To the adjudicator, to my co-debaters, to our dear professor, and to the people

within the 4 corners of this room, a pleasant afternoon. Today, I am given a

chance to take my stand against the Revised Law Curricula, proposed to the
Legal Education Board that will reduce the number of Bar Examinations subjects.
From 8 subjects namely: Civil Law, Labor Law and Social Legislation, Mercantile
Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law, Political and International Law, Legal Ethics
and Practical exercises and last but not the least, Taxation to 4 subjects
including: Political and International Law, Civil Law and Business Organization,
Criminal Law and Remedial Law. According to one of our professors, Bar
Examination is created for us to fail, not to pass. One of the major points that is
being accustomed by the revisers who wish to amend or to alter past regulation
to the Revised Law Curricula limiting the subjects to only 4 is it will be LAWPRACTICE ORIENTED and NOT BAR-ORIENTED. We can firmly believe that
this revision focuses and magnifies on the application. ARGUMENT ONE: THE
BAR EXAM MUST NOT BE ABOUT PRACTICE ORIENTATION. Bar exams
primary objective is to measure the mental capabilities, competency and
comprehension of every aspiring lawyer. You cannot apply/practice/execute what
you did not learn and what you did not shape yourself into. Accept it or not, be a
hypocrite or not, this examination serves as a basis of every bar takers mental
capacity. It is a foundation of future lawyers, it is the main reason why they are
striving so hard and enduring every hardship: and yes, it is for the bar exams.
This will be the basis that will best describe if a person is competent enough,
average or below average. If the present Bar Examinations coverage and
regulations arent the most suitable and satisfactory for our community, what
would you suggest? A Revised Law Curricula that will limit the critical thinking
abilities of the bar takers and which the productivity and adequacy are still
questioned? ARGUMENT TWO: Why do we need to change the quality and the
quantity of something when in fact it is already profound and suited? You cannot
find a person who took the exam and say it was easy. In the latest Bar
Examinations conducted, out of 5,984 who took the exam only 1,126 actually
passed, making the passing rate 18.82%. We can say that these passers are
filtered. Do we really need to change the type and the quality of something for it
to have a greater amount of passers or do we just need to retain everything
because it flows with the natural state of things. BAR EXAM DOES NOT NEED
APPRECIATION. ASPIRING LAWYERS NEED BAR EXAMS. Considering the
changes that will be done by the proposed curricula, how could we be so sure
that it will not downturn the quality of the legal education? What remedy has it
already offered? Or are there things that need to be fixed in the first place? The
proposition is indeed precarious and risky. Instead of being a subject field;
Taxation, Labor Law and Commercial Law will become just a set of elective. Law
schools will have the option to offer them these electives when they have chosen

to specialize on these given fields. JUST AN OPTION. As an observation, the

accuracy and the integrity of the bar will become indeterminate and dubious.
AND TO STATE A FACT, THE REVISION ISNT A SIGN OF STRENGTH, ITS A
WEAKNESS. Do you want to be called weaklings? With these, I rest my case.