Penal Code, again in

22 Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984), citing Arthur Von Mehren & Donald Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 HARV. L. REV. 1121 (1966).

554

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

an international law issue. I would compare such treatment to this reinterpretation of a children’s favorite:
Humpty1 Dumpty2 sat on a wall.3 Humpty4 Dumpty5 had a big fall.6 All the King’s horses and all the King’s men7 couldn’t put Humpty8 Dumpty9 together again.10 Has reference to an egg. See M. GOOSE, NURSERY RHYMES at 44 (Grimm’s ed. 1850). 2 Id. at 45. 3 For discussion of walls, see Jericho (tumbling down), Jerusalem (wailing), China (length), and Berlin (swift construction). 4 Supra note 1. 5 Id. 6 Here the term “fall” has reference to gravitational pull and is not to be confused with autumn, as if to say Mr. Dumpty’s “big fall” was truly a reference to his magificent autumn. For a general discussion of autumn, see, e.g., Robert Frost. 7 It follows, of course, that if the opposing thumbs of the King’s men could not reassemble an egg, then the hooves of horses would be doubly inept. 8 Supra note 1. 9 Id. 10 The legal implications of the failure to reassemble Humpty (supra note 1) Dumpty (id.) are disturbing because while there might be a moral duty to rescue, there is no legal obligation to do so. See generally, PROSSER ON TORTS, Sec. suchnsuch at suchnsuch page (suchnsuch ed. 19 hundred and suchnsuch.)23
1

Again, the number nor length of footnotes does not make for a good legal article, and neither does the thickness of a volume make for a good law journal issue. Used properly, however, footnotes are a device that help the student writer grow and test the waters of legal writing. Some may even develop a semblance of citation style, able to punctuate a point by relating it a particular source, but doing so briefly and without distraction through citation, a subtle signal nevertheless recognizable to the careful academic reader. III. THE NEED FOR UNIFORM CITATION While I indulge in a flight of fancy, I may as well soar. If I could put the Supreme Court in a lamp and rub it, I may as well expect three wishes.

23 Ronald Lansing, The Creative Bridge Between Authors and Editors, 45 MD. L. REV. 241, 249 (1986).

2004]

CITATIONN AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

555

The second would certainly be to have the Court apply uniform citation in its decisions. (Of course, wishing that they all submitted articles when we gathered the first batches last August is probably too fanciful, so I should probably save the third for the Fraternity Ball.) For citation to be effective, it must be both simple and standard, such that writers can make footnotes brief but readers readily recognize the shorthand. This is increasingly crucial today because uniformity is key in computer applications. For example, I experienced great difficulty attempting to identify all PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL articles previously cited by the Court simply because the citations were not uniform.24 Citation in the Philippines is extremely problematic, however. The University of the Philippines, College of Law prescribes the Philippine Manual for Legal Citations25 for supervised legal research papers. This creates problems for students with respect to international standards because the Philippine Manual no longer reflects the current international citation practices. The inconsistencies create nightmares for JOURNAL editors, moreover. For example, the Philippine Manual lists authors without their full first names, leading to an impossible footnote check given an obscure book available only in some distant library. On a personal point, it also creates problems for people with extremely short Oriental names. The Harvard Bluebook, on the other hand, reflects the international standard, but mutated from a simply 26-page pamphlet made by Dean Erwin Griswold as a student26 into an impossibly complex volume. No less than Judge Richard Posner wrote:
Anthropologists use the word ‘hypertrophy’ to describe the tendency of human beings to mindless elaboration of social practices. The pyramids in Egypt are the hypertrophy of burial. The hypertrophy of law is A Uniform System of Citation, now in its fourteenth edition (1986)

24 Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part I: The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Legal Writing, 79 PHIL. L.J. 7, 7-10 (2004). 25 MYRNA FELICIANO, PHILIPPINE MANUAL OF LEGAL CITATIONS (UP Law Complex: 1999). 26 Darby Dickerson, An Un-Uniform System of Citation: Surviving With the New Bluebook (Including Compendia of State and Federal Court Rules Concerning Citation Form), 26 STETSON L. REV. 53, 57 (1996).

556

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

– a 255-page pamphlet on legal citation form, published by a consortium of law reviews led by Harvard.27

He criticizes that the Bluebook now defeats itself because no reader can possibly remember all its rules, defeating the purpose of uniformity, and especially where lengthy tables of abbreviations are concerned.28 Most distinctions imposed are nevertheless trivial:
Among the useless (and costly) elaborations of citation form are the rules (suggested although not required) for typeface in law reviews— large and small capitals for books, italics for articles and signals (‘see,’ ‘cf.,’ ‘contra,’ etc.), and so forth. These would be useful if it were otherwise possible to confuse a book with an article, or to misunderstand when words like ‘see’ and ‘cf.’ and ‘see also’ and ‘see generally’ introduce citations and when they are part of ordinary discussion. But such confusions are very rare.29

Finally, not all these subtleties are even self-consistent.30 It even has a separate set of rules for practitioners’ memoranda as opposed to journal writing.31 With respect to law journals, moreover, citation checks and formatting have been derisively referred to as a form of hazing32 and as mass psychosis.33 Very few student editors, if any, can claim to have mastered it, and the Volume 79 e-group has seen a few side debates about whether to place commas in certain citations or not, and whether or not to capitalize certain letters. While they are readily seen as inane, the JOURNAL’s appearance cannot be marred by inconsistent footnoting, much less sloppy formatting. Moreover, aside from formatting the citations, actually checking them is indispensable. For example:

27 Richard Posner, Goodbye to the Bluebook, 53 U. CHI. L. REV. 1343, 1343 (1986). Speaking of research trails, Judge Posner’s title makes it one of three famous Rodell sequels. Another is Judge Mikva’s on footnotes, while the third is Rodell himself. Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews – Revisited, 48 VA. L. REV. 279 (1962). 28 Posner, supra note 27, at 1344, 1346. 29 Id. at 1345. 30 Dickerson, supra note 26. 31 BLUEBOOK, supra note 14, Rules P.1-7, at 11-17. 32 Darby Dickerson, Citation Frustrations – and Solutions, 30 STETSON L. REV. 477, 479 (2000). 33 James Gordon III, Essay, Law Review and the Modern Mind, 33 ARIZ. L. REV. 265, 267 (1991).

2004]

CITATIONN AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK
Fraud does occur. To embellish their discussion of automobile seat belts, two writers attributed this statement to the Earl of Andrews: “Quoth what fool darest upon the highways of this realm without properly strapping his ass to his cart.” The editors subsequently discovered that the quote and citation was a hoax: “Contrary to numerous personal assurances by the authors that the quoted statement was accurate, the Editorial Board has learned that neither the quote nor the reported source exist. A card on file at the Washington Supreme Court Law Library, personally viewed by Review personnel, was apparently a forgery, part of a hoax perpetrated by the authors of the article. While acknowledging the sophistication of the authors’ humor, we apologize to our readers for the authors’ indiscretion and our dupability.”34

557

Some errors can be unintended but fatal. I once checked an article, for example, where the author cited a case that discussed how a court is free to reverse its own precedents, but misphrased his sentence and seemed to say that a lower court is free to reverse a higher one’s precedents. Others are more serious. Before becoming Chair, I once vehemently refused to perform the footnote check for an article because its footnotes had obviously been pasted from electronic copies of other journal articles. Even broad, general checks help, and I once adamantly voted to reject a corporation law article whose citations primarily referred to basic finance and accounting textbooks. Nevertheless, problems with citations formats themselves waste a lot of editors’ time. First, authors themselves use a variety of ad-hoc citation formats. Second, when editors must then apply the standard format, it becomes a confusing process of reconciling the Philippine Manual and the Bluebook, and not even holding the latter as the authoritative source solves everything because it is its own source of confusion. Most Issue 1 articles, in fact, had to be reformatted because of numerous format errors. Drawing from personal experience and the discussions with editors while the first three issues were being processed, I thus feel the need to propose a simplified student’s citation manual for the JOURNAL. Although simpler citation manuals such as the Chicago Manual on Style are available,35 one remains hesitant to stray too far from the Bluebook-inspired appearance.

Austin, supra note 12, at 1012 n.21, quoting Hoglund & Parsons, Caveat Viator: The Duty to Wear Seat Belts Under Comparative Negligence Law, 50 WASH. L. REV. 1, 2 n.3 (1974); Errata, 50 WASH. L. REV. 230 (1975). 35 Posner, supra note 27, Appendix.
34

558

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

I hope that The Little Black Book, attached as an appendix to this foreword, will serve as a modest first step towards solving the JOURNAL’s citation format nightmares, and perhaps even attaining a modicum of consistency in the academe.

- o0o -

560

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK*
Oscar Franklin B. Tan** Scholars must learn to both use and interpret footnotes with consistency, brevity, wit, and flair. These are placed at the end of the appropriate phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph to support the proposition with the appropriate source. Footnote references are commonly placed after the punctuation mark at a phrase or clause’s end. Footnotes must be brief yet allow a reader to identify and locate the cited source. The citation forms vary to allow a reader to identify the source’s nature. These forms may be reduced to a handful of general forms, each representing a category of legal materials. These forms are generally: 1) Constitutions, codified statutes, and the Rules of Court 2) Ordinary statutes and treaties 3) Judicial decisions 4) Books and nonperiodical publications 5) Journals and other periodicals 6) Other documents 7) Internet sources

* This title pokes fun at both the Harvard Bluebook and the state of the author’s social life after he began work on Volume 79. He hopes this compilation honors Professors Antonio Santos and Myrna Feliciano, his Legal Bibliography and Legal Method teachers, respectively. During the author’s first, freshman year attempt at legal writing, Professor Santos lent him his personal copy of the Bluebook and helped him decipher a centuries-old King’s Bench citation in a 19th century American case. Professor Feliciano graded the product and later sent the polished draft to the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL without the author’s knowledge, nudging him onto a scholastic path that has since led to this page. Cite as Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part III: Citation and the Little Black Book, 79 PHIL. L.J. 541, (page cited) (2004). ** Chair, PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL; Member, Student Editorial Board (2004). Fourth Year, Ll.B., University of the Philippines (2005 expected). B.S. Management Engineering / A.B. Economics Honors, Cum Laude, Ateneo de Manila University (2001). First Freshman Awardee, Justice Irene R. Cortes Prize for Best Paper in Constitutional Law (2002). Awardee, Professor Araceli T. Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Law (2003). First Awardee, Professor Bienvenido C. Ambion Prize for Best Paper in Private International Law (2004).

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

561

This internal guide for the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL hopes to reconcile the Philippine Manual of Legal Citations with the Bluebook,1 but at the same time simplify the latter’s overly complex and detailed rules. I. GENERAL RULES A. NAMES 1. In general, cite an author’s name as the source lists it, but omit middle initials unless an author is popularly known by these.
Example Oscar Franklin Tan Not Oscar Franklin B. Tan But Vicente V. Mendoza Jose B.L. Reyes

2. When there are two authors, cite them using an ampersand.
Example Mark Dennis Joven & William Varias Not Mark Dennis Joven and William Varias

3. When there are more than two authors, unless one needs to identify all of them, cite the name of the first author and add “et al.” and note the period in “et al.” This is not preceded by a comma.
Example Victorino Mamalateo et al. Not Victorino Mamalateo, et al. Victorino Mamalateo, Mark Dennis Joven & William Varias

1 MYRNA FELICIANO, PHILIPPINE MANUAL OF LEGAL CITATIONS 13-17 (1999); THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 17th ed. 2000).

562

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

4. For juridical persons, businesses, government agencies, and organizations, use the full name, but apply the abbreviations below in both body and footnote text. Never abbreviate the first word of a name, however.
Association Brothers Company Corporation Ass’n Bros. Co. Corp. Incorporated Limited Number Inc. Ltd. No.

Example Manila Electric Co. Not Manila Electric Company

5. Further, use the abbreviations in Appendix A in footnote text only, unless the full name is difficult to infer from the abbreviations:
Example Dept. of Transp. and Comm’n

6. In case of a long name, or if you wish to use a more familiar name, add a parenthetical “(hereinafter “<name>”)” after the name,2 then use the shortened name for succeeding footnotes and supra references. Introduce Philippine Manual abbreviations for government agencies3 this way, to avoid confusing foreign readers. When using words in ALL CAPS of four letters or more, reduce the font size by one point for that word only.
Example Dept. of Transp. and Comm’n (hereinafter “DOTC”)

B. DATES 1. Use a more conversational <month> <day>, <year> format, but abbreviate names of months to the first three letters only.
Example Jan. 25, 2004

This expands the use of “hereinafter” compared to the Bluebook prescriptions. Many Philippine legal citations tend to be longer and material is less organized or catalogued. Using short names for repeatedly-used sources in an article may well be more convenient for a reader. 3 FELICIANO, supra note 1, at 13-17.
2

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

563

2. Dates are usually placed at the end of a citation in parentheses and often shortened to the year only. In general, they are not enclosed in parentheses when necessary to identify a source, as in letters, emails, unofficial or unpublished decisions, and treaties. Refer to the specific forms provided. C. PAGES, ARTICLES, CHAPTERS, SECTIONS, PARAGRAPHS, FOOTNOTES 1. When citing multiple page, section, paragraph or footnote references – but not article, chapter, and similar references – use commas to separate each page reference. When citing consecutive ones, use a dash and omit all but the last two digits unless this would be confusing.
Example 1134, 1135, 1139-42 CIVIL CODE, art. 2176-2180 Not 1134, 1135, 1139-1142 CIVIL CODE, art. 2176-80

2. In general, when necessary to avoid confusion or to indicate a page number, the reference is preceded by a comma and then the word “at.” Refer to the specific forms provided. Note that “at” precedes only page references, never section, paragraph, or footnote references.
Example No. A-13-24, at 2 JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY, at xxxvii (2003). Not No. A-13-24, 2 No. A-13-24, p. 2 JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY, xxxvii (2003).

