Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

1.

The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that direct examination of a witness, which is the
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant
to the issue, shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to the usual mode of
cross-examination. An affidavit in lieu of his direct testimony.

What language should be used in the affidavit?

A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if not in
English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.

What is the scope of application of this rule?

The applicability of this rule may refer to: (a) the courts where the rule will apply; (b) the
kinds of cases or proceedings where the rule will apply; (c) the stage of the proceeding.

Type of cases

This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of
evidence. However, the Rule shall not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC.

The Rule may apply to criminal cases in three situations, as follows: (1) The maximum of
the imposable penalty does not exceed six years; (2) regardless of the penalty involved,
with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, or where the accused agrees to the use of the
Rule.

The judicial affidavit shall contain the following:

1. The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

2. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the
witness and the place where the examination is being held;

3. A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious
that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or
perjury;

4. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that:

(i) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;

(ii) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and

(iii) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity
in accordance with the Rules of Court;
5. The signature of the witness over his printed name;

6. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer
who is authorized by law to administer the same.

7. Attestation of the lawyer.

What is a jurat?

A jurat, which is different from an “acknowledgment” as defined under the Rules on


Notarial Practice, refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in
person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally
known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence
of identity as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence
of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such
instrument or document. (Rule 2, Sec. 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-
8-13-SC)

What is the sworn attestation of the lawyer?

One of the problems with the Rule is the fact that judges only have limited opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses.

Moreover, even if lawyers briefed the witness, the oral answer given by the witness during
direct examination is almost wholly dependent on the witness. This is no longer true under
this Rule because the lawyer prepares the judicial affidavit which takes the place of the
direct testimony.

Thus, it is now required that the judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the
end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness,
to the effect that:

1. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the


corresponding answers that the witness gave; and

2. Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the latter’s answers.

To put teeth to this prohibition, the Rule provides that a false attestation shall subject the
lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment. There is no requirement
that the lawyer who prepared the judicial affidavit must be the one to present the witness
in court.

You are correct that the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is February 2,
1987, which is the same date it was ratified by the people. However, that is not the way to
answer Bar exam questions!
Being able to give that exact date is not the point of this simple exercise. The tendency of
most Bar takers is to take simple questions for granted and often giving them very simple
answers that even high school students can make.

If your answer is no different than that could be produced by a high school student, then
you’re not worth your salt as a graduate of the study of law. As a law graduate seeking
entry into the law profession, you must prove yourself worthy.

 Lesson 1. This problem, which appears to be very simple may actually be a complicated


one. So, you should be careful in determining what’s expected of you in this problem.

Lesson 2. This is an essay problem so don’t treat it as if it’s just an objective-type


question asking for just a date.

You might think that the simple answer, “February 2, 1987,” would already suffice. But if
that is your answer, then it’s really no different from an answer of a high school student. In
the mind of the examiner, he might ask, “Why? Why February 2, 1987?” So, you’re doomed if
that’s your only answer and nothing else. The worse thing that you could do in the Bar is to
leave the examiner with question marks in his mind after reading your answer.

But you might say, the problem didn’t say, “Explain,” so, why should you explain?
Please note, however, that the problem did not also say, “Don’t explain!”

Lesson 3. To explain or not to explain is not an option in the Bar. The rule is always


explain your answer no matter what. Just because the question did not
specifically require you to explain does not mean you don’t have to explain anymore.
Don’t forget, it’s the Bar exams, not a trivia quiz!

But should that simple matter really has to be explained? Can we not assume


that the examiner already knows the explanation! Well, for sure the examiner knows it, but
how would he know that you know it too? Remember, you’re the one being examined, so
you have to exhibit your knowledge and understanding to the examiner.

High school students & perhaps even grade school pupils are taught in their social studies,
history or sibika subjects that the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987. But
only law students know the reason “why” and that’s what differentiates law students from
high school students. So, highlight this difference and show them what you’ve got and why
you deserve to become a full-fledged member of the legal profession.

Lesson 4. Your answer should be responsive to the question & it must be in a


complete sentence. You can’t just write, “February 2, 1987,” as if you’re answering in a quiz
bee contest.
Since the problem says, “Give the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution,” the
responsive answer in sentence form should be: “The exact date of effectivity of the
1987 Constitution is February 2, 1987.” Or, “The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2,
1987.” 

Lesson 5. Don’t begin your answer with a pronoun as a substitute for the main subject.

Not good practice – “It took effect on February 2, 1987.”

Best practice – “The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987.”

