ESSAY

How to Answer Essay-Type Exams

What the examiner looks for
 Knowledge and understanding of the law
 Understanding of the facts and issues
 Presentation of ideas
Characteristics of a good answer
 Focus

 Structured

 Supported by authorities

 Well presented
Focus
 Answers should be purposeful and directed. It should
answer all parts of the question directly.

 Often times students write random ideas thinking that it

well help improve their scores because they know them.
Adding random unrelated idea will take the focus away
from the answer the examiner is looking for resulting to
reduction of points.
Structured
 Knowing the answer to the question will not matter if you
cannot communicate your idea properly. The ability to
communicate that knowledge depends on how you
structure your answer.
 The standard structure of argumentation is syllogism. Its
basic structure consists of major premise, minor premise
and conclusion.
 For essays the standard structure is thesis statement, rule,
application and conclusion or the “TRAC”.
 An alternative to TRAC is the basic syllogism.
Authorities
 An opinion has no value. What matters is the authority
supporting the answer.
 Primary source: Laws, rules.
 Secondary source: Case law.
 Third source: Comments by qualified individuals.
Well presented
 Examinees who do not observe the rules of the English
language are often thought to be less knowledgeable.
 Even if the answer has all three previous elements, the
examinee’s score will be less if the use of language,
spelling, sentence structure and handwriting will make it
difficult to understand
Tips on answering
 Understand the question
 Plan the answer
 Convey ideas in a structured manner
 Use relevant terminologies properly
 Support your answer with authorities
 Weave the laws or rules to the facts
Avoid the following
 Writing too much
 Writing a good answer to the wrong question
 Expect the examiner to figure out what you mean
Types of essay questions
 Situational or problem type
 Questions with a qualified answer
 Comparison
 Definition
 Describe, discuss or explain
 After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and
taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino
seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean
seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China
Sea. The vessel, although Pana-manian registered, is
owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When
M/V "Princess of the Pacific" reached a Philippine Port
at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the
assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An
information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash
the information for lack of jurisdiction.
2000 Bar Question
If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion? Why?
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for
the death of Anacleto? Explain.
 Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter
was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon him a
two-inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able
to hack Anacleto further because three policemen
arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did not
drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the
police at the prosecutor's office for attempted homicide.
Twenty-five days later, while the preliminary
investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to
the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection
on the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto
died the following day.
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
 BNN Republic has a defense treaty with EVA
Federation. According to the Republic's Secretary of
Defense, the treaty allows temporary basing of friendly
foreign troops in case of training exercises for the war on
terrorism. The Majority Leader of the Senate contends that
whether temporary or not, the basing of foreign troops
however friendly is prohibited by the Constitution of BNN
which provides that, "No foreign military bases shall be
allowed in BNN territory." In case there is indeed an
irreconcilable conflict between a provision of the treaty and
a provision of the Constitution, in a jurisdiction and legal
system like ours, which should prevail: the provision of the
treaty or of the Constitution? Why? Explain with reasons,
briefly. (5%)
 In case there is a conflict between a treaty and the
Constitution, it is the latter that prevails.

The principle of constitutional supremacy provides that

anything inconsistent or in conflict with the Constitution is
invalid. This principle applies to all laws, rules and
regulations, and even to treaties entered into by the State.
Consequently, a treaty will not be given effect if it is in
conflict with the Constitution.

Thus, it is the Constitution that prevails.

 In case of conflict between a treaty and the Constitution
it is the latter that prevails because of the principle of
constitutional supremacy. This provides that anything—law,
rule or treaty—that is in conflict with the Constitution is
invalid.
 Cristy and her late husband Luis had two children,
Rose and Jack. One summer, her mother-in-law, aged
70, took the two children, then aged 10 and 12, with her
on a boat trip to Cebu. Unfortunately, the vessel sank en
route, and the bodies of the three were never found.
None of the survivors ever saw them on the water. On
the settlement of her mother-in-law’s estate, Cirsty files
a claim for a share of her estate on the ground that the
same was inherited by her children from their
grandmother in representation of their father, and she
inherited the same from them. Will her action prosper?
(2000)
 No, the action will not prosper. Under the Civil Code,
when there is no proof as to who died first between persons
who are called to succeed each other it is presumed that they
died at the same time and there will be no transmission of
rights.