3. For articles, chapters or titles, precede the references with “art.”, “ch.” or “tit.” respectively. Use the designations in the source.
Example art. VIII Not Art. VIII or Article VIII

564

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

4. For sections, precede the references with the section (“§”) symbol followed by a space. Use parentheses to refer to specific subsections, if necessary, following the designations in the source. Note that the section symbol is never preceded by “at,” unlike page references.
Example art. VIII, § 1(a)

5. When referring to multiple subsections in the same section, use a dash but enclose each subsection reference in parentheses.
Example § 1(4)-(6) Not § 1(4-6)

6. When referring to multiple sections otherwise, use two section symbols, then commas. Use dashes for consecutive sections.
Example §§ 1, 3, 6-8

7. When dashes would be confusing because the source designates subsections using dashes, use the connector “to” instead.
Example §§ 1-2 to 1-5

8. Apply the same rules for paragraphs, using the paragraph (“¶”) symbol. The section symbol is likewise never preceded by “at,” unlike page references.
Example ¶¶ 4-6

9. Paragraph references are commonly used for Internet sources and documents with numbered paragraphs such as International Court of Justice decisions. When helpful, add a section or paragraph reference to make a page reference or references more specific.
Example at 10, ¶¶ 4-6

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

565

10. For footnotes, use a page reference and add “n.” followed by the footnote number without a space. Do not precede “n.” with a comma. Note footnotes within the article itself are not cited using “n.”
Example at 543 n.42 Not at 543, n.42

11. When referring to both the text on a page and a footnote on that page, place an ampersand between the page and the footnote reference.
Example at 543 & n.42 Not at 543, 543 n.42

12. When referring to both the text on a page and an endnote on that page, use an ampersand and cite the page the endnote is found on.
Example at 277 & 1094 n.131

13. When referring to multiple footnotes, use the rules for sections and paragraphs. However, for multiple nonconsecutive footnotes, substitute an ampersand for the last comma, to avoid confusion when citing footnotes on different pages.
Example at 61 nn.42-43, 45 & 48, 62 n.50 Not at 61 nn.42-43, 45, 48, 62 n.50

14. When referring to specific material, add a descriptive abbreviation such as “fig.” or “tbl.” after the page or other reference. If this appears confusing, use a parenthetical remark.
Example at 2 fig.3

15. Do not use section and paragraph symbols outside an actual citation, unless abbreviating a lengthy reference, similar to how one would cite the

566

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

United States Code. Note that the words “article,” “section” and the like are not capitalized in body text.
Example “Art. VIII, §1 provides…. However, examining section 5….”

D. SIGNALS 1. A source cited in a footnote but not preceded by a signal must identify the source of a quotation or cited authority, or directly supports the proposition in the text. The latter is a strong signal. 2. A source preceded by “See” supports a proposition less directly, but clearly does so, either by inference or by drawing a parallel. It may also present sources that contain a broader discussion than what is stated in the proposition. This is a moderate signal. 3. “See, e.g.,” presents an example or examples that support the proposition. “See, generally,” presents a general reference for the proposition. 4. “See, however,” presents a source that contradicts the proposition. 5. “See also” indicates a source that indirectly supports the proposition, discusses material that in turn supports the proposition, or precedes additional supporting material. This is a weak signal. 6. Limit use of signals to these simple, readily understood ones. Avoid use, for example, of “cf.” which has been criticized as vague. Limit the use of parenthetical explanations of more tangential sources. 7. Use semicolons and periods in “citation sentences” as one would an ordinary sentence. Semicolons connect related sources in such a sentence.
Example See Rachel Barkow, More Supreme Than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 237 (2002); Mark Tushnet, Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine, 80 N.C.L. REV. 1203 (2002). See also Robert Post, Foreword: Fashioning the Legal Constitution: Culture, Courts, and Law, 117 HARV. L. REV. 4, 7 (2003); Ronald Dworkin, Hard Cases, 88 HARV. L. REV. 1057, 1061 (1975).

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

567

8. To connect sources in the same “citation sentence” with descriptive phrases such as “citing”, “cited by”, “quoting”, “quoted by”, “reversing”, “reversed by”, “partially reversing”, “partially reversed by”, “amending”, “amended by”, “repealing”, “repealed by”, and the like, place a comma after the first source, followed by the descriptive phrase and the second source. Use periods to avoid confusion when using a number of sources and phrases in the same footnote.
Example Ayer Productions v. Capulong, G.R. No 82380, 160 SCRA 861, Apr. 29, 1988; Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 116, 126-27, G.R. No. 26549, Jul. 31, 1970, citing Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 44-45 (1971), overruled by Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 346 (1974).

9. Finally, one may connect sources with “Compare…, with” and “Compare…, with…, and”.
Example Compare Jeb Rubenfeld, The Right to Privacy, 102 HARV. L. REV. 737 (1989), with IRENE CORTES, THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF PRIVACY (1970). Compare Lemuel Lopez, The Right to Privacy in Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, 78 PHIL. L.J. 163 (2003), citing Ayer Productions v. Capulong, G.R. No 82380, 160 SCRA 861, Apr. 29, 1988; with Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999, citing Ayer, 160 SCRA 861; Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29 (1971). The first cites only half the jurisprudence cited in the second.

E. GENERAL SHORT FORMS 1. Use “id.” when referring to the immediately preceding source in the same footnote, or to the immediately preceding source in the immediately preceding footnote if the footnote cites only one source. Use “id.” by itself to refer to the same specific point referred to in the preceding citation. Use “at” to refer to another page and a comma to refer to another article, section, or paragraph. Note that “id.” may be used to refer to decisions, but not to Constitutions and statutes.
Example 1 James Bradley Thayer, The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law, 7 HARV. L. REV. 129, 135 (1893). 2 Id. at 136.

568
3 Id. 4 Id.

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
at 138.

[VOL 79

2. Use “<abbreviated name>, supra,” to refer to a previous source cited in the same footnote, and “<abbreviated name>, supra note <number>,” to refer to a source cited in a previous footnote, or to a source in the immediately preceding footnote if it cites more than one source. Note that “supra” is never used to refer to Constitutions, statutes, or decisions.
Example 1 James Bradley Thayer, The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law, 7 HARV. L. REV. 129, 135 (1893); Edwin Meese, The Law of the Constitution, 61 TUL. L. REV. 979, 981 (1987). Thayer further argues that judicial review is best employed narrowly. Thayer, supra, at 136-37. 2 Thayer, supra note 1, at 140. 3 Meese, supra note 1, at 983.

3. Avoid the use of other Latin words such as “ibid.” and “op. cit.” F. INTERNAL CROSS-REFERENCES 1. To refer to preceding pages, use “See supra pp. <page numbers>”. This is the only instance “p.” is used to indicate page numbers.
Example See supra pp. 10-13.

2. To refer to preceding footnotes, use “See supra notes <numbers>”.
Example See supra notes 12-15 and accompanying text. See supra text accompanying notes 20-21.

3. To refer to preceding sections, use “See supra Parts <numbers>”.
Example See supra Part I.A.

4. Use “infra” similarly to refer to succeeding pages, footnotes, or sections.

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

569

II. PRIMARY SOURCES: CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY MATERIAL A. CONSTITUTIONS 1. Use “CONST.” in Small Caps. Cite specific articles using “art.” with no comma in between “CONST.” and “art.”
Example CONST. art. VIII, §1 Not CONST., art. VIII, §1

2. For a Constitution no longer in force, add the year in parenthesis to “CONST.” Cite specific articles by adding a comma then citing normally.
Example CONST. (1935), art. VIII, §1

3. For a foreign Constitution, precede “CONST.” with the proper country or state abbreviation.
Example U.S. CONST. art. III, §1

4. For an amendment, use “amend.” instead of “art.” This is generally used for references to the United States Constitution.
Example U.S. CONST. amend. I

B. STATUTES AND ORDINANCES 1. If referring to a code, use the appropriate abbreviation in Small Caps.4 In case of new codes, use Appendix A. Because Philippine codification is not as organized as the United States Code, you may opt to add a comment indicating the actual law the first time the Code is cited.
Example TAX CODE, § 42(A)(4). The National Internal Revenue Code is Rep. Act No. 8424 (1997).

4

See FELICIANO, supra note 1, at 15-16.

570

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Agricultural Land Reform Code Child and Youth Welfare Code Civil Code Coconut Industry Code Code of Commerce Cooperative Code Corporate Code Family Code Fire Code Forestry Code Insurance Code Intellectual Property Code Labor Code Land Transportation and Traffic Code Local Government Code Muslim Code of Personal Laws National Building Code National Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and Supplements National Internal Revenue Code Omnibus Election Code Omnibus Investments Code Philippine Environment Code Revised Administrative Code Revised Penal Code Sanitation Code Securities Regulation Code State Auditing Code Tariff and Customs Code Water Code AGRARIAN CODE CHILD & YOUTH WELFARE CODE CIVIL CODE COCONUT INDUS. CODE COM. CODE COOPERATIVE CODE CORP. CODE FAM. CODE FIRE CODE FORESTRY CODE INS. CODE INTELL. PROP. CODE LAB. CODE TRANSP. & TRAFFIC CODE LOCAL GOV’T CODE MUSLIM CODE BLDG. CODE MILK CODE TAX CODE ELECT. CODE INVESTMENTS CODE ENVIRON. CODE REV. ADM. CODE REV. PEN. CODE SANITATION CODE SEC. REG. CODE AUDIT CODE TARIFF CODE WATER CODE

[VOL 79

2. Otherwise, use <law form> <reference> (year of effectivity).5 Because Philippine codification is not as organized as the United States Code, you may opt to add a comment indicating the law’s short name the first time it is cited. Because of the same lack of codification, it is permissible to use these short forms in the text of articles.
5

Id. at 14-15.

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK
Example Rep. Act. No. 8792, § 28 (2000). This is the E-Commerce Act of 2000. Public Laws (1900-1934) Commonwealth Acts (1935-1945) Presidential Decrees (1972-1986) Batas Pambansa (1984-1986) Executive Order (1986-1987) Republic Act <Unit> Ordinance Act No. Com. Act No. Pres. Dec. No. Batas Blg. Exec. Order No. Rep. Act No. <Unit> Ordinance No.

571

3. To cite a Senate or House Bill, use the form <reference>, <congress>,6 <session> (year). For section references, place these after the session number. You may indicate the author or the short name with a comment.
Example S. No. 437, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess., § 3 (2003). This is the proposed University of the Philippines Charter of 2003. Senate Bill House Bill Senate Concurrent Resolution House Concurrent Resolution Senate Committee Report House Committee Report Resolution of both Houses, sitting together but voting separately S. No. H. No. S. Con. Res. H. Con. Res. H. Rpt. H. Rpt. R.B.H.

4. Refer to the Philippine Manual for other citation forms for Philippine legislative materials.7 Refer to the Bluebook for the more complex citation of American federal and state statutes. C. EXECUTIVE ISSUANCES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 1. Cite executive issuances and administrative regulations as one would a regular statute. Again, cite the issuing agency’s name in full instead of using
6 7

Id. at 16-17. Id. at 17.

572

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

the Philippine Manual abbreviations, unless one introduces these using “hereinafter.” Finally, omit the date if evident from the regulation’s serial number.
Example Sec. and Exchange Comm’n (hereinafter “SEC”) Memo. Circ. No. 2 (2002). Rev. Regs. 19-93, § 4. Executive Order <Agency> Administrative Order Proclamation General Order Letter of Instruction Letter of Implementation Letter of Authority Exec. Order No. <Agency> Adm. Order No. Proc. No. Gen. Order No. Letter of Inst. No. Letter of Impl. No. Letter of Auth. No.

D. RULES OF COURT 1. Although not a statute, the Rules of Court are cited in the same way a codified law is, except one uses “Rule” instead of “art.” Use RULES OF COURT, Rule <number>.
Example RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, § 1(a).

2. To refer to rules no longer in force, add the year after “RULES OF COURT”.
Example RULES OF COURT (1940), Rule 41, § 3.

