kalawkohan.com

Questioning Traditions

Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur

Throughout my 6 years of UP life, there has nothing been more disturbing than witnessing events which showcase men in their utmost (wild) feminine side. Apart from such a feeling, my reasoning escapes me as to why such is perpetuated. Simply put, I find it weird.

I first heard of such an activity tracing way back to my days in Kalayaan Residence Hall. At that time, Ms. Eng (Engineering) was a big buzz circulating around. I thought it was the usual beauty pageant where gorgeous girls would compete for a beauty title. Yeah, right. I couldn’t have been so wrong when I witnessed it first hand. My initial reaction was: “What the hell…?” Good thing, I’m not from Engineering! (No offense intended; just pure reaction)

Entering Yakal Residence Hall, I was again confronted with the similar event. However, this time around, there lied the prospect of being chosen to participate in such an event. It was, after all, one big hullabaloo activity of the year. During the process of selecting candidates, every “certified male” was in fear of being nominated (through purchasing tickets). It was no laughing. We were made to understand that those who got chosen and decide not to participate would have to pay off the equal amount of the bet placed on his head or get evicted. That was how serious it was. Moreover, I remember a dormer (no, it wasn’t me) who filed a petition (and even posted around the dorm) questioning the propriety of such activity before the dorm manager, the council, and the dormers. Unfortunately, the prevailing majority wanted to keep and continue the “Yakal tradition” even to the expense of an individual’s dignity.

In the UP College of Law, I see such similar activity being perpetuated. As to why, I can only think of two reasons: (1) just for the heck of it (for fun argument), or (2) to continue tradition.

If it was for fun, surely there are many other ways of celebration than subjecting an individual to humiliation. Even first year law students know the very premise for which human rights were created – the respect for human dignity. Oh sure, one can bring up the wise-crack joke that law students don’t really have rights in the college. But, mind you, that joke applies to the relationship between students and professors. It has no application among students. (I am in no way reinforcing the joke by the way.)

If it was to continue tradition, I need not explain more but say that it’s an elementary rule in logic that such argument is a fallacy known as appeal to tradition. C’mon, traditions don’t have inherent validity in themselves. They are but the blind following of gullible individuals on the actions of those who have come before them.

In the last two reasons, it may be argued that no harm would have been done if the participants volunteered anyway. Well, I say, was it really out of their volition? Such question is subjective and is to be asked on the individual. Nevertheless, even if it was out of “free will,” the die has already been cast in relation to the impression that has been imprinted in the minds of the spectators. What these imprints are lies with how each one perceived the events.

There’s something with a baby, I tell you. (I’m referring to a child less than 1 yr old)

When I was riding a jeepney today, my attention was caught caught when I saw a baby (as described above). If I’m not mistaken, she’s just around 3 months or so. I say “she” because I noticed that her ears were pierced and she wore earrings. It’s really interesting how mothers impose their concept of “aesthetics” on their helpless children. To think of hurting a baby (method of piercing), for what? For beauty reasons? Jeez.

Anyway, that’s not really what I want to discuss about.

I realized, as I did tell a good friend, that there’s something with babies that can take anyone’s stress away. Well, at least, that so applies to me. Last year, in the height of my “survival period” as a freshman, I can recollect two such instances. First, while riding a jeepney from Philcoa to UP seated in front (driver’s row), a baby being held by his mother was being playful. At that time, I was so stressed out that I felt my body temperature rising. However, when the baby touched me, I started to feel relaxed and at peace. (Talking about “magic”). Second, I’m not quite sure but the same thing happened when I was with a friend in a mall.

In both instances, I can’t help but smile back at babies. I realize how lucky they are. Think of it, not so much adult stuff is introduced to them yet. The ideas, concepts, and philosophies of life are nothing to them. All they need to do is to eat, sleep, and play. How lucky indeed!