In this case, there is no proof that the mother-in-law died

ahead of the children; consequently, they are presumed to
have died simultaneously. As such, Cristy has no right to
inherit from her mother-in-law as any right therefor would
necessarily require that the death of her children was
subsequent to that of her mother-in-law. Thus, the action
will not prosper.
 No, the action will not prosper as the children and the
mother-in-law are presumed to have died at the same time
and there were no transmission of rights. Under the law, as
between persons who are called to succeed each other, in the
absence of proof as to who died first, it is presumed that
they died at the same time and there is no transmission of
rights. There being no transmission of rights in this case,
Cristy cannot inherit from her mother-in-law.
 Distinguish juridical capacity and capacity to act.
(1996)
 The difference between juridical capacity and capacity to act
are as follows:

(1) The former refers to the fitness to the be subject of legal

relations, while the latter refers to the power to do acts with legal
effects;

(2) The former is passive, while the latter is active;

(3) The former is inherent in every person while the latter is

merely acquired;

(4) The former is lost only through death, while the latter may
be restricted by causes other than death; and
 (5) The former can exist without the latter, but the latter
cannot exist without the former.
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? (1998)
 The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more
persons participating in the commission of a crime
collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators
although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act
in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a
common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy
shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation
in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be
deemed the act of all.
What do you understand by the archipelagic doctrine? Is
this reflected in the 1987 Constitution?
 The archipelagic doctrine emphasizes the unity of land
and waters by defining an archipelago either as a group of
islands surrounded by waters or a body of waters studded
with islands. For this purpose, it requires that baselines be
drawn by connecting the appropriate points of the outermost
islands to encircle the islands within the archipelago. The
waters on the landward side of the baselines regardless of
breadth or dimensions are merely internal waters.
 The archipelagic doctrine is reflected in the 1987
Constitution. Article I, Section 1 provides that the national
territory of the Philippines includes the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein; and the waters around, between, and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.
(a) "X" filed a case against the Republic of the Philippines
for damages caused his yacht, which was rammed by a navy
vessel.

(b) "X" also sued in another case the Secretary of Public

Works and the Republic of the Philippines for payment of
the compensation of the value of his land, which was used
as part of the tarmac of the Cebu International Airport,
without prior expropriation proceedings.

The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the two cases

invoking state immunity from suit. Decide. (1987)
 a.
In the first case, the motion to dismiss should be granted.
Under the principle of state immunity, the State cannot be
sued without its consent.

In this case, there is no showing that the State gave its

consent to be sued relative to the incident in question.
Neither is there implied consent as a naval operation is
ostensibly a juri imperii.

Thus, the motion to dismiss should be granted.

 a.
The motion to dismiss should be granted as the suit is
barred by the principle of state immunity. The said principle
provides that that state cannot be sued without its consent.
There being no express or implied consent in this case the
same should be dismissed.
 b.
In the second case, the motion to dismiss should be denied.
Although state immunity precludes the filing of suits against
the State without its consent, the same cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetuating injustice against a person.

The Bill of Rights ensures to the person that his property

cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.
Corollary thereto, the Supreme Court has ruled that when
government takes property for public use, subject to just
compensation, it makes manifest that it submits to the
jurisdiction of the court. In effect, an implied consent is made.
Thus, the motion should be denied.
 b.
The motion should be denied otherwise it would result to
injustice. The Supreme Court has ruled that immunity from
suit cannot be invoke to perpetrate injustice. In this case,
granting the motion would deny X the recourse to claim the
value for his land, thereby defeating the constitutional right
that no private property shall be taken for public use without
just compensation.
What are the requisites of a valid marriage?
 A valid marriage consists of essential and formal
requisites, to wit:

The essential requisites are: (a) legal capacity and (b)

consent freely given. On the other hand, the formal
requisites are: (a) authority of the solemnizing officer, (b)
valid marriage license, and (c) marriage ceremony.
The requisites of a valid marriage are as follows:

(a) Legal capacity;

(b) Consent freely given;
(3) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(4) Valid marriage license; and
(5) Marriage ceremony.
END