E. TREATIES 1. For conventions and multilateral treaties, use the form <name>, <date of signing>, <cited article>, <reporter citation or document>. One may add the date of entry into force or ratification in a comment after the citation.
Example 1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Jul. 9, 1992, preamble, 31 I.L.M. 849.

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK
2 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994, available at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto.doc.

573

2. For bilateral treaties, add the two countries’ abbreviations and connect these with a dash, using the form <name>, <date of signing>, <countrycountry>, <cited article>, <reporter citation or document>. Note that “RP” or “Republic of the Philippines” is not the commonly-used abbreviation.
Example Convention with Respect to Income, Oct. 1, 1976, Phil.-U.S., art. 8, §1-2, available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/philip.pdf.

F. CONSTITUTION AND STATUTE SHORT FORMS 1. Do not use id. or supra as short forms for constitutions or statutes. For consecutive footnotes, you may use the section or article reference alone after the first, without the reference to the statute, adapting the short form for the United States Code. Note that because United States law is primarily cited using codified versions, Philippine statute citations are relatively shorter.
Example 1 Rep. Act. No. 8792, § 28 (2000). This is the E-Commerce Act of 2000. 2 §§ 23-24. 3 § 28.

2. For nonconsecutive footnotes referring to a statute after the first reference, it is permissible to use section or article references alone if the reference is on the same page or within roughly five footnotes of the full citation. However, if this short form appears confusing, especially because of section references to other sources, use the statute or bill reference with the section or article reference, and omit the other data.

574

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Example 1 S. No. 437, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess., § 3 (2003). This is the proposed University of the Philippines Charter of 2003. 2 §§ 3-4. 3 § 5. 4 Christine Avendano, Hostage University: Sen. Santiago holds fate of UP Charter, Phil. Daily Inquierer, Nov. 4, 2004, available at http://news.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&story_id=17034. 5 § 6. 6 CONST. art. II, § 13. 7 S. No. 437, §§ 8-10.

[VOL 79

3. One may opt to use a short name, indicated by a parenthetical “(hereinafter “<name>”)” before the section reference in the first fill statute reference. Use the same short forms, but use the indicated short name in place of the statute or bill reference.
Example 1 S. No. 437, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (hereinafter “Proposed UP Charter”), § 3 (2003). 2 §§ 3-4. 3 § 5. 4 Christine Avendano, Hostage University: Sen. Santiago holds fate of UP Charter, Phil. Daily Inquierer, Nov. 4, 2004, available at http://news.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&story_id=17034. 5 § 6. 6 CONST. art. II, § 13. 7 Proposed UP Charter, §§ 8-10.

III. PRIMARY SOURCES: JUDICIAL DECISIONS A. PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT CASES 1. Use the form <last name of first party> v. <last name of first opposing party>, <docket number>, <reporter volume> <reporter abbreviation> <first page of decision in reporter>, <specific page number in reporter>, <full date of decision>.
Example United States v. Arceo, No. 1491, 3 Phil. 381, 384, Mar. 5, 1904. Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 239 SCRA 143, 170, Jul. 23, 1998.

2. Note that “versus” is abbreviated as “v.” and not “vs.”

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

575

3. When there are multiple co-parties, use only the first on each side. Do not use “et al.” When a decision resolves more than one case, use the names in only the first.
Example United States v. Arceo, No. 1491, 3 Phil. 381, 384, Mar. 5, 1904. Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 239 SCRA 143, 170, Jul. 23, 1998.

4. For natural persons, use last names only and omit titles, prefixes, and suffixes in party names. However, when the name is entirely in Mandarin or another Oriental language where names begin with the last name, use the whole name.
Example United States v. Chu Chang, No. 2307, 6 Phil. 74, Apr. 9, 1906.

5. For juridical persons, spell out abbreviations unless they form part of the actual name. Do not omit suffixes that indicate a corporation such as “Inc.” and “Corp.”8 Do not omit first names or middle initials when a person’s name is used as part of a juridical person’s name.
Example Agan v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155001, 402 SCRA 612, 664, May 5, 2003. Not Agan v. PIATCO, G.R. No. 155001, 402 SCRA 612, 664, May 5, 2003.

6. For local government units, indicate the type of unit using prefixes such as “Province of”, “City of”, or “Municipality of”. When particular government offices are named, use the complete name. 7. For cases that begin with procedural terms, use the prefix “In re” and the last name of the person concerned or the subject of the decision.
Example In re Sotto, No. 14576, 38 Phil. 532, Sep. 6, 1918. Not In the matter of Vicente Sotto, No. 14576, 38 Phil. 532, Sep. 6, 1918.

8

This is a simplification of BLUEBOOK, supra note 1, Rule 10(h), at 61.

576

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

8. Old Philippine Supreme Court cases are commonly reported in the Philippine Reports (“Phil.”), and more recent ones are found in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (“SCRA”). In case an author uses a less commonlyused reporter, it is recommended that one replace the reference or add the reference to the commonly-used reporter. If the decision is found nowhere else, one may also refer to the Official Gazette (“O.G.”).
Not Recommended Republic v. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc., G.R. No. 147062, 423 Phil. 735, Dec. 14, 2001.

9. The Philippine Manual convention is to use the G.R. number and full date only for cases reported in unofficial reporters, namely the SCRA. Thus, official reporters, namely the Philippine Reports, are generally cited using the reporter and year only. Because, however, Philippine electronic sources are not organized using reporter citations, the easiest way to find a case using these is to enter the G.R. number and then check the date in case more than one decision was rendered. Thus, for the benefit of increasingly computersavvy students, use the full, expanded citation even for Philippine Reports references. The page reference to the physical reporter must be included because there is no other way to refer to specific portions of Philippine electronic materials.
Permissible United States v. Arceo, 3 Phil. 381, 384 (1904). Recommended United States v. Arceo, No. 1491, 3 Phil. 381, 384, Mar. 5, 1904.

10. Omit the “L-” from docket numbers, and use only the number of the first case, in case of multiple cases covered in one decision.
Example Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710, 356 SCRA 108, 155-56, Mar. 2, 2001. Not Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, 356 SCRA 108, 155-56, Mar. 2, 2001.

11. When the case is being cited in general and no particular page is referred to, omit the reference to a specific page. If, however, the first page is referred to, do not omit the reference.

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK
Example United States v. Arceo, 3 Phil. 381, 381 (1904).

577

12. The convention is to footnote the first instance of a case name with a general citation to the case, then footnote succeeding points with specific references. Note that case names are italicized in text, but not in citations.
Example In United States v. Arceo,1 the Court stated….
13 2

Phil. 381 (1904). Id. at 384.

13. When the reporter citation is unavailable, omit it and rely on the docket number and full date. This is used for very recent and still unpublished decisions.
Example Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003.

14. When referring to a case available only on an electronic database such as WestLaw, as opposed to electronic copies not catalogued using a particular system, such as the Philippine Lex Libris or PhilJuris compilations, substitute the database reference for the reporter citation. Page numbers are indicated using star pagination, however, and use “at” to indicate these pages.
Example Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2004 WL 383590, at *17 (E.D.Va. 2004).

15. When referring to copies of decisions initially released by the Court instead of copies printed in reporters, use “at” after the date to refer to specific pages. Add a description of the source the first time it is cited. Note that because of the limited availability of such copies, such page citations will rarely be useful.
Example Lopez v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 163556, Jun. 8, 2004, at 12. This article refers to the copy of this resolution specially released by the Court in booklet form.

165. When referring to a separate opinion, add “(<name>, J., <description>)” or “(<name>, C.J., <description>)” to the end of the citation. Cite the first

578

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

page of the decision and not the first page of the separate opinion as the first page. This notation may also be used to emphasize the ponente in a majority decision.
Example Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003 (Puno, J., concurring and dissenting). Phil. Comm’l & Indus. Bank v. Philnabank Employees’ Ass’n, G.R. No. 29630, 105 SCRA 314, 319, Jul. 2, 1981 (Fernando, C.J.).

B. OTHER DECISIONS 1. Cite other Philippine cases and administrative decisions using the same form and rules. Reproduce the full docket number and notation used. For trial courts, indicate the branch and area before the docket number. Except for the commonly-used abbreviations below,9 spell out the deciding body’s name.
Example 1 Philippine Refining Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 2872, Jan. 15, 1986, at 1. 2 Philippine American Life Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, CA-G.R. SP No. 31283, Apr. 25, 1995, at 2. 3 People v. Villanueva, RTC-Branch 50, Malolos, Crim. Case No. 1051-M-200, Mar. 11, 2003. 4 Gutierrez v. MAX Manufacturing Corp., Nat’l Lab. Rel. Comm’n (hereinafter “NLRC”) Case No. 04-0015-04, Nov. 5, 2004. Court of Appeals Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals Regional Trial Court Municipal Trial Court Metropolitan Trial Court Municipal Circuit Trial Court Shari’ah District Court Shari’ah Circuit Court CA Sandiganbayan CTA RTC MTC MeTC MCTC Shari’ah Dist. Ct. Shari’ah Circ. Ct.

2. Because even electronic copies of American and other foreign decisions follow reporter citations, simply use the form <last name of first party> v.

9

FELICIANO, supra note 1, at 6-7.

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK

579

<last name of first opposing party>, <reporter volume> <reporter abbreviation> <first page of decision in reporter>, <specific page number in reporter>, <year of decision>. There is no need to specify the docket number unless the case is recent and has not yet been published.
Example Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

3. Lower court rulings commonly specify the court before the year.
Example Blumenthal v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 236 (D.D.C. 1999). In re Santa Fe International Corp., 272 F.3d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 2001).

4. Refer to the Bluebook for other forms such as those specifying old American reporters. Consider these optional, however, and avoid using multiple reporters and lengthening the citation by noting, for example, how certiorari was denied. Such detail is of lesser use to non-American readers.
Example Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 (1803). McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.).

5. When a reporter citation form already uses the year as the volume number, omit the year from the citation. If the full date is necessary, merely omit the year.
Example Bellinger v. Bellinger, 2003 UKHL 21, ¶ 46. Here, the House of Lords….

6. For international decisions and arbitrations, omit prefixes such as “Case Concerning.” Add a parenthetical “(<country abbreviation> v. <country abbreviation>)” after the case name, unless the decision is an advisory opinion. Note that the full date is specified in these citations.
Example Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 I.C.J. 14, 142, 149 (Jun. 27). Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 35 I.L.M. 809 (Jul. 8, 1996).

580

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
F. CASE SHORT FORMS

[VOL 79

1. “Id.” may be used with cases, but not “supra.” Considering the length of Philippine case citations, it cannot be emphasized enough that ignoring this rule leads to embarrassingly grotesque formats.10 This is the height of editorial malpractice. 2. In case of nonconsecutive but repetitive references to a case, one may use the short form <abbreviated case name>, <reporter volume> <reporter abbreviation> at <specific page reference>, omitting other information that would be repeated. The abbreviated case name is commonly the first party name, unless the second identifies the case clearly, such as when the first party name is a government reference such as “People” or “Republic.” Use this short form only when the subsequent reference is on the same page or roughly within five footnotes of the full citation.
Example Military and Paramilitary Activities, 1986 I.C.J. at 138. Arceo, 3 Phil. at 384.

3. When a case is referred to throughout an article or the name is exceptionally long, one may also use to use a parenthetical “(hereinafter “<name>”)” and use this in place of the full reference in succeeding footnotes.
Example Pimentel v. Joint Committee of Congress to Canvass the Votes Cast for President and Vice-President in the May 10, 2004 Elections (hereinafter “Pimentel”), G.R. No. 163783, Jun. 22, 2004.

IV. SECONDARY SOURCES A. BOOKS, PAMPHLETS AND OTHER NONPERIODICALS 1. Books, pamphlets, formal reports, and other nonperiodical materials of substantial length are distinguished from other sources and formatted in SMALL CAPS. Use the form <volume number> <AUTHOR> <TITLE> <page number> (year published).

10 See, e.g., Oscar Franklin Tan, The Philippine Party-List Experiment: Amending A Tragedy of Flawed Mathematics and Policy, 79 PHIL. L.J. 736, 761 (2004).

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK
Example ANTONIO NACHURA, OUTLINE REVIWER IN POLITICAL LAW 442-43 (2002). II ARTURO TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 30 (1992). AYN RAND, ATLAS SHRUGGED 382 (1957).

581

3. If an author is credited with the work but wrote it on behalf of an institution, specify this institution after the author’s name; otherwise, specify the institution as the author. If a work is part of a series, include the series number as part of the title. 4. If a source has multiple editions, specify the edition by adding the notation “ed.” in parentheses with the year, using no comma.
Example JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY 812 (2003 ed.). JOHN WIGMORE, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW, § 2290 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961).

5. If a source has an editor, editors, or a translator, specify these with the notation “ed.”, “eds.”, and “trans.”, respectively.
Example KARL MARX & FRIEDRICH ENGELS, MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (Samuel Moore trans., Friedrich Engels ed., 1888) (1848). THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 17th ed. 2000).