Lesson 6. Don’t simply cite jurisprudence without explaining it too. For example:

“The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987 as held by the Supreme


Court in De Leon vs. Esguerra.”
 

Is there anything wrong with the said answer? Yes, it cites jurisprudence


without explaining or saying what that jurisprudence is about. Titles of cases are
meaningless unless you give the substance of their rulings. Worse, the 1987
Constitution did not take effect on February 2, 1987 because the Supreme Court said so
in De Leon vs. Esguerra. That’s not the real basis of why it took effect on
that particular date.

Lesson 7. Explain controversial stuff.

The date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution was a controversial thing. In fact, the


decision in De Leon vs. Esguerra was the subject of a strong dissenting opinion by Justice
Abraham Sarmiento because the practice before was that a constitution or its amendments
would take effect on the date that the results of the plebiscite were ascertained and
announced. Justice Sarmiento explained:
“It is my reading of this provision that the Constitution takes effect on the date its
ratification shall have been ascertained, and not at the time the people cast their
votes to approve or reject it. For it cannot be logically said that Constitution was
ratified during such a plebiscite, when the will of the people as of that time, had not,
and could not have been, yet determined.” 

Understandably so because you can’t expect people to act in accordance with a new


constitution beginning on the very date of the holding of the plebiscite because they
don’t know yet the results of the voting and there is yet no official proclamation
of whether it was approved or not.

Lesson 8. Always explain and give the legal basis of your answer or any conclusion you
make. Any conclusion without basis is a mere assertion. Anybody can assert, but
law students seeking admission to the Bar should know better than that. They
should be able to support any assertion they make. This is the essence
of lawyering and you’ve got to show this ability in your answer.

So, what’s the legal basis for the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987? Is
it because the Supreme Court said so in De Leon vs. Esguerra? No, it’s not the Supreme
Court that says when the constitution should take effect.

The basis is that the 1987 Constitution itself said so. Section 27 of Article XVIII of the 1987
Constitution states:
“This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose…”

MY SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is February 2, 1987.
 
The Constitution itself provides that it shall take effect upon its ratification by a
majority of the votes case in a plebiscite held for the purpose. (Article XVIII, Section
27) This plebiscite was held on February 2, 1987.
 
While the result of the plebiscite was proclaimed only on February 11, 1987,
said proclamation merely confirms the act done by the people in
adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite.
As held in De Leon vs. Esguerra, the act of ratification is the act of voting
by the people and not the ascertainment or proclamation of the result.
 
Therefore, the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is the date of its
ratification by the people during the plebiscite which was held on February 2, 1987.

 FORMAT OF THE ANSWER:

Note that my suggested answer is divided into four parts. This is the standard
in answering Bar exam essays:

1st Part – the exact responsive answer to what is being asked for  in the problem or


question:
The exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is February 2, 1987.

2nd Part – the applicable rule or legal basis of the answer or conclusion:


 
The Constitution itself provides that it shall take effect upon its ratification by a
majority of the votes case in a plebiscite held for the purpose. (Article XVIII, Section
27)

3rd Part – the explanation or application the legal rule to the facts or problem:


This plebiscite was held on February 2, 1987. While the result was proclaimed only
on February 11, 1987, said proclamation merely confirms the act done by the people
in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite.
As held in De Leon vs. Esguerra, the act of ratification is the act of voting
by the people and not the ascertainment or proclamation of the result. 

4th Part – the Conclusion or a reiteration of the conclusion:


 
Therefore, the exact date of effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is the date of its
ratification by the people during the plebiscite which was held on February 2, 1987.

USING THE I-R-A-C STRUCTURE IN WRITING EXAM ANSWERS

Issue Begin your answer by stating the issue presented by the essay question. Sometimes
the question will provide the issue for you. If not, then ask: What is the legal question that,
when answered, determines the result of the case?

Rule The rule describes which law or test applies to the issue. The rule should be stated as
a general principal, and not a conclusion to the particular case being briefed. The rule will
be the definition of the principle of law applicable in the case.

Analysis The analysis is the most important, and the longest, part of your answer. It
involves applying the Rule to the facts of the problem or question. You should use the facts
to explain how the rule leads to the conclusion. Discuss both sides of the case when
possible. Important: Do not merely state a conclusion without also stating reasons for it. A
conclusion without reasons or explanation means that you have not used the rule and the
facts to analyze the issue. Hint: The rule can be used as a guide in your discussion

Conclusion The conclusion is your answer to the Issue. State the result of your analysis. If
there are multiple issues, there must be multiple conclusions as well.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen