Tuesday, March 30, 2010

By the way...

I'm not confident I'll pass all my subjects. I'm not confident that I'd still be eligible to enroll next sem at the Ateneo.

I remember last year, when people found out I didn't pass the UP LAE and that I'm going to Ateneo Law instead, many told me, "okay lang yan, Ateneo lang yan, kayang-kaya mo na yan. Hello!"

Haha, Ateneo "lang" my foot.

It was in Ateneo Law where I was first unsure of my standing as a student. It was in Ateno Law where I first experienced hoping to get at least a 75 as a FINAL GRADE. It was in Ateneo Law where I first felt so inadequate. It was in Ateneo Law where I first felt like I have such a low I.Q.

The first ever lesson I got from Ateneo Law was not even law-related. It was something more basic: humility. My first week? It was a very humbling experience, I must say.

If I fail in more than two subjects or if I don't meet the required QPI, then I would have to say goodbye to Ateneo. If that happens, I'll either take a year off and work first (for experience), or I'll just go to another law school. Ateneo made me realize that if you really want to be a good lawyer, no prior rejection should hinder you from pursuing your dreams and for working hard to earn them. If I get kicked out of Ateneo, that's sad. But life will go on. I'll still go to law school. We'll be studying the same laws and jurisprudence anyway. Only difference, I guess, lies in the environment, the exam questions, and/or the workload. But pretty much, everything's the same. So life shall and will go on. And I'll still be a lawyer :)

To me, the "[*insert school here*] or nothing" mentality is twisted. What do you really want in life anyway? To be a student and graduate of [*insert school here*], or to be a/an [*insert profession here*]? The former is just the means, the latter is the end. Sure, it can be argued that some schools offer a certain kind of formation that others don't. And if that's what you want MORE than the latter, then by all means, subscribe the "[*insert school here*] or nothing" mentality :)

Fight, fight, fight!

I was not prepared AT ALL

But the Crim exam was surprisingly v. much answerable. Haha, this Finals, it was the first time I felt sure I'd pass an exam.

I still maintain that I was not prepared in the real sense of the word. It was God's Grace at work :) I only focused on our professor's book (a lot lot thinner than RPC Book 2 of Reyes), on the elements of the major crimes, and on the comparison of similar crimes. So I was hoping those are the only things he'll ask. And lo and behold--- the answers to the first 15 items can be found in his book (30 points right there yeah!), then for the next ten items (another 30 points), we were just asked to differentiate certain crimes, and then for the last part, we were asked to solve some problems, which, I must say, were not as complicated as the ones we were asked to answer before.

I still made a number of mistakes. But I'm not complaining. I'd be happy just to pass, considering I was not seriously focusing on studying a day before the exam.

When I saw the questions, I felt like I heard Him say, "o, ayan na ang wish mo ha!"

Last night's exam was just a proof that everything, really, is God's grace. Whatever we do, let's always remember to give thanks to Him. After all, even the work of our hands are really nothing but a manifestation of His amazing grace at work :)

THE "A" YEAR IS ALMOST OVER! JUST ONE GROUP PAPER (a critique of any Supreme Court decision, applying everything we've learned in our Legal Technique & Logic class) AND THE "A" YEAR IS DONE :) Here's to hoping I'd still get to be an Atenean law student for the 1st and 2nd "T" years, and for "Y" year. And then, the "." year a.k.a. "preparing for and passing the Bar Exam."


Friday, March 26, 2010

Prayer for the day

Lord, I humbly ask you to please bless me today with a calm heart, a sharp mind, and a fighting spirit.

I can’t lose this battle; it’s crucial to the war.




Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Dear Finals,

I really, really, really want to still be an Ateneo law student next sem. Universe, work with me ;)

Anyway, I just want to share my favorite case so far: DECS v. San Diego. Attached below is a digest of that case, which I made :) It's about a student who failed the NMAT five times. My future doctor friends would appreciate this much, I suppose ;) But like Justice Cruz said in that case, "this is true of any other calling in which public interest in involved." So I guess, this goes for all my friends who are still pursuing a degree at the moment ;) For the non-law schoolers, I promise this is worth reading :)