6. When referring to a copy with different pagination such as a later publication by another publisher, specify the edition or publisher information in another parenthetical before the year as follows:
Example PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON, WHAT IS PROPERTY? OR, AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT 94 (Benj. Tucker trans., 1890) (1840). ALEXANDRE DUMAS, THE THREE MUSKETEERS 219 (Signet Classic, 1991) (1844).

582

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

7. Generally, except for the Bible, ignore Bluebook special citation forms such as those for The Federalist.11 These are not as commonly used in the Philippines, and they do not facilitate the citation of specific pages, anyway. 8. When referring to a short work in a collection, use the form <author>, <title>, in <TITLE OF COLLECTION> <page number> (year published). If the collection features the work of only one author, format his name in SMALL CAPS. In exceptional cases where books are compiled in a collection, format both the author’s name and the title in SMALL CAPS. One may specify the publisher of the compilation if it helps identify the collection.
Example 1 Martha Johnson, Research on Traditional Environmental Knowledge: Its Development and Its Role, in LORE: CAPTURING TRADITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE 7-8 (Martha Johnson ed., 1992). 2 JOHN STUART MILL, On Liberty, in ESSENTIAL WORKS OF JOHN STUART MILL 263 (Max Lerner ed., 1961). 3 CHARLES DE MONTESQUIEU, THE SPIRIT OF LAWS, in 38 GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD 70 (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Maynard Hutchins ed., 1982).

B. JOURNALS AND CONSECUTIVELY-PAGINATED PERIODICALS 1. Academic journals are among the most commonly-cited secondary sources in academic writing. Use the form <author>, <title of article>, <volume number> <JOURNAL ABBREVIATION> <first page of article>, <specific page number> (year published).
Example Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890). Bartolome Carale, Criminal Adultery and Fornication in the Philippines: A Re-Examination, 45 PHIL. L.J. 344, 346-47 (1970).

2. Note that only the journal abbreviation is in SMALL CAPS. These abbreviations need not be memorized, and are created using standard geographic and commonly-used abbreviations. Thus, for example, the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL is “PHIL. L.J.” Only a handful of institutions enjoy special abbreviations such as Harvard (“HARV.”) and Columbia (“COLUM.”). 3. When the journal uses the year as its volume number, omit the year in parentheses.
11

BLUEBOOK, supra note 1, Rule 15.7, at 113-14.

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK
Example Linda Lacey, Of Bread and Roses and Copyrights, 1989 DUKE L.J. 1532, 1536-37.

583

4. When the article is prefixed by a description such as “Note”, “Comment”, or “Essay”, place this before the title but do not italicize.
Example Edson Eufemio, Comment, The Estate Planning Process in the Philippine Context: Substantive and Procedural Issues in Protecting the Rights of the Estate Owner, 79 PHIL. L.J. 834 (2004). Note, Incompetency to Stand Trial, 81 HARV. L. REV. 454, 459 (1967).

5. Incidentally, a “Note” refers to a student article. In the Philippines, however, the practice has been to publish these as full articles, because very few lengthier, comprehensive articles are written. Thus, in practice, a “Note” refers to a shorter student piece while a “Comment” refers to a shorter piece by an author who is not a student. C. MAGAZINES AND ORDINARY PERIODICALS 1. These periodicals differ in that they are commonly referred to by date and not by volume number. Use the form <author>, <title of article>, <PERIODICAL ABBREVIATION>, <inclusive dates>, at <first page of article>, <specific page number>.
Example Maggie Keresey, Get a Better Body Image, TEEN, Nov. 1997, at 59, 60.

D. NEWSPAPERS AND DAILY PUBLICATIONS 1. Use the form <author>, <title of article>, <NEWSPAPER ABBREVIATION (geographic indicator)>, <date>, at <specific page number>. If the newspaper’s title does not reveal its country of publication, specify this in parentheses. For example, “TODAY (Phil.).”
Example Christine Avendano et al., Poe camp cries foul over joint committee, PHIL. DAILY INQUIRER, Jun. 1, 2004, at A14. Paolo Romero, Opposition to question up to 25 COCs, PHIL. STAR, Jun. 2, 2004, at 1.

584

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

2. For opinion columns and other running pieces, add the title of the column before the title of the article, but separate these using a colon instead of a comma.
Example Raul Pangalangan, Passion for Reason: Bush vs. Gore, Philippine Version?, PHIL. DAILY INQUIRER, Jun. 4, 2004, ¶ 8, available at http://www.inq7.net/opi/2004/jun/04/text/opi_rpangalangan-1p.htm

E. DOCUMENTS AND LETTERS 1. This is a last, catch-all category for miscellaneous sources. If referring to a document that is formally catalogued such as United Nations Documents, use the form <author>, <title>, at <specific page number>, <designation> (date).
Example International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, U.N. Doc. A/RES/49/214 (1994). World Trade Organization, Elements of the Obligation to Disclose the Source and Country of Origin of Biological Resource and/or Traditional Knowledge Used in an Invention, WTO Doc. IP/C/W/429, at 2, ¶ 3 (Sep. 21, 2004).

2. Otherwise, use the simpler form <author>, <title>, at <specific page number> (date), but one is advised to note where the document is located. This is often used for unpublished papers. For academic works such as theses, however, specify the institution and relevant degree.
Example 1 Ellanmark Pailan, How to Find Love in Friendster.com (Jun. 21, 2004) (unpublished manuscript on file with the author). 2 Oscar Franklin Tan, Intra-Industry Trade: A Game Without Losers (Mar. 2001) (unpublished thesis for A.B. Economics Honors, Ateneo de Manila Unviersity, on file with the Ateneo de Manila Department of Economics).

3. Use the same form for letters, interviews, speeches, and the like, but prefix them with descriptive phrases such as “Letter from… to”, “Interview with” and “Speech delivered”. When applicable, specify the venue or the occasion.

2004]

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK
Example 1 Jovito Salonga, Speech delivered at the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL’s 90th Anniversary, Malcolm Hall, University of the Philippines (Sep. 14, 2004). 2 Letter to Tench Coxe (Mar. 28, 1790), in 13 THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 128 (Charles Hobson et. al. eds, 1981).

585

V. INTERNET SOURCES 1. Cite Internet sources the same way one would a similar conventional sources (for example, online versions of books are cited using SMALL CAPS), but add a comma and then “at <URL>” if the source is found exclusively on the Internet, or “available at <URL>” if the source is an Internet copy of a conventional source. The URL citation may replace a reporter citation, or may be cited in addition to a conventional citation.
Example OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR., THE COMMON LAW 207 (1881), available at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/cmnlw10.txt.

2. If an Internet source is undated, add the last date the website was updated or modified in parenthesis. If this information is not available, indicate when the website was last checked.
Example National Statistical Coordination Board, List of Municipalities, ¶ 1, at http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listmun.asp (last modified Jul. 2004). www.gov.ph, About the Philippines, ¶ 5 at http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/general.asp (last visited Aug. 30, 2004).

3. If a web page has no equivalent conventional source, it is easily cited using <author>, <title of page>, at <URL>.
Example Supreme Court of the Philippines, A Brief History of the Supreme Court, at http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/history.htm (last visited Nov. 10, 2004).

- o0o -

586

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
APPENDIX A: COMMONLY-USED ABBREVIATIONS

[VOL 79

Academic Accounting Accountant Accountancy Administrative Administration Advocate Advocacy Annual Appellate Arbitration Arbitrator Atomic Attorney Bankruptcy Bar Behavior Behavioral Bulletin Business Catholic Children Chronicle Civil College Commentary Commercial Communication Comparative Conference Congressional Constitution Constitutional Contemporary Contract Counsel Counselor Criminal Court Defense Department Development Digest Diplomacy Dispute

Acad. Acct. Acct. Acct. Admin. Admin. Advoc. Advoc. Ann. App. Arb. Arb. Atom. Att’y Bankr. B. Behav. Behav. Bull. Bus. Cath. Child. Chron. Civ. C.
Comment.

Comm’l Comm. Comp. Conf. Cong. Const. Const. Cont. Couns. Couns. Crim. Ct. Def. Dep’t Dev. Dig. Dipl. Disp.

Contemp.

East Eastern Economics Economy Education Employment English Entertainment Environment Environmental Estate Family Federal Federation Finance Financial Fornightly Foundation General Government Hispanic Historical History Hospital Human Immigration Independent Industrial Information Injury Institute Insurance Intellectual Interdisciplinary Interest International Journal Judicial Magazine Justice Juvenile Labor Law Lawyer Legislative

E. E. Econ. Econ. Educ. Emp. Eng. Ent. Env’t Envtl Est. Fam. Fed. Fed’n Fin. Fin. Fort. Found. Gen. Gov’t Hisp. Hist. Hist. Hosp. Hum. Immigr. Indep. Indus. Info. Inj. Inst. Ins. Intell.
Interdisc.

Int. Int’l J. Jud. Mag. Just. Juv. Lab. L. Law. Legis.

Legislation Librarian Library Litigation Local Management Maritime Medical Medicine Military Mineral Municipal National Natural Negligence Newsletter North Northern Order Organization Pacific Patent Personal Perspective Philosophical Philosophy Policy Political Politics Practical Practice Practitioner Probate Proceedings Procedure Profession Professional Property Psychology Public Quarterly Record Referees Register Regulation

Legis. Libr. Libr. Litig. Loc. Mgmt. Mar. Med. Med. Mil. Min. Mun. Nat’l Nat. Negl. Newsl. N. N. Ord. Org. Pac. Pat. Pers. Persp. Philo. Philo. Pol’y Pol. Pol. Prac. Prac. Prac. Prob. Proc. Proc. Prof. Prof. Prop. Psychol. Pub. Q. Rec. Ref. Reg. Reg.

2004]
Regulatory Relations Reproduction Reproductive Research Reserve Resolution Responsibility Review Rights School Science Section Securities

CITATION AND THE LITTLE BLACK BOOK
Reg. Rel. Reprod. Reprod. Res. Res. Resol. Resp. Rev. Rts. Sch. Sci. Sec. Sec. Social Society Solicitor South Southern State Statistic Statistical Studies Survey Symposium System Taxation Teacher Soc. Soc’y Solic. S. S. St. Stat. Stat. Stud. Surv. Symp. Sys. Tax’n Tchr. Technology
Telecommunication

587
Tech.
Telecomm. Transnat’l

Transational Transporation Tribunal Trial University Urban Utilities Week Weekly West Western Yearbook

Transp. Trib. Tr. U. Urb. Util. Wk. Wkly. W. W. Y.B.

- o0o -

APPENDIX B: COUNTRY AND REGION ABBREVIATIONS
Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Afg. Afr. Alb. Alg. Andorra Angl. Anguilla Ant. & Barb. Arg. Arm. Austl. Aus. Azer. Bah. Bahr. Bangl. Barb. Belr. Belg. Belize Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Colom. Guinea-Bissau Comoros Guyana Congo Haiti Costa Rica Honduras Cote d’Ivoire Hong Kong Croat. Hungary Cuba Iceland Cyprus Indonesia Czech Rep. Den. Djib. Dominica Dom. Rep. Ecuador Egypt El Dal. Eng. Eq. Guinea Eri. Est. Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, North Guinea-Bissau Guy. Haiti Hond. H.K. Hung. Ice. Indon. Iran Iraq Ir. Isr. Italy Jam. Japan Jordan Kaz. Kenya Kiribati N. Korea

588

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
Korea, South Kuwait Kyrgzystan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta South Africa South America Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Western Samoa Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

[VOL 79
S. Korea Kuwait Kyrg. Laos Lat. Leb. Lesotho Liber. Libya Leich. Lith. Lux. Mac. Maced. Madag. Malawi Malay. Maldives Mali Malta S. Ar. S. Am. Sudan Surin. Swaz. Swed. Switz. Syria Tunis. Turk. Turkm. Tuvalu Uganda W. Samoa Yemen Zambia Zimb.

Benin Benin Ethiopia Eth. Bermuda Berm. Europe Eur. Bhutan Bhutan Falkland Islands Falklang Is. Bolivia Bol. Fiji Fiji Bosnia & Bosn & Finland Fin. Herzogovina Herz. Botswana Bots. France Fr. Brazil Braz. Gabon Gabon Brunei Brunei Gambia Gam. Bulgaria Bulg. Georgia Geor. Burkina Faso Burk. Faso Germany, FederalF.R.G. Burundi Burundi Ghana Ghana Cambodia Cambodia Gibraltar Gib. Cameroon Cameroon Great Britain Gr. Brit. Canada Can. Greece Greece Cape Verde Cape Verde Greenland Green. Cayman IslandsCayman Is. Grenada Gren. Central AfricanCent. Afr. Guadalupe Guad. Rep. Republic Chad Chad Guatamala Guat. Chile Chile Guinea Guinea China, People’s P.R.C. Niger Niger Republic of Marshall Islands arsh. Is. Nigeria M Nig. Martinique Mart. Northern Ireland N. Ir. Mauritania Mauritania Norwawy Nor. Mauritius Mauritius Oman Oman Mexico Mex. Pakistan Pak. Micronesia Micr. Palau Palau Moldova Mold. Panama Pan. Monaco Monaco Portugal Port. Mongolia Mong. Qatar Qatar Montserrat Montserrat Reunion Reunion Morocco Morocco Romania Rom. Mozambique Mozam. Russia Russ. Myanmar Myan. Rwanda Rwanda Namibia Namib. Sierra Leone Sierra Leone Nauru Nauru Singapore Sing. Nepal Nepal Slovakia Slovk. Netherlands Neth. Slovenia Slovn. New Zealand N.Z. Solomon Islands Solom. Is. Nicaragua Nicar. Somalia Somal.

