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
examinees 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
anythinglaw, rule or treatythat 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-laws
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