The issue before us is mediocrity. That is the opening line of Justice Cruz as the ponente of this case.
• The question is whether a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test is entitled to take it again.
• DECS contend that he may not, under its 3-flunk rule. Private respondent insists that he can on constitutional grounds.
• So who is the private respondent in the first place? He is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree in BS Zoology. After failing the NMAT thrice, he applied to take it again but petitioner rejected his application.
• Pending his original petition invoking his constitutional right to academic freedom and quality education, he was allowed to take the NMAT again, subject to the outcome of his petition. Actually, according to a footnote in the said case, he had taken the exam four times and is actually applying for his fifth exam, which he also failed.
• In his amended petition, he challenged the constitutionality of the 3-flunk rule.
• The respondent judge ruled in favour of private respondent, stating that he was deprived of his right to pursue a medical education.
• The Supreme Court reversed that decision.
• It noted that in Tablarin v. Gutierrez, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure intended to limit the admission to medical schools only to those who have proved their competence and preparation for a medical education.
• It noted that the question is most usefully approached by recalling that the regulation of the practice of medicine has long been recognized as a method of protecting the health and safety of the public. Thus, legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to practice medicine must first take and pass board examinations have long ago been recognized as a valid exercise of governmental power.
• The regulation of access to medical schools is closely related to that.
• Hence, in Tablarin, the Court ruled that the government is entitled to prescribe the NMAT as a means of “upgrading the selection of applicants into medical schools” and of “improving the quality of medical education in the country.”
• So anyway, going back to the case at bar, the Court said that there is no reason why the rationale in the Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at bar. The issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the applicant.
• As earlier discussed in this class, the proper exercise of police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method.
• As to the subject, it is undeniably the right of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives.
• As to the method, the challenged rule is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law. It is intended to insulate medical schools and the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.
• The Court, thus, made an important distinction: while every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor. This is true of any other calling in which the public interest is involved. The closer the link, the longer the bridge to one’s ambition.
• The right to quality education is not absolute, but is, rather, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements
• As to the issue that the rule violates the equal protection clause, the Court also held that contention to be untenable, there being a substantial distinction between medical students and other students not subjected to the NMAT and the three-flunk rule. This is because the medical profession directly affects the very lives of the people, unlike other careers which do not require more vigilant regulation.
• Also, the Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise.
• Quotable, also, is the Justice Cruz’s comparison which goes like this: While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.
The Court stressed that it is for the appropriate calling that he is entitled to quality education for the full harnessing of his potentials. Otherwise, as Justice Malcolm notes, we may be swamped with mediocrity, not because we are lacking in intelligence but because we are a nation of misfits.

DISCLAIMER: That is not the proper way of making a case digest haha but I structured that in such a way that that is what I plan to exactly recite if I do get called to recite on that case. (I didn't, unfortunately.)


Reading the quotables from that case never fails to remind me why I'm here in the first place. Some might see that case as having a discouraging tone but to me, it's something that keeps me on my toes ;)


Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Now now now

how do I unlearn my phobia in terrestrial animals?


I’m both scared and excited. 70% and 30%, respectively.

Here’s the sched:

April 8-11: Basic Orientation Seminar (Tagaytay)

April 12-18: Immersion (somewhere in Mindoro, with the Mangyans). In preparation for this, I need to condition my body for the 4-hour hike and, most important of all, my mind, for the possibility that I might be sleeping with animals—-and *gasp*, be surrounded by animals 24/7. But who knows? Maybe my passion for doing this might cure my phobia? So help me God.

April 19-May 25: Internship Proper. I still don’t know where I’ll be assigned. During the interview, the three sectors I chose were in this order: children, indigenous peoples, peasants.

And one week either in Bohol or Boracay for an all-expense paid R&R :)

It’s pretty daunting, I realized. I was so sure about it before applying, but after the interview, I started having doubts. Can I manage? Anyway, God gave me this opportunity. That in itself must be a sign that I can do it, right? :) If I survive this whole thing, I feel like I’m going to be a changed person after. If. Please do pray for me :) And seriously, I have to get rid of my phobia!!!

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

I just want to say...

...that I have sucha wonderful roommate <3

Very few know my true feelings about a lot of things. It's quite easy to open up. In fact, I share a lot about myself, my life. But for most people, I share very limited things, filtered versions. Not exactly lies, just not the entire story. I guess it can be somehow likened to a horcrux. Different people know different things about me.

It only occurred to me today in histo-rhee--*gasp* I'm apparently a very reserved person. Despite the fact that I explain myself too much and that I rant and rave a lot, I just realized that only a few people, maybe less than 5, really knows me well enough.

And all along I thought my life is almost like an open book. It's only today that I rhealized... I have actually been hiding in a shell.