FOREWORD
SISYPHUS’ LAMENT, PART IV: STYLE AND THE SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT*
Oscar Franklin B. Tan**
“Don’t let it be forgot That once there was a spot For one brief shining moment that was known As Camelot.”1

The first time I sat down in Justice Vicente V. Mendoza’s class, he opened his lecture by stating that law has two elements: logic and rhetoric. He stated that logic forms the bedrock of our jurisprudence, but it is rhetoric that makes Constitutional Law so potent and so seductive. That is, he cautioned, one must read cases with great care, lest one be ensorcelled by the rhetoric and miss the actual logic.

* This article closes the discussion of Volume 79’s philosophies in law review management. See Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part III: Citation and the Little Black Book, 79 PHIL. L.J. 541 (2004); Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II: Editing, or the Student’s Art of Not Being One’s Own Worst Enemy, 79 PHIL. L.J. 233, (2004); Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part I: The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Legal Writing, 79 PHIL. L.J. 7 (2004). Cite as Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part IV: Style and the Seduction of the Supreme Court, 79 PHIL. L.J. 876, (page cited) (2004). The Board would like to thank the following students who volunteered to help with Issue 4 and have been informally designated as the JOURNAL’s interns: Melissa Telan (Head of Features), John Fajardo (Co-Head of Marketing), Leandro Angelo Aguirre (Co-Head of Marketing), Robert Ty (Webmaster), Joshua Trocino, Nestor Molina, Bo Tiojanco, Arthur Alicer, Janice Lee, and William Varias. All are from the Class of ’08, except for Mr. Varias who is from the Class of ’06. ** Chair, PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL; Member, Student Editorial Board (2004). Fourth Year, Ll.B., University of the Philippines (2005 expected). B.S. Management Engineering / A.B. Economics Honors, Cum Laude, Ateneo de Manila University (2001). First Freshman Awardee, Justice Irene R. Cortes Prize for Best Paper in Constitutional Law (2002). Awardee, Professor Araceli T. Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Law (2003). First Awardee, Professor Bienvenido C. Ambion Prize for Best Paper in Private International Law (2004). 1 “Camelot (Reprise),” sung by King Arthur in the musical Camelot by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Lowe. The play opened at the Majestic Theatre on December 3, 1960. The part was originally played by Richard Burton.

876

2004]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

877

However, he asked, does this mean that one must separate the logic from the rhetoric like grain from chaff, and ignore the latter like so many sweet nothings whispered into a lover’s ear? “No,” he exclaimed, “we want those sweet nothings!” Similarly, logic and rhetoric combine to form the substance of law reviews. Sound logic is what makes for a good journal. Thus, the Volume 79 student editors (and their loyal office intern sidekicks) have taken great pains in deliberating over article structures and patterns, in editing everything from grammar to awkward legal personifications and incongruous mixed metaphors,2 and in implementing a citation format that conforms to international standards. Only rhetoric, however, can make a good journal great. Only style can inflame ideas with passion and give them the power to transcend the intellectual plane that is presumably the domain law lords over. Only style can imbue writing with its most powerful potential characteristic: immortality. It is style that infuses mere words with all the warmth of a lover’s embrace, and allows them to linger in the mind as a lady’s longing stare does before one is finally forced to turn and walk away. Student editors, then, must seek to master style, both as they warmly inspire authors as evangelists rouse their flocks, and as they coldly prune and snip at words as sculptors coax beauty out of featureless stone. I stated at my induction as Chair that the JOURNAL must, first and foremost, “serve as a handmaiden of jurisprudence.”3 To borrow Justice V.V.’s teachings, then, student editors must strive to do no less than seduce the Supreme Court on the academe’s behalf. I. LAW SCHOOL AND THE DEATH OF ART Too many, however, appear to believe that this is best achieved by being frigid. A sophomore once made the mistake of entering the JOURNAL office with an editor and then initiating a discussion on the difference between creative and legal writing – implying that JOURNAL articles tended to lean away from the former. His mistake was that I happened to be sitting on

See also James Lindgren, Review Essays, Fear of Writing, 78 CAL. L. REV. 1677 (1990). 3 Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part I: The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Legal Writing, 79 PHIL. L.J. 7, 7 (2004).
2

878

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

the other side of the room, and promptly turned around and asked, smiling, what the difference might be. He had an immediate reply, but froze in midsentence, his face frozen in the expression of a child told that Santa Claus does not exist. This told me what his tongue suddenly declined to. He had been about to say that legal writing is, first and foremost, distinguished by the presence of footnotes. It must be “cluttered up with little numbers until it looks like the Acrosses and Downs of a cross-word puzzle,”4 and the clutter must itself be accompanied by a mess of parenthetical comments in small print that occupy at least half of each page. Second, he had been about to say that legal writing must be characterized by grammatical eccentricities completely divorced from plain English. It must, for example, adhere to the passive voice, and turn sentence structures on their heads such that subjects are always at the ends of sentences. Pronouns, further, are profanities that must be avoided at all costs. In fact, in the name of precision, legal writing must employ lengthy noun phrases that are repeated at least every other sentence. Most of all, its legal nature must be made unmistakable not just with Latin maxims, but with alien artifacts such as “hence,” “heretofore,” “aforecited,” “therewith,” and most of all, the sacred “said.” This last is paramount – no Volume 79 article has ever suffered any loss of meaning when I excised all its “saids,” so it must serve solely to mark the passage of a lawyer’s pen, a seeming mark of Cain but with less utility. Finally, it must be as disjointed as possible, and contain as many two-paragraph subsections as possible. Third, he had been about to say that legal writing must not only be dry and neutral, it must be devoid of any soul whatsoever. I recall one deliberation for an Evidence article where the author slightly overused the metaphor of a treasure hunt. The article was itself hurriedly written and would require several heavy-handed deletions and the rewording of entire sections if the author proved incapable of curing all its verbosity and fluff by himself. Sitting across me, however, was an indignant editor who must have been a boring bean counter in a past life,5 and this editor launched into a tirade against lawyers and their corny imagery. The prescription was for all

Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews, 23 VA. L. REV. 38, 41 (1936). I have nothing against accountants, boring or otherwise, but given my undergraduate degree in B.S. Management Engineering, it remains too tempting for me not to let an opportunity to poke fun at the stereotype pass.
4 5

2004]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

879

JOURNAL articles to be “simple,” “straight,” “direct,” and as antiseptic as a

contract of sale for compost. In short, my forever anonymous sophomore had been about to say that law school’s daily lobotomy had implied to him that legal writing has become a necessary evil, that academic discourse has mandated an idolatry of the most grotesque abominations ever unleashed on the English speaking human population. So apparently powerful is this homogenization and hegemonization of thought that it never occurred to him until he stood openmouthed in the middle of the JOURNAL office to ask how the same collective human unconscious could produce passages as disparate as:
She walks in beauty, like the night Of cloudless climes and starry skies; And all that’s best of dark and bright Meet in her aspect and her eyes:6

And:
[H]ere is the legal translation that has been offered for the simple, everyday phrase, “I give you this orange.” Know all men by these presents that I hereby give, grant, bargain, sell, release, convey, transfer, and quitclaim all my right, title, interest, benefit, and use whatever in, of, and concerning this chattel, otherwise known as an orange, or citrus orantium, together with all the appurtenances thereto of skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice, to have and to hold the said orange together with its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice for his own use and behoof, to himself and his heirs in fee simple forever, free from all liens, encumbrances, easements, limitations, restraints, or conditions whatsoever, any and all prior deeds, transfers or other documents whatsoever, now or anywhere made to the contrary notwithstanding, with full power to bite, cut, suck, or otherwise eat the said orange or to give away the same, with or without its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, or juice.7

His, perhaps, may not be a unique mindset among law students. How many law review editors, for example, have ever questioned their selfperception that they must be the high priests who enforce slavish adherence to the incantations of this pseudo-religion mistaken for legal writing?

George Gordon, Lord Byron, She Walks in Beauty, in THE GOLDEN TREASURY (Francis Palgrave ed., 1875). 7 James Gordon III, How Not to Succeed in Law School, 100 YALE L.J. 1679, 1689 (1991).
6

880

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

Perhaps, at the very least, these frigid accountants reborn have never tasted love, nor have they ever seduced or been seduced. II. RETRACING THE FALL OF MAN AND LAW STUDENT One laughs at all this supposed legalese and gobbledygook, and at supposedly lesser law journals that showcase articles written as though they were contracts complete with the numbers in parenthesis such as “one (1),” and with covers that still blatantly clone the Harvard Law Review’s even after more than a century’s passage. It is easy to assume that the University of the Philippines College of Law, given how it prides itself in producing students with a pronounced analytical bent, is above such tomfoolery. This, sadly, is not the case, and I can say this with all the exhaustion of a Chair who has had to heavily edit several student articles for style or risk inducing bleeding in readers’ eyes. I can also say this as someone who personally knows that the authors averred to were students of excellent academic standing and agile minds. This begs the question: At which point between the admissions test and graduation day does this tainted facsimile of legal writing creep into law students’ minds? Perhaps the law professors are to blame? This, however, is impossible since they have been demanding clear, concise writing since time immemorial both to ease the burden of checking exam papers and to boost students’ chances at the Bar exam. Moreover, the very best mount their own personal campaigns to preserve rhetoric. Justice V.V. makes his students memorize passages from Marbury v. Madison8 to, in his words, arm them with the proper vocabulary for the discussion of Constitutional Law.9 Dean Raul Pangalangan takes great care to emphasize the memorable lines in great precedents, down to Justice Louis Brandeis’s:

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). See also Vicente V. Mendoza, Foreword, Enrique M. Fernando: Friend and Teacher, 79 PHIL. L.J. 863, 867 (2005). “From him, generations of students – including no less than eleven who at one time or another were members of the Supreme Court – heard of Malcolm and Laurel in the same breath that they heard of Holmes, Brandeis, and Cardozo from him. But for Chief Justice Fernando, these great names would perhaps only be ancestral voices from a dim and distant past. Because of him, however, these great figures came to life, and it is now a mark of distinction for us to cite or quote them.”
8 9

2004]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.10

881

Style is certainly at its most seductive at legal practice’s highest tiers. Contesting the constitutionality of the Anti-Plunder Law11 on deposed president Joseph Estrada’s behalf, Dean Pacifico Agabin prefaced his opening pleading with a quote from Cicero. Curiously, the government could only retaliate with one from Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, saying that the former president stood naked before the Court, and that his arguments amounted to nothing. Dean Agabin’s riposte bewailed how the government could only cite children’s fairy tales against his client, and had to spend over fifty pages refuting “nothing.” I kept the pleadings from that case during my freshman year, and have Dean Agabin to thank for saving my mind’s tongue from corruption. Perhaps, then, the Supreme Court is at fault, since it almost exclusively provides the classroom material for law schools. This, however, is an even more absurd proposition. While I have on occasion vented my ire against the indecipherable texts of some early American Justices, these are certainly overshadowed by the George Malcolm’s scholarship:
Completely liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.12

Even assuming some decisions are below par, it is unimaginable how one could learn legalese from the likes of Justices Gregorio Perfecto and Jose B.L. Reyes. Finally, if the early United States Supreme Court had John Marshall, then its Philippine counterpart certainly had Jose P. Laurel:
[W]hen the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 480 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Rep. Act No. 7080 (1991); Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 377 SCRA 538, Nov. 19, 2001. 12 United States v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731, 739 (1918).
10 11

882

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

is in truth all that is involved in what is termed “judicial supremacy” … But much as we might postulate on the internal checks of power provided in our Constitution… In the last and ultimate analysis, then, must the success of our government in the unfolding years to come be tested in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts than in consultation rooms and court chambers.13

If the cream of the Philippine judiciary could give a good account of themselves vis-à-vis Holmes, Brandeis and Cardozo, who then is to blame for stultified student minds? Certainly not the practitioners, because I complain of student papers with sound logic but atrocious rhetoric. Cafeteria food, perhaps? Whatever the problem’s root, it is undeniable that too many students come to perceive the artifacts of legalese as an easy crutch in lieu of clarity, articulation, and truly regal writing, never mind how inexplicable it is to equate obfuscation with lawyerly caliber. The bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code proposed:
“For the early Church… mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the Church out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as the sole conduit to God. For obvious reasons, they worked hard to demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the same.”14

Perhaps a parallel argument can be made for the lingual docility I decry. If so, then law students must break free, come to grips with their suppressed intellectual passions, and seek to reclaim the full might of style. III. THE ROLE OF STUDENT EDITORS Law journals’ student editors must be the first to shake off the sickening mindset I have described, and realize that they are the last defenders of academic civilization against the barbarians at the gates and the hordes of literary mediocrity. Theirs is a taxing and lonely vigil, but they must be willing to go to the lengths the most ardent of suitors would if the Court is to take note of the academe’s caress. Logic, again, is powerful, but it takes rhetoric to make it immortal.
13 14

Angara v. Electoral Comm’n, G.R. No. 45081, 63 Phil. 139, 158, Jul. 15, 1936. DAN BROWN, THE DA VINCI CODE 309 (hardcover prtg., 2003).