For the part of the adults, the burden is on us to keep society running, to uplift the economy, to promote justice and equality… and all those “big” responsibilities. In relation to children, ours is the responsibility to see to it that they have a better future and some day teach them, guide them, and pass on the responsibilities to them. I’m reminded of Jose W. Diokno’s essay entitled A Nation for Our Children, he says: “There is one dream that all Filipinos share: that our children may have a better life than we have had. So there is one vision that is distinctly Filipino: the vision to make this country, our country, a nation for our children.” (READ THE DIOKNO’S FULL ESSAY HERE)

Midterms period, na!

Last year, midterms were a bummer for most freshmen. It was understandable since most were clueless as to how the exams would be like. C’mon, this is law school we’re talking about - and not just any law school, this is UP LAW SCHOOL. The latter added more to the drama and suspense as days near the date of the exams.

Anyway, as what Llwellyn (in his book Bramble Bush) refers to as the sophomore’s responsibility to guide the freshmen law students, let me share some pieces of advice.

ONE: There are sample exams in the reserve sections at the 3rd floor library (not with Ate Con, as I’ve noticed some freshmen asking at Blessings). Actually, it’s just this year that I found out about it. I looked up some sample exams for some subjects and I was able to find some. If I’m not mistaken, the compilation of the sample exams is a project of the LSG (I see prints of LSG in the folders).

TWO: Focus on the provisions of law. Familiarize yourself with the important provisions and laws. How you would classify something as important will depend on your discretion and the focus of the class discussions. Take note - when answering exam questions, if there is a provision of law applicable, cite that FIRST, then apply the facts to it.

THREE: Caselaws supplement the provisions of law, i.e., if there is no applicable provision, that is the time you cite a case. When citing the case, don’t delve much on the facts of the case you are citing, but focus on the rule laid out by the Court. If you don’t know by now what a “rule” in a case is, you better ask your classmates!

FOUR: Have a good night sleep before the exam day. If you want your brain to work at full speed, it deserves a full rest before you push it to the limits.

Generally, there are two kinds of exams: (1) application of the law, and (2) policy/theory driven. They are not exclusive of each other, i.e., it is possible that the exam will have a part. It really depends on the professor.

In an application of the law type of questions, these are “bar-type questions” which would lay out the facts, then, you’ll be required to analyze and resolve them. In answering such questions, follow the IRAC method. (Before I continue explaining, let me just express my gratitude to a member of Scintilla Juris who took the time to review our class and teach us the IRAC method.) IRAC method goes like this:

• ISSUE: By now, you should be able to know how to identify issues in a particular set of facts. You can’t go analyzing without knowing what to analyze in the first place. In stating the issue, it may be couched in the “whether or not” clause. But, you may state in any way you’re comfortable with, so long as you clearly say that that is the issue(s). NOTE: There can be more than one issue, hence, keep a sharp eye for the other issues.
• RULE: What law applies? IF there is an applicable provision of law, state it first. When I say, state it make sure to cite your legal basis, i.e., you say from what law did you get it from. NOTE: It is not usually required by professors to cite the particular article or section. It is sufficient that you say where it can be found (e.g. 1987 Constitution, Civil Code, Family Code, Revised Penal Code, etc.). Also, it is not necessary that you state the law in verbatim (although it would be a plus point if you could) so long as you get the substance. IF there is no applicable provision of law but there is a similar case, state the name of the case and lay down the rule enunciated in that case (e.g. In Tsi Ming Tsoi vs. CA, the Court held that…).
• APPLY: After laying down the applicable rule, apply the facts to the rule. Make sure to qualify the facts to the rule.
• CONCLUSION: Well, conclude it afterwards.

NOTE: According to one professor, a good answer in such a question would not be more than 6 sentences. Be clear, concise, and direct.

In policy/theory driven type of questions, make sure to cite the theory and the authors who support such theory. In circumstances like these, analysis is what is being asked by professors. Can you connect the dots (i.e. the theories)?

C’est tout!