By Ricardo E. Escanlar III
One of the most common questions law students will encounter in their examinations is one where they are being asked to define. Not “define the relationship”- although there will be instances when students will have to do that during law school- but, rather, define the legal concept.
To illustrate what a proper answer to this type of question looks like, let’s use as an example this question in the 2019 Bar Exam, in Political Law:
A.5.
(a) What is the stop and frisk rule? (2.5%)
So, how do we approach this? When you are being asked to define a term or concept, the correct approach would be to anchor your definition on the appropriate law, which could be the Constitution, a statute or jurisprudence. That is because the Bar and law school exams are a test of legal knowledge, and the best way to show your legal knowledge is to cite the appropriate law. And an answer without any legal basis is just as good as stating your own opinion, and your opinions have no weight in law.
So, the best answer structure would look something like-
“The (term) is defined by (law/statute/jurisprudence) as a (definition).”
In this case, that would be:
“The stop and frisk rule was defined in the US case of Terry vs. Ohio and adopted by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in cases such as Manalili vs. CA. The rule states that if a police officer observes unusual conduct of someone which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal ability is afoot, he may conduct a limited warrantless search of the clothing of the person for weapons in order to protect himself and others.”
Let’s break down the anatomy of the answer and discuss why it works. First, we preface our answer by showing where our definition comes from. Here, we cite the landmark case of Terry because that’s where the rule originated. We then further cite a Supreme Court case, because it’s worth emphasizing that the SC has adapted this rule, and the general rule is that only cases decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines have legal weight.
Then we go to the definition itself. It’s enough to make sure that your definition includes the important components- here, as defined by jurisprudence, that would be 1) unusual conduct; 2) observation by experienced police officer that criminal activity is afoot; 3) search is limited to clothing; and 4) search is done for safety of police officer and others. No need to be able to write verbatim the definition as it is written in the case or statute; that would be impractical if not impossible. Just be sure to know the key principles.
Keep in mind, however, that the definition of the term based on the law should be complete, but not in excess. A discussion of unrelated concepts such as chain of custody or search of moving vehicle will be given a corresponding demerit, since that is not relevant to the question being asked.
Now, the question is: how do you get to the point where you can consistently give a good answer to this type of question?
As cliché as it sounds, you have to put in the work. And you put in that work through reading- reading the assigned books, assigned cases, and codal provisions. Again, to know the answer, you need to actually have –read- the answer. Keep in mind that law professors love to give “objective”-type questions like “Define…”, “Distinguish…” and the like because they show if a student has really studied, since you can’t bluff your way out of them, unlike scenario-based questions.
Then, you refine that knowledge you’ve acquired from reading through practice. Practicing consistently citing the legal basis, practicing correct grammar, and practicing proper answer structure, to get to the point where answering becomes instinctive, becomes muscle memory, where you don’t even have to think because you already –know-. And once you’re capable of showing your legal knowledge, the journey to becoming a lawyer becomes easier.