2004]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

883

Sadly, the grievances I have described are not even new. Yale professor Fred Rodell decried “the antediluvian or mock-heroic style in which most law review material is written” and protested: “There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content.”15 He added that “a pennyworth of content is most frequently concealed beneath a pound of so-called style.”16 More recently, University of Wisconsin professor Lawrence Church bemoaned:
For most lawyers, bound by imperative constraints on time and energy, but assailed with the burgeoning mass of legal materials, the solution is entirely predictable: only the most succinct secondary materials can afford to be read. All the others can be spared at most a cursory glance to see if they might be interesting. Unfortunately, many law review articles, bulky and encrusted with form as they are, do not fare well in this selection process.17

Northwestern professor Robert Lansing quipped:
“My article has lungs…. It wishes to breathe; but I fear that before it can do so, it will inhale the sea of monotony that engulfs it. Its body will be made to wash up on distant shores – forgotten before it was gotten.”18

University of Minnesota professor David Bryden stated:
The style of legal scholarship violates every precept in a manual of expository writing: it is abstract, plodding, pompous, and prolix. … … In our profession, however, most reading is in the line of duty: getting ready for class or preparing an article. It is no accident that bureaucrats write just as badly as we do. Like us, they are free from the discipline of the market. … If the leading article on equitable estoppel is boring, why that’s just too bad. You still have to read it to get ready for your ten o'clock class.19

Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews, 23 VA. L. REV. 38, 38 (1936). Id. 17 W. Lawrence Church, A Plea for Readable Law Review Articles, 1989 WIS. L. REV. 739, 742. See Alfred Conard, A Lovable Law Review, 44 J. LEGAL EDUC. 1, 1-2 (1994). 18 Robert Lansing, The Creative Bridge Between Authors and Editors, 45 MD. L. REV. 241, 243 (1986). 19 David Bryden, Scholarship About Scholarship, 63 U. COLO. L. REV. 641, 647 (1992).
15 16

884

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

Finally, University of Puget Sound professor Pierre Schlag wrote:
On the whole, reading mainstream scholarship leaves one with the impression that the authors don’t like their jobs very much – but that they have a strong sense of duty and that the rule of recognition for duty is pain.20

Let it not be said in the UP College of Law, thus, that there is an irreconcilable difference between creative and legal writing, nor that lawyers are craftsmen and not artists. I have always believed that the sexiest part of a woman, if it is at all proper to admire a lady piecemeal, is her mind. That said, student editors cannot claim to have hurdled the bar of excellence until each article bears, on an intellectual level, all the warmth in a lady’s tight embrace and each issue can extol society’s most cherished values with all the radiance of a lady’s smile. Perhaps one day, too, even taxation articles will partake of a setting sun’s poetry. So ends the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL’s 90th Anniversary term. I hope that the next student chair will continue this search for the full magnificence of style, for rhetoric to bolster logic. I hope, too, that he or she takes to heart all the many reforms Volume 79 has implemented, the many conventions it has initiated, and the many dreams that remain unfulfilled still. I hope, further, that he or she will be able to see beyond the muchhyped prestige and the much-coveted resume entry that comes with heading the JOURNAL, and instead finds the brand of passionate scholarship the institution continually demands. And most important of all to the true artist, I hope he or she believes in love at first sight. AFTERWORD It is hard to believe that my term is practically at an end, and that Issue 4 is in the press barely four months since the Volume 79 Board’s induction. Surprisingly, of all the Malcolm community’s student and faculty members, only Dean Pacifico Agabin gave me a knowing smile regarding the title of this series of forewords: Sisyphus’ Lament. Little wonder, perhaps, that I consider him the man who nurtured my forays into legal writing, and told me one Saturday morning in the law library that good writing entails intellectual courage more than anything else.

20 Pierre Schlag, Comment, The Brilliant, The Curious, and The Wrong, 39 STAN. L. REV. 917, 927 (1987).

2004]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

885

Sisyphus is the epitome of hopeless labor, condemned to forever roll a boulder up a slope only to see it rush back down each time. No one else truly understood why I chose this cryptic mythological reference to depict the JOURNAL Chair’s lot. I still marvel at how the seven Volume 79 student editors and ten volunteer student interns – almost all freshmen and sophomores at that – accomplished so much in so short a time given all the problems we began with. Our computers are so slow and obsolete that I have actually ordered students not to work in the JOURNAL room, and the replacements got lost in a sea of UP red tape. We made do with an elaborate Internet chain that stretches from the Fajardo law offices in Makati to May Ann Rosales’s workstation in the Department of Foreign Affairs. A previous editorial board had incurred a 33% wastage rate – one out of every three pages from the full print run had to be replaced due to typographical errors – and this was mistakenly imputed to our Board. The printing presses ground to a halt for several weeks despite our violent protests until the matter was settled. Some subscriber records were lost, but a number of past issues were apparently undelivered because subscribers declined to send payments for Volume 79 until these back issues were delivered. Our Board began with a grand total of three paid subscriptions. Worse still, we could not immediately solicit new subscriptions because I realized that the subscription price was below cost. Perhaps the worst problem of all was my own emotional state. I had been appointed Chair at a time when I was so thoroughly disillusioned with the JOURNAL as an institution. I found out I had been named Chair when Dean Agabin walked up to me one Saturday morning and informed me personally, before the official announcement. I found myself in a pensive mood beside the Malcolm Theater, and another student, now curiously our neighbor in the adjacent Jessup Room, asked me how it felt to be the new Chair. Unsmiling and with quite a bit of sincerity, I believe I turned and answered her that I was not quite as happy as I expected I would be. My thoughts had turned to what I felt were sometimes random article deliberations, editing that was at times crude or overly high-handed, a lack of deference to authors on doctrinal topics no student editor could possibly have mastered already, an ever-higher ratio of student theses, and a forever anonymous idiot of an editor’s conscious decision to disregard Harvard Law Review international citation standards. Prestige was the last

886

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 79

thing in my mind at the time, perhaps just a freshman year memory of Dean Agabin encouraging me to take the editorial exam during one conversation in the corridor. A teacher’s wish weighs heavily in the Confucian ethos, and if the best wanted me to undertake the Herculean – perhaps Sisyphean – task of tackling the institution’s many problems, so it would be. I choose to write all this down not in an attempt to tarnish the
JOURNAL’s ninety-year reputation, but perhaps to perpetually remind my

successors that writing is an art, a discipline, and a formidable challenge, not a venue to seek prestige. I harp on prestige because of the JOURNAL’s inherent lack of accountability: a Chair receives this much-coveted prestige upon appointment, and it remains with him or her regardless of performance. Additionally, I wish to emphasize that managing the JOURNAL presents so many administrative challenges that have little to do with actual writing or editing, and neither do the solutions. Professor Eduardo Labitag even teases me for being my own circulation manager, and where indeed is the prestige in having to hand out copies of the JOURNAL yourself? Perhaps I feel that the Volume 79 editorial board has done its share in rolling the boulder up the hill,21 and my deepest fear is that it will roll back down someday. If the written word’s power lies in its immortality, then perhaps the writer fears meaningless obscurity. This is likely the lot of our trip up the slope should the stone later slip once again, and perhaps the consignment of our Herculean labors to the forgotten Sisyphean oblivion of a dusty shelf is something to fear indeed.

- o0o -

21 This was done, incidentally, with quite a bit of assistance from the College and Law Center staff: our office’s staff members Virgilet Encarnacion and Edwin Birong, Sally Casis and the Dean’s Office Staff, Elise Ochoa and the Associate Dean’s Office, our Accounting Officer Bella Desamito, our favorite librarian Evelyn Cuasto, Luz Sobrevinas and the Property Office, and Manny Abaya and the printing department’s complement (who more than earned that bottle of Fundador).

SISYPHUS' LAMENT, PART V: REINVIGORATING THE PHILIPPINE

LAw JOURNAL

AS THE

CRUCIBLE OF LEGAL WRITING *

"[AJdministering a lawjournal is like dancing on the edge of a k ife. On n one hand, a student editor cannot allow the institution to lose its moorings to tradition and lose itse!f in the tides of time. On the other, he must nevertheless heed the call of impatient, hot-bloodedyouth and constantlY incotporate new ideas and technologies.To paraphrase Dean RoscoePound, the JOURNAL must remain stable, but it cannot stand still.''1 -Oscar Franklin Tan, ('Si!yphus'Lament, Part I" (There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. Oneis its style. The other is its content."2 -Fred Rodel4 "Good!?Jeto Law Reviews"

PHIUPPINE

Nothing could possibly have prepared me for chairmanship of the LAw JOURNAL. The incomparable bliss soon gave way to harsh reality and the sensation of a great weight settling itself upon my shoulders. Oscar Franklin Tan described this same sensation in 2004:
[T]he incumbent PHIUPPINE LAw JOURNAL Chair felt rather incompetent when he ftrst stepped into the Justice Alex Reyes Room,

• S~hus' Lament was a series of essays written by Oscar Franklin Tan that serve both as a chronicle of his term as Chair of Volume 79 and as instructional tools for future editors, including Oscar's Little Black Book, the JOURNAL'Sitation manual (Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, S~hus' c Lament, Part III: Citation and the Little Black Book, 79 PHIL L.J. 547, append. I (2004)). Cite asJuan Paolo Fajardo, Foreword, Sisyphus'Lament, Part v.. Reinvigorating the Philippine Law Journal as the Crucible of Legal Writin~ 83 PHIL. LJ. 5, (page cited) (2008). - Chair, PHILIPPINE AwJOURNAL L (2009; Member, 2006). Violeta Calvo-Drilon-ACCRALAW Scholar for Legal Writing (2009). Clerk, Office of Supreme Coutt Associate Justice Carpio Morales (2oo8-present); J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law (2009 expected). AB Economics, C1im/aude, Ateneo de Manila University (2004). The author wishes to thank. the following professors who encouraged me to pursue the art and craft of legal writing: Dean Raul C. Pangalangan, Dean Marvic MVF Leonen,Jesus M. Disini, Associate Dean Patricia S. Daway, and Rafael Morales, Francis Jardeleza, and the rest of the UP College of Law Class of 1974, whose undying support ensures that the JOURNALnd legal writing in the College will remain forever vibrant. a 1 Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, S~hllS' Lament, Part I: The Nest Ninetl Year.r and the Transcendence of Legal Writin~ 79 PHIL L.J. 7, 12-13 (2004), citing Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REv. 457, 475 (1897); ROSCOE POUND, INTERPRETATIONS LEGAL HISTORY 1 (1923). OF 2 Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, S~hllS' Lament, Part IV: Stile and the Seduction of the Supreme Court, 79 PHIL L.J. 876,876 (2004), quoting Fred Rodell, Goodbye to Law Reviews, 23 VA. L. REv. 38, 38 (1936).

opened the first envelope addtessed to him, and read the words "Justice Vicente V. Mendoza" on the stationery.3

I began my relationship with my jealous mistress as a freshman intern under the now legendary Chair Tan. 4 My load only weighs heavier when I realize that it is the same once borne by a great mentor who finished his issues in four months, set the university record of eight Best Paper prizes then delivered the 2007 graduation speech at Harvard Law School. I painstakingly checked the footnotes of hundred-page articles, checked individual words for precision beyond accuracy, bordered on harassing authors via phone and e-mail, and jealously nursed each issue from the time the materials are gathered until the issue is printed and released for distribution.5 I remain awestruck by how a student board can bear almost 95 years of tradition and authors of peerless caliber on its largely inexperienced shoulders.6 Nevertheless, it is not enough to simply release our required four issues nor to implement the usual cosmetic improvements. The Journal must represent a more profound tradition of excellence.7 I recall how my mentor articulated a threefold vision: 1) "handmaiden of jurisprudence ... the academe's monitor and critic regarding the evolution of the Supreme Court's doctrine";8 2) "vehicle for education, one that stimulates both the academe and the profession";9 and 3) "[venue for] the [broader] education of the select few chosen as student editors".l0

3 Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus'Lament, Part II: Editing, or the SlIIdent's Art of Not Being One's Worst Enenry, 79 PHIL. L.J. 233,235 (2004). 4 That first batch of PHlLIPPINE LAwJOURNAL interns, in addition to myself, was composed of Leandro Angelo Aguirre (Chair, Vol. 81), ryan Dennis Tiojanco (Editor, Vol. 80,82), ark Parcia (Editor, Vol. 81), B M Gerard Joseph Jumamil (Editor, Vol. 82) Nestor Molina, Janice Lee, Melissa Telan, Josh Trocino, William Varias and Arthur Alicer. 5 Irene Cortes, Legal EdNcation in the Philippines: The Role of thePhilippine Law Journal in the 1990's, 65 PillL.

