Editorial: Joke? No!

ANYBODY who had been to Malcolm Hall in UP Diliman would have been confronted with the words, etched in stone, of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., then Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. In his 1886 oration before an alumni homecoming of Harvard Law School, delivered as part of the larger celebration marking the 250th anniversary of Harvard University, Mr. Justice Holmes said: "So I say the business of a law school is not sufficiently described when you merely say that it is to teach law, or to make lawyers. It is to teach law in the grand manner, and to make great lawyers."

Indeed, the business of a law school is not to teach content for students to memorize by rote but rather to teach students how to think - critically, analytically, bi-directionally, strategically - with the letter of the law and the spirit of it as gleaned from jurisprudence as their abundant resource. Mr. Justice Holmes continued: “The aim of a law school should be, the aim of the Harvard Law School has been, not to make men smart, but to make them wise in their calling - to start them on a road which will lead them to the abode of the masters.”

The Rotary Club of Manila’s roster is replete with fine examples of men who were taught law in the grand manner, whether at Malcolm Hall or at other temples consecrated to the honing of the finest legal minds. And I have complete confidence that each one of them will attest that their experience in law school, what they have gone through to reach graduation, was no joke. In fact, Philippine law schools are known to have high attrition rates, some even seeing a reduction of up to 30% of the class size come graduation.

Passing the bar is no cakewalk either. Data will show that generally, over 50% of bar takers would fail. Recent years’ passing rates illustrate this, to wit: 2025: 48.98%; 2024: 37.84%; 2023: 36.77%; 2022: 43.47%. In the 2012 Bar Exams, only 17.76% of the takers passed.

Recent developments in the country have thrust lawyers into the limelight. In deliberating on the propriety of selecting an impeachment presiding officer, certain senators mentioned having or not having a law degree and passing the bar as important considerations. At the impeachment court, a counsel for the respondent, in cross-examining a prosecution witness, himself a lawyer, mentioned the impeached official as having passed the bar on first try and perhaps getting a higher grade than the others present in the chamber. RCM’s GOHAS for this meeting received a multitude of reactions, both favorable and unfavorable depending on which side of the political spectrum one is lodged, over his mastery of legal procedures, calm composure, and respectful demeanor as he sparred with both the defense and some senator-judges on the motion to subpoena bank, tax and AMLC records.

Do these descriptors - graduating from a famed school of law, passing and topping the bar, mastery of legal procedures, oral eloquence, succinct writing prowess - make a lawyer great? Should a lawyer who graduated from an unheralded college and barely passed the bar exams but regularly got his clients redress for grievances be seen as less than another who is from contrasting circumstances? Would the magnitude of the acceptance fee and per hour billing be a fair measure of being a great lawyer? What actually makes a lawyer great?

To answer this question, perhaps one should reflect on the role of law in human society. It can be asseverated that law is not only vital in preserving peace and order in society through its dispute-resolution mechanisms but, more importantly, provides the stable foundation and enabling environment wherein individual rights and collective necessities are managed, resources are justly allocated, and space for the fair pursuit of happiness is created. The rule of law defines what one is entitled to, how he or she can acquire it, what guarantees he or she has to enjoy it, and what consequence awaits anyone who illicitly upsets this well-arranged applecart.

Thus, a great lawyer is one who uses his mastery of the nuances of law and jurisprudence to assist in maintaining this harmonious balance in society, provide relief to anyone unfairly wronged within this milieu, and contribute, through well-penned arguments or scholarly research, to the continuing development and evolution of legal theory and practice.

By way of an example, there was once a great lawyer who achieved fame as the only Filipino, thus far, to top both the certified public accountant (CPA) board exams and the bar. In fact, this lawyer was one of probably only a handful of those allowed by the Supreme Court of the Philippines to take the bar exams without graduating with a degree in law, which is a feat unto itself. His intellectual prowess is indubitable, having graduated valedictorian in high school and summa cum laude in college. And his mastery of laws and legal procedures served him in good stead as he began his many years of outstanding private legal practice. But this lawyer’s greatness was not because of these accolades.

This lawyer’s greatness, attested to by conferment of the Order of Lakandula among other honors, rests on his use of these intellectual and material blessings to speak truth to power by investigating massive government corruption even to the point of losing his job; resigning from a political party he nurtured or from a human rights portfolio he loved as soon as staying became inconsistent with his moral principles; coming to the aid of those whose human rights were impinged by martial law by establishing and leading the Philippines' first pro bono legal service group; championing human rights whether on the streets of Manila or at regional conferences in Asia; publishing sound legal commentaries on the burning issues of the day; and by putting the free and enabled Filipino first in all his advocacies. “Even if we have to wade through blood and fire, we will be free. We will develop. We will build our own societies. We will sing our own songs,” he said.

He was Jose Wright Diokno accountant, lawyer, Secretary of Justice, Senator of the Republic, founder and chair of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), chair of the Civil Liberties Union, secretary general of the Regional Council on Human Rights in Asia, chair of the Presidential Committee on Human Rights, head of the first Philippine government panel that conducted peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front, loving husband to Carmen Icasiano Diokno and devoted father to ten children.

Will the apple fall far from the tree? Our GOHAS today, Jose Manuel Tadeo “Chel” Icasiano Diokno, a member of the 20th Congress representing the Akbayan partylist in the House of Representatives, is a respected human rights lawyer, educator and public servant. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from the University of the Philippines-Diliman and graduated magna cum laude with a juris doctor degree from the Northern Illinois University. He passed the Illinois bar exam in 1987 and the Philippine bar exam in 1988. He is the founding dean of the De La Salle College of Law, now known as the Tañada-Diokno School of Law, where he emphasized ethics, public service and social justice in legal education.

Like his father, Chel served as FLAG chairman and also held advisory roles in government, serving under presidents Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos as part of the Presidential Committee on Human Rights, the same committee that his father chaired. From 2017 to 2019, he served as presidential adviser on human rights to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Since 2022, he has chaired the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation. He was a private prosecutor during the impeachment trial of former president Joseph Estrada; he is now a member of the House prosecution panel in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. He is married to the former Divina Aromin, with whom he has six children.

Will the spring rise higher than its source? Let’s watch and see.