0"",

L.J. 1,1(1990).

• For discussions of why the legal profession in particular has studenrs administer irs academic journals, see Tan, Sisyphus' Lament, Part II, supra note 2; Richard Posner, The Fulll,. of SlIIdent-Edited Law Review,47 STAN. L. REv. 1131 (1995). 7 Cortes, supra note 5, at 2. 8 Tan, Sisyphus'Lament, Part I, supra note 1, at 7. Oscar Franklin Tan surveyed the Supreme Court's citations of the PHlLIPPINE LAwJOURNAL from 1991 2003 counted 23in this period, although these were to and mosdy "appended to a historical or technical point in a preliminary discussion, or suggested for further reference." Id. at 10.n comparison, the Court made 21Harvard Law Reviw citations in the same period. I 9 Id. at 12.

These remain challenges that the present Editorial head on. In this spirit, I hope to continue Si!JPhus'Lament.!'

Board must meet

My such as efficient seeks to

mentor, for all his artful prose, outlined highly practical initiatives more focused article solicitation, closer editor-author ties, more administration and harnessing visual media.12 The present Board build on past boards' contributions and explore new directions.

In the JOURNAL'S 95th year and the University of the Philippines' centennial, beyond being a "handmaiden of jurisprudence,"13 this Board seeks to revisit the JOURNAL's role as "a vehicle for education"14 and to constantly emphasize its context within the state university of a developing democracy. Ideas must give meaning to action and the JOURNAL must actively give voice to advocates in issues such as indigenous peoples rights, social welfare legislation, reproductive health laws and judicial integrity. I need look no further than my predecessors. Chair Tan, beyond writing extensively on judicial review and human rights,15 wrote on harnessing intellectual property law to protect developing countries' biodiversity rights, the underlying social justice thrust in interpreting the Securities Regulation Code and mathematical arguments for filling all partylist seats.16 My co-intern Chair Leandro Angelo Aguirre wrote on legal ethics

10

!d.

The titlearosefroma privatejokebetweenDeanPacificoAgabinand ChairTan. "Sisyphuss the i epitomeof hopeless labor,condemned foreverrolla boulderup a slopeonlyto seeit rushbackdowneach to time.No one elsetrulyunderstoodwhyI chosethis crypticmythological referenceto depictthe JOURNAL Chair'slot."Tan, Sisyphus'Lament, Part IV; supra note2, at 885.Tan'sgreatestfearwasthat a lessdedicated Chairinterestedprimarily a resumeentry mightsoon allowthe boulderto quicklyroll back down,a in sentimenthatcasta mighty t shadow thechairman on ofVolume 80. 12 Tan,Sisyphus' LAment, Part 1, supra note1,at 17.
n
13 14

Id. at 7. Id. at 12.

IS E.g., OscarFranklin Tan,Articulating the Complete Philippine Right to Privaq in Constil7ltional and Civil lAw; A Tribute to Chief Justice Fernando and Justice Carpio, 82(4)PHIL. .J.78 (2008)(Volume82 waserroneously L paginated;hisarticleappeared Issue4);OscarFranklin t in Tan, The 2004 Canvass: It is Emphaticalfy the Province and Duty of Congress to Say What Congress is, 79PHIL. .J.38(2004) L (Justice IreneR.CortesPrizeforBestPaper in Constitutional Law,2005);OscarFranklin Tan, Marriage Through Another Lens: Weighing the Validity of SameS ex Marriages By Appfying Arg,uments to Bisexuals and Transsexuals, 81PHIL. . . 789(2006). LJ " OscarFranklinTan, The Mandotory DisC/oSN,. &qui"",ent as a Third World TRIPS Riposte:&rogniifng Traditional Knowledge,Prior Art, and the Lochan Ideal, 79Phil.L.J.457(2004) EstebanB.Bautista ( Prizefor Best Paper in Intellectual ropertyLaw,2005);Oscar FranklinTan, Mandotory Tender Offers as a Tool ftr the P

issues in corporate law alongside Joe Concepcion, founder of the ACCRALAW litigation department and himself a former JOURNAL Chair, who discussed these issues in a large firm context 17 These readily illustrate how perceived commercial-oriented fields are equally venues for intellectua l advocacy. The JOURNAL must thus constantly remind the profession that the notion of service underlies the practice of law in its myriad aspects.18

The third role in Si!JjJhus' Lament, Pari I, to serve as a venue for student editors' expanded education, is no less important and is intertwined with the broader goal of inspiring excellence in legal writing among the studentry. The JOURNAL must step beyond its already lofty pedagogical duty in classroom learning.l9 It remains rare to see the likes of sophomore Marcelino Veloso III, who wrote a legal paper in his free time and bested seniors enrolled in Supervised Legal Research classes to win the 2008 Araceli T. Baviera Prize for Best in Civil Law.2o The present Board has thus institutionalized the PHiliPPINE LAw Intemship Program. This has been formalized in three ways: first, it has the Dean's full support; second, it is open to any UP Law student; and third, the final list of volunteers has the Board's imprimatur.21 This is an immensely positive development, as Chair Tan was restricted by his faculty

JOURNAL

Democralizalion oj Wealth: Artial/aling the SEe's Broad Precedent in Nat'l Lift Ins. Co. Cemm Holdings, Inc., 80 PHIL. v. L.J. 479 (2006) (First awardee, Gonzalo T. Santos Prize for Best Paper in Securities Law, 2005); Oscar Franklin Tan, The Party-List System Revisited: Unmvenng Hidden Pitfalls in Present &form Proposals, 82(3) PHIL. L.J. 181, (page cited) (2008); Oscar Franklin Tan, The Philippine Party-List Experiment: A Tragetfy ojFJawed Mathematics and PoJiq, 78 PHIL. L.J. 735 (2004) (First Awardee, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza Prize for Best Critical Analysis of a Supreme Court Decision, 2005). 17 Leandro Angelo Aguirre, From Courlroom to Boardroom: Evolving Conjlict oj Interest &lies 10 Govern the Corporate Pra&ticeojUzw, 81 PHIL. L.J. 291 (2006); Jose c. Concepcion, Ethics and ExccelJencefor Young Uz"!Yers in InstiflltionaJ Uzw Firms, 81 PHIL. LJ. 221 (2006). 18 Cueto v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 5798, 449 SCRA 87, 92, Jan. 20, 2005. 19 Cortes, SlljJra note 5, at 2. ,., Marcelino V doso m, Virtllal PrujJtr!'J Rights: A Modified Uslljruct oj Intangibles, 82 Phil. LJ. 37 (2008). 1bis feat was previously accomplished only by Oscar Franklin Tan as a freshman, as a sophomore and as a junior, and by Mark Dennis Joven as a sophomore. Oscar Franklin Tan, Touch Me Not: Expanding Constitutional FramtlPOries 10 Challenge LTO-Required and Other Mandatory DfJlg Testing,76 PHIL. L.J. 620 (2002) (First freshman awardee, Justice Irene R Cortes Prize for Best Paper in Constitutional Law, 2002); Mark Dennis Joven, Taxation ojBusiness Profits Under the Philippine Tax Code and Tax Treaties, 8 PHIL. L.J. 627 (2003); Oscar Franklin 7 Tan, The InternatWnai Shoe StiD Fits tbe Virtllai Foot:A Due Process FramtlPOrk for Philippine Internet Personal Jurisdiction Problems, 79 PHIL. L.J. 1029 (2005) (First awardee, Professor Bienvenido C. Ambion Prize for Best Paper in Private International Law, 2004). Both went on to attend Harvard Law School. 21 After rigorous sdection, the following comprise the JOURNAL'S second batch of interns: Patricia Hernandez, Alain Baguisi, Mary Rhauline Lambino, Karl Landoy, Danid Luis Convocar, Jo Blanca Labay, Michdle Sabitsana, Patrick Guidote, Donald Segui, Darwin Angeles, Jilliane de Dumo and Francis Baday.

adviser's refusal to support the first batch of interns , for fear that they would hold themselves out as editors after graduation. "[A]rticle deliberations actually consume a very small fraction of the total time expended. Far more time is spent ... [on] source checking and formatting .... [Interns] deload the editors and give the latter more time to review articles and do background research."22 Further, interns provide manpower for administrative tasks and projects, which I feel can be made as significant as the four issues each year. For example, my first batch of interns helped organize the JOURNAL'S 2004 Supreme Court Term Review, an unprecedented weeklong symposium where I witnessed an impromptu debate between Dean Pacifico Agabin and Justice Vicente V. Mendoza on the language of Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commisison,23 Professor Araceli Baviera entering the classroom of Professor Eduardo Labitag and telling the latter's students to attend her lecture in the auditorium instead and Court of Tax Appeals Presiding Justice answer highly technical questions of taxation law in rapid succession (including one from an actual trial judge hiding in the audience). More importantly, however, the unprecedented hands-on trauung prepares interns for the annual JOURNAL exam. I say this as precisely a product of such training, along with Chair Aguirre. Hopefully, this obvious advantage attracts the most promising lowerclassmen into the pool and, in addition, encourages them to try earlier for a coveted Prize for Best Paper. These promising interns will ideally serve as the JOURNAL'S bridge across time, ensuring continuity of the best Chairs' work culture and values.

Led by Interns Rhauline Lambino, Patricia Hernandez, and Alain Baguisi, the JOURNAL has finally executed the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL Digitalization Project, originally conceptualized by Justice Antonio Carpio in January 2005 in collaboration with then Dean Pangalangan and then Chair Tan. This project is crucial given how admittedly difficult it is to research JOURNAL articles compared to foreign journals digitized in the Westlaw database.

Tan, Sisyphus'Lament, Part I, supra note 1, at 16. G.R. No. 158693, 442 SeRA 573, Nov. 17, 2004 (regarding violation of statutory due process in dismissal of workers, overruling a previous decision penned by Justice Mendoza).
22 23

With the full support of Dean Leonen and the Supreme Court Library staff under Director Milagros Santos-Ong, the process of digitizing almost a hundred years' worth of JOURNAL articles has begun. These will eventually be featured in the Supreme Court E-Library and made accessible in the UP College of Law through an official PHILIPPINE LAw JOURNAL Website, a project also initiated by this Board. It is a dream come true, and I recall the frustration of gathering impossible seven-figure digitization quotes with Chair Aguirre in 2004, until Chair Tan spoke to Justice Carpio.

Oscar Franklin Tan outlined one transcendental VISIon as the JOURNAL'S 90th Anniversary Chair: "to make the JOURNAL even more relevant and effective in the years to come."24 He cited "the need to keep ties with tradition, and the need to innovate for the institution's growth."25 Five years later, at its first dinner meeting, this Board aspires to take the same JOURNAL even greater heights and fulfill each of its three roles. We to resolve not to be content with merely releasing four issues (though this is in itself a formidable challenge and the bar is to release issues showcasing the next Irene Cortes, Jose B.L. Reyes or Antonio Carpio).26We hope to serve as catalysts of change, to be worthy of answering the clarion call to become not only legal theoreticians but also torchbearers of justice, and not only legal technicians but also trailblazers in every human endeavor.27
When the environment to which a species has become adapted changes, the species must change, or eventually die out. The studentedited law review arose in and became adapted to one environment, that of law conceived as an autonomous discipline centered on the attainment of logical consistency of legal doctrine -- what Max Weber called formal rationality. The environment has changed. Preoccupation with the formal rationality of legal doctrine has given way, in the upper reaches of the legal academy at any rate, to preoccupation with the relation between those doctrines and the larger society that law is supposed to serve.28

24 25 26

Tan, Siryphlls' Umrent, Part I, srpra note 1, at 17.

Id. Id. at 12.

1:1 Conchita Carpio Morales, The Philippine Law JOllrnal and the Centennial Year of the University of the Philippines, 83 PHIL. L. 1, 4 (2008). J. 28 Richard Posner, The Film,. of the Smdent-edited Law &view, 47 STAN. L. REv. 1131, 1138 (1995).

FOREWORD SISYPHUS’ LAMENT, PART V.I:∗ LAYING FOUNDATIONS AND REINFORCING AN INSTITUTION THROUGH AN EFFECTIVE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
Johann Carlos S. Barcena∗
Membership in the editorial board of a law review is a much-coveted opportunity many students aspire for. Indeed, for law students, membership in a law review opens doors for prospects of further studies or lucrative employment.1 But much lament has been made on the inexperience and incompetence of student editors of a law review.2 According to Judge Richard Posner, student editors are “inexperienced not only as students of the law but also as editors, writers, supervisors, and managers.”3 Others have gone so far as to mock this predicament that befalls the institution.4 Needless to say, this trouble of inexperience and incompetence of student editors on the workings of a law review in turn affects the stability of the institution. I. The Workings of a Law Journal

∗ The internship program has been previously discussed by Chair Juan Paolo Fajardo in his Sisyphus’ Lament, Part V. Thus, considering the fact that the idea is not his own but is a mere continuation of a practice pioneered by Chair Oscar Tan and institutionalized by Chair Fajardo, the author opted to number his Lament in this wise. Cite as Johann Carlos Barcena, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part V.I: Laying Foundations and Reinforcing an Institution through an Effective Internship Program, 84 PHIL. L.J. i, (page cited) (2010). ∗ Chair, PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL (2009; Member, 2006); J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law (2010). 1 See Conchita Carpio-Morales, Foreword, The Philippine Law Journal and the Centennial Year of the University of the Philippines, 83 PHIL. L. J. 1, 2 (2008); citing Bernard Hibbitts, Last Writes: Reassessing the Law Review in an Age of Cyberspace, 71 NEW YORK UNIV. L. REV. 615 (1996). 2 See Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II: Editing, or the Student’s Art of Not Being One’s Own Worst Enemy, 79 PHIL. L. J. 233 (2004); Carol Sanger, Editing, 82 GEO. L. J. 513 (1993). 3 Richard Posner, The Future of Student-Edited Law Review, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1131, 1132 (1995). 4 Professor Roger Cramton drew up a rather amusing fictional conversation on article deliberation by student editors in ‘The Most Remarkable Institution’: The American Law Review, 36 J. Legal Educ. 1, 8 (1986); cited in Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II, supra note 2, at 236-37.

i

ii

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL
A. Editing

[VOL 84

It is indeed true that “law students who are ambitious enough to join a journal staff do not always have an editorial background or training.”5 The same is most true for the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL considering that since the time of its organization up to the present, those qualified to become members of the editorial board are chosen on the basis of academic excellence.6 This is especially troublesome for the JOURNAL considering that students from the College of Law have never been taught how to edit an article. As aptly noted by Professor Perea:
In most cases, this is not a skill we are born with; it must be learned over a significant period of time. Unfortunately, the law review process as we know it provides neither the training nor the time to both learn to be an effective editor and to perform good edits.7

Notable as well is the fact that the closest encounter of an ordinary law student to the workings of the JOURNAL is during their senior year when they are asked to write their supervised legal research papers as a required subject of the law curriculum. But certainly, to learn how to write an article is much different from learning how to edit one.8 I too have once fallen victim to this quagmire of inexperience in editing (or perhaps more appropriately, it was the JOURNAL that fell victim to my inexperience). During my stint as member of the editorial board of Volume 81, Chair Leandro Angelo Aguirre sent me an article on corporate takeovers to edit. I stared blankly at the computer screen utterly clueless on what I was supposed to do. Being a sophomore then, I had not yet taken any course on commercial law; and worse, I did not have a clear idea on what ‘edit’ entailed. For unlike him, I had not the privilege of undergoing an internship program under Chair Oscar Tan prior to my membership in the Editorial Board. Thus, it seems that students vie for a position they haven’t the faintest clue of the duties and responsibilities that come with it. To put it more bluntly, students do not know what they are getting into. B. Article Solicitation
Terri LeClercq, The Nuts and Bolts of Article Criteria and Selection, 30 STETSON L. REV. 437, 437 (2000) Amelia Custodio, History of the Philippine Law Journal, 35 PHIL. L.J. 1461 (1960). 7 Juan Perea, After Getting to Yes: A Survival Guide for Law Review Editors and Faculty Writers, 48 FLA L. REV. 867 (1996) 8 For a discussion on substantive and technical editing, see Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II, supra note 2, at 241-45.
5 6

2010]

FOREWORD

iii

Justice Irene Cortes9 noted that part of the problems in publishing the JOURNAL is that the dearth of contributions can at times be acute.10 Faculty contributions have not always been forthcoming, especially now when the U.P. Law Center is coming out with two faculty-edited journals. Members on the editorial board also may not readily respond to the call for contribution, or seriously take the editorial task of putting out the JOURNAL. This is the price of pooling together academically excellent students who constantly struggle to maintain their academic standing. Hence, the task of making the JOURNAL relevant and up-to-date has long eluded its editors.11 As Chair Tan aptly stated, to begin editing upon receiving the final draft of an article is already too late. One must oversee an article from its conception until it finds its way into the Journal.12 The editorial board therefore, must be proactive and must seek not just articles already finished, but must also initiate and influence its creation. Indeed there is no better way to answer that clarion call to come out with a relevant JOURNAL other than by identifying pressing and nascent legal issues and then seeking experts in such field to fill the lacuna in the law. The JOURNAL has always been an instrument for legal education and guidance. Such a proactive role requires no less than a proactive process. However, new members of the editorial board are not always aware of the manner by which the JOURNAL acquires articles for publication. Some may actually think that they are to wait for articles to be submitted for publication. And for those who are aware that acquisition of articles entails proactive solicitation, not all possess the network or connections to experts in different fields of law, nor do all have the audacity to approach and engage them to write an article on what seems to be a gray area in the present state of law and practice. More importantly, the members of the editorial board themselves are expected to write notes or comments, if not full-blown articles, on nascent issues of law. As JOURNAL editors, they too have to contribute to the wealth of legal literature. II. Solutions and Problems to Solutions
9 Former Associate Justice; Faculty Adviser of the JOURNAL; member of the Editorial Board; and Dean of the College of Law. 10 Irene Cortes, Legal Education in the Philippines: The Role of the Philippine Law Journal in the 1990s, Lecture delivered during the 75th Anniversary Symposium of the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL. 11 Id. 12 Tan, supra note 2, at 247.

iv

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 84

To remedy such problem of inexperience on the workings of a law journal, it has been suggested that “law journal members should begin educating next year's staff the day the new staff is chosen” and that such education should “include both a formal exchange of information and an informal shadowing of the current editor.”13 This remedy, however, is not without its own difficulties. First, is the reality that members of the editorial board constantly struggle to maintain their academic standing on top of the responsibilities of putting out the JOURNAL. Such is indeed the price of pooling together academically excellent students to work on an admittedly extra-curricular endeavor. Thus, once their term ends, members of the editorial board focus all their time and energies to studying and would not take too seriously “shadowing” the new members of the editorial board (that is assuming they even take up the task). Second, the editorial board normally has graduating seniors as members. Needless to say, after they graduate these people hole up in some undisclosed place in preparation for the dreaded bar examinations, and afterwards, go on that much deserved traditional long vacation. By the time they get back in circulation, the academic year would be nearing its end. Half of Volume 84’s editorial board is in fact composed to graduating seniors. Finally, I do not think it has ever been prudent tactics to send soldiers off to war and then only teach them how to fire a gun when they enter the combat zone. In the same vein, there is just something not right as well about teaching incumbent members of the editorial board how to be members of the editorial board. Browsing through the almighty Google, it appears that some law reviews have surmounted this problem of inexperience through a promotion system in their selection of Editorial Board members. In the Akron Law Review for example, students who have completed the first year program in the school of law may be candidates for membership as Assistant Editors – subject to certain academic qualifications as well. Upon successful completion of the requirements of service to the law review as an Assistant Editor, they are automatically promoted to the position of Associate Editor Elect. And it is only these Associate Editors Elect that are eligible to serve as members of the Editorial Board. Moreover, none of these Associate Editors
13

LeClercq, supra note 5.

2010]

FOREWORD

v

Elect can serve as a member of the Editorial Board unless they have completed the second year program of the school of law. This is in stark contrast to the system of the PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL wherein a student, at the beginning of his/her sophomore year, can actually become the Chair of the JOURNAL – without prior experience or exposure to its workings.14 Other law reviews such as the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review have opted to invest in freshman students and to train them on the workings of the law review. These freshmen may choose to volunteer with the law review as Assistant Editors – for substantive evaluation of papers in a particular topic area – or as Production Editors – for technical editing and polishing of accepted papers. Hence, at the end of their freshman year, certain students have already been exposed to substantive and technical editing and are equipped to take on the greater task of being a Senior Editor. III. The Philippine Law Journal Internship Program (PLJIP) It appears that the present system of selection of the Editorial Board of the JOURNAL places a high premium on talent and knowledge of the law. However, such talent and knowledge cannot be a complete substitute for skill and experience in running a law review. To remedy this predicament, the JOURNAL turns to its internship program. When Chair Tan pioneered the internship program, he “was restricted by his faculty adviser’s refusal to support the first batch of interns, for fear that they would hold themselves out as editors after graduation.”15 Ironically, Volume 84 opted to continue this internship program revived under Chair Fajardo’s term out of a greater fear that relatively inexperienced members of the editorial board would indeed hold themselves out as editors after graduation. For while there is no misrepresentation in doing so, there may however, what can very well be considered a breach of warranty if they were not able to acquire the level of skill and experience expected of a member of the Editorial Board. While the Chair practically has unbridled power to lay down the rules and policy for his/her Volume, this power does not include the appointment of members of the Editorial Board, as such members are
14 In the recent history of the JOURNAL, however, only Chair Maximo Paulino Sison III was able to accomplish this feat, chairing Vol. 82 during his sophomore year. 15 Juan Paolo Fajardo, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part V: Reinvigorating the Philippine Law Journal as the Crucible of Legal Writing, 83 Phil. L. J. 5, 8-9 (2008).

vi

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VOL 84

chosen solely on the basis of the qualifying examinations.16 Thus, the system of promotion of law reviews such as the Akron Law Review cannot be adopted by the Editorial Board.17 What the JOURNAL is able to adopt is a system akin to that of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review with the difference that (a) the interns of the JOURNAL are not part of the Editorial Board; (b) the internship program is open to all year levels; and (c) they undergo a screening process as determined by the Editorial Board.18 It is assumed that those who undertake to take part in the internship program aspire to become members of the Editorial Board. Thus, apart from teaching interns the unappreciated skill of citation, they are taught methods of research and advanced legal theories as well. But more importantly, the program aims to impart to the interns a philosophy of scholarship and a tradition of excellence. For while law students take courses on legal bibliography and legal theory during their freshman year, only true scholars fully appreciate the value of such knowledge. All this in the hope that eventually, these interns will find their way into the Editorial Board, and it is in this way that we lay down the foundations of the succeeding editorial boards so that they will stand firm against the bludgeoning of inexperience. Fortunate is Volume 84 that majority of its members have prior experience with the workings of the JOURNAL. As earlier mentioned, I myself was a member of the Editorial Board of Volume 81, while Vice-Chair Mary Rhauline Lambino was an intern under Chair Fajardo’s Volume 83, along with Michelle Sabitsana. Among the other members, Maximo Paulino Sison III was himself Chair of Volume 82, while Gerard Joseph Jumamil was an intern under Chair Oscar Tan and also member of the Editorial Board of Volume 82. Through the internship program and a bit of luck, succeeding Boards will hopefully have experienced members among them as well. But the envisioned reach of the internship program far extends beyond membership in the Editorial Board. It has been remarked that articles and comments found in prominent law reviews in the United States – such as the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, and the Columbia Law
16 New Rules Governing Membership in the Student Editorial Board of the Philippine Law Journal, III(E) [Last amended, Jun. 27, 2009]. 17 On the basis of the New Rules, it would seem that the power to amend the Rules Governing Membership in the Student Editorial Board rests with the PLJ Board of Judges – which changes every year – and subject to the approval of the Dean of the College of Law. 18 In the internship programs of Chairs Tan and Fajardo, however, students were accepted into the internship program by simply volunteering for the task. But the number of those who wish to volunteer have significantly increased, thus necessitating a screening process to cut them down to a more manageable number.

2010]

FOREWORD

vii

Review – find their way into the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court “partly because of the influence of their law clerks who had been with these law reviews during their law studies.”19 Of the eight-member editorial board of the JOURNAL, it is indeed rare that even just one of them goes on to clerk in the Philippine Supreme Court. But by extending training to students other than those in that eight-member board, the probability that a student schooled in the philosophy of the JOURNAL will find his/her way to the highest court of the land and influence Philippine jurisprudence, not just in form, but also in substance. Who knows, perhaps even the problem of lack of uniformity of citation in Philippine Supreme Court decisions will be solved as well.20 Indeed, the road towards the institution of the internship program has been long, but the journey that lies ahead, is even longer. And for the following individuals, that journey has just begun: JOURNAL INTERNS (VOL. 84) TINA ANDREA AMADOR MICHELLE ARIAS PAOLO CELERIDAD JAYSON LOPEZ MARK CHRISTIAN LUCIANO NATHAN MARASIGAN ALEXANDRIA IXARA MAROTO GOLDA MINOZA ROSELLE JEAN NONATO MA. ANGELICA PAGLICAWAN RICHMUND STA. LUCIA -o0o-

Jovito Salonga, On the Philippine Law Journal, 79 PHIL. L.J. 541, 543 (2004). See Oscar Franklin Tan, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part III: Citation and the Little Black Book, 79 PHIL. L.J. 547, 555 (2004).
19 20

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful