Sisyphus Lament (Philippine Law Journal Chair Essays on Journal Management)

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL LAW JOURNAL

Sisyphus’ Lament  Essays in Law Journal Management (2004-2010) (2004-2010) The Next Ninety Years and the Transcendence of Academic Legal Writing  HIL . L.J. 7 (2004) Part I: 79 P HIL   Editing, or the Student’s Art of Not Being One’s Own Worst Enemy  HIL . L.J. 233 (2004) Part II: 79 P HIL  Citation and the Little Black Book Part III: 79 P HIL  HIL . L.J. 541 (2004)

The Little Black Book (The Philippine Law Journal  Legal Citation Handbook) HIL . L.J. 560 (2004) 79 P HIL 

Style and the Seduction of the Supreme Court  Part IV: Published 79 P HIL  HIL . L.J. 876 (2004) Oscar Franklin B. Tan Chair, PHILIPPINE L AW  J  JOURNAL (2005) Master of Laws, Harvard Law School (2007)  Associate, Jones Day  Reinvigorating the Philippine Law Journal as the Crucible of Legal Writing  Part V: 83 P HIL  HIL . L.J. 5 (2008)  Juan Paolo F. Fajardo Chair, PHILIPPINE L AW  J  JOURNAL (2009)  Associate, Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law  Laying Foundations and Reinforcing an Institution Through an Effective Internship Program  HIL . L.J. i (2009) Part V.I: 84 P HIL   Johann Carlos S. Barcena Chair, PHILIPPINE L AW  J  JOURNAL (2010)  Associate, Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law 

F  OREWORD 

ISYPH US’ L AMENT , P ART I: T H E N E XT N I N E T Y YEARS AND SISYPH * TH E T RANSC RANSCEN EN DEN CE OF ACADEMIC L EGAL WRITING

O scar scar Frank lin lin B. T an**

I. T H E T HREE ROLES OF LAW JOURNALS During the first Board meeting for Volume 79, we discussed the role of the P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL in jurisprudence, in the profession, and in the academe. This role is articul articulated ated as three main functions. First, the JOURNAL must serve as a

handmaiden of jurisprudence. It must be the academe’s monitor and critic regarding the evolution of the Supreme Court’s doctrine.1 Table 1: P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL articles cited by the Supreme Court 2 D ecision

Au t h or an d Article

Ju s tice

Francisco Francisco v. H ouse of Representatives (2003)3

Numeriano Rodriguez, Jr., Structural  A nalysis of t he 19 73 C onstitut ion, ion , 57 P HI L. L.J. 104 (1982).

Vitug (separate)

I n Su p p ort O f   A histo rical detail

* This article is substantially the author’s acceptance speech for the 2005 Student Editorial Board’s Induction and the J OURNAL’s 90th Anniversary Celebration on September 14, 2004. Cite as Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, S isyphus’ L ament, Part I: The N ext N inety Y ears L.J. ears and the T ranscende ranscendence nce of L egal egal W riting , 79 P HI L. L.J. 7, (page cited) (2004). The Board would like to thank the following students who volunteered to help with Issue 1 and have been informally designated as the J OURNAL’s interns: John Fajardo (Head of Marketing), Gerald Joseph Jumamil, Janice Lee, Lee, Melissa Melissa Telan (H ead of F eatures), Josh Tro cino, and W illiam illiam Varias. All All are from the Class of ’08, except except f or Mr. Varias who is from the Class of ’06. ** Chair, Ph ilippine ilippine Law Journ al; Member Member (2004). (2004). Fou rth Year, Ll.B., Ll.B., University of the P hilippines hilippines (2005 expected). expected). B.S. B.S. Management Engineering Engineering / A.B. Economics H onors, Cum L aude aude,, Ateneo de Manila University (2001). First Freshman Awardee, Justice Irene R. Cortes Prize for Best Paper in Constitutional Law (2002). Awardee, Professo r Araceli T. Baviera Prize for Best P aper in Civil Law (2003). (2003). First awardee, Pr ofessor Bienvenido C. Ambion Prize for Best Paper in Private International Law (2004). Founding Editor-in-Chief, Chinoy magazine, Ateneo Celadon (1997-2000). First Editor-in-Chief, MEAn magazine, Management Engineering Association (1999). Graphic Design Editor (2000), Operations Manager (1999), “Lord Lampoon” of The Loyola Lampoon (1999), T heG heG U I D O N , Ateneo de Manila University. Editorin-Chief, Stallion (1997), Hoofprint (1993); Batch Editor, Metamorphosis yearbook (1994), Xavier School. 1 Scott Martin, T he L aw R eview eview Citadel: Citadel: Rodell Revisited  Revisited , 71 I O WA L. R EV . 1093, 1095 (1986); Charles Hughes, Foreword , 50 YALE L.J. 737, 738 (1941); (1941); Bart Sloan, Sloan, N ote, W hat are are W e W riting riting For? Student Student W ork ork s as  A uth oirty and T heir C itation by th e Federal B ench ench (1 98 6-1 99 0) , 61 G EO . WASH . L . R EV . 221, 226-27 (1992); Jane Schachter, Form, F unction 576 (2003); (2003); Michael unction and Feminist L aw Journals Journals,, 12 C OLUM. J . G E N D E R & L. 574, 576 Closen & Robert Dzeilak, T he H istory 22-23 istory and Influence Influence of of the L aw R evie eview w Institu tion, tion , 30 AKRON L. REV . 15, 22-23 (1996). 2 Prepared using a computer search of decisions from 1991 to 2003. This author thanks his PLJ Intern Josh Trocino from the Class of ’08 for his assistance in preparing this table. 3 G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003 (Vitug, J., separate opinion), opinion ), at n.5.

7

8

P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL Estrada v. E scritor scritor (2003)4

Hector Martinez, Martinez, T he H igh igh and   Im pregnable pregnable W all of S eparation B etween etween L.J. 748 Church and State, State, 37 P HI L. L.J. (1962).

People v. Sandiganbayan (2003)5

[VO L 79

P un un o

A h is ist or or ical d et et ai ail

Kalaw, T he Constitutional Plan of of the Philippine R evolutio evolutionn , 1 P HI L. L.J., 204 (1914)

Puno (separate)

A histo rical detail

People v. Sandiganbayan (2003)6

Fernandez, L Fernandez,  L aw an d P olity: T owards a Systems Concept Concept of L egal egal V alidity, 46 P H IL . L.J. 422 (1971)

Vitug (separate)

“The efficacy of a legal order must be distinguished from the question question of its existence.”

Lahom v. Sibulo (2003)7

Serafin Hilado,  A C omparat ive Stu dy of th e  A doption L aw u nder the S panish C ivil C ode and t he Code of Civil Procedure Procedure,, 4 P HI L. L.J. 313 (1918)

V itit ug ug

A h is ist or or ic ic al al legal p o in in t

MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic D a’Wah a’Wah Council of the Philippines, Inc. (2003)8

Antonio Carpio, In Carpio,  In tentional T orts in L.J. (1972) Philippine Philippine L aw, aw, 47 P H IL . L.J.

Uy v. Sandiganbayan (2001)9

Irene Cortes, R Cortes,  R edress edress of G rievances rievances and t he Philippine O mbudsman (T anodbayan), anodbayan), 57 P H IL . L.J. 1 (1982)

P un un o

An ti ti-gr aft agen ci cies were historically historically ineffective due to a lack of independence

Estrada v. D esierto esierto (2001)10

Pacifico Agabin, Presidential Immunity  A nd A ll T he Ki ng’s M en: T he L aw O f  Privile Privilegge A s A D efense fense To A ctions tions For   D ama ges ges, 62 P HI L. L.J. 113 (1987)

P un o

T h e 1973 Constitution expanded absolute immunity

Cruz v. Sec. of  DENR (2000) 11

Ma. Lourdes Aranal-Sereno & Roan Libarios, T he Interface Interface of N ational L and  .L.J. 420  L aw a nd Kali nga L aw, aw , 58 P HI L. .L.J. (1983)

Puno (separate)

A historical legal detail; That K alingas alingas use community ownership

Cruz v. Sec. of  DENR (2000) 12

Owen Lynch, Jr.,  In visible Peoples Peoples and a  H idden A genda: genda: T he O rigins of  Contempora Contemporary ry Philippine Philippine L and L aws (1900249, 288 (1988) 1913), 1913), 63 P HI L. .L.J. 249,

Puno (separate)

The Spanish colonial government did not issue titles to Igorots.

Cruz v. Sec. of  DENR (2000) 13

Owen Lynch, Jr.,  N ative T itle, Priva te L.J.  R ight an d T ribal L and L aw, aw , 57 P HI L. L.J. 268 (1982)

Puno (separate)

Discussion Discussion of the term “native title”

Carpio (dissentting)

Foundation of  author’s conclusion

A.M. N o. P-02-1651, 408 SCRA 1, 129 n.294, Aug. 4, 2003. G.R. No. 104768, 407 SCRA 10, 93 n.137 , Jul. 21, 2003 (Puno, J., separate opinion). opinion ). 6 G.R. N o. 104768, 407 SCRA 10, 136 n.10 , Jul. 21, 2003 (Vitug, J., J., separate opinion). opinion ). 7 G.R. N o. 143989, 406 SCRA 135, 141 n.9, Jul. 14, 2003. 8 G.R. N o. 135306, 396 SCRA 210, 261 n.36, Jan. 28, 2003 (Carpio, J., dissenting). dissenting). 9 G.R. No. 105695, 354 SCRA 651, 661 n.8, Mar. 20, 2001. 10 G.R. No. 146710, 353 SCRA 452, 519 n.106, Mar. 2, 2001. 11 G.R. No. 135385, 347 SCRA 128, 169 n.14, 190 n.102, Dec. 6, 2000 (Puno, J., separate opinion). opinion ). 12  Id. at 199 n.131. 13  Id. at 205 n.146. 4 5

20 04 ]

RANSCEND END ENCE O F ACADEMIC L EGAL W RITING T H E T RANSC

Cruz v. Sec. of  DENR (2000) 14

Owen Lynch, Jr., T he L egal egal Bases of  of  Philippine Colonial Colonial Sovere Sovereignty ignty:: A n Inqu iry, iry, 62 P HI L. L.J. 279 (1987); L (1987);  L and R ights,  L and L aws an d L and U surpati on: T he Spanish Spanish E ra (1568-1898 ), 63 P HI L. L.J. 82 (1988); T he Colonial Dichotomy: Dichotomy:  A ttraction a nd D isenfranchisement  isenfranchisement ,, 63 P HI L. L.J. 112

Puno (separate)

For furth er reference reference

Cruz v. Sec. of  DENR (2000) 15

Perfecto Fernandez, T owards a D efinition efinition of N ational Policy Policy on R ecog ecognition nition of E thnic  L aw wi thin the P hilippin e L egal egal O rder , 55 P H IL . L.J. 383 383 (1980)

Puno (separate)

Cultural differences are exacerbated by imposing a national legal order that is foreign in o rigin rigin

Cruz v. Sec. of  DENR (2000) 16

Owen Lynch, Jr., T he L egal egal Bases of  of  Philippine Colonial Colonial Sovere Sovereignty ignty:: A n Inqu iry, iry, 62 P HI L. L.J. 279 (1987)

Kapunan (separate)

A histo rical detail

Sec. of Justice v. Lantion (2000) 17

Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Procedural  A spects spects of t he Political O ffence ffence D octrine octrine , 51 P H IL . L.J. 238 (1976)

P un o

E xt xt r ad it io n d o es n o t determine the accused’s guilt

Lim v. NLRC (1999)18

Rodrigo Rodrigo K apunan, L apunan,  L abor-O nly Contractors: Contractors: N ew G eneration eneration of “CA BO s”, s”, 65 P HI L. L.J. 388 388 (1991)

Quisumbing

An emp loyment loyment relationship may be established by a person who actually receives wages and can identify the person he received them from

Op le v. v. Torres (1998)19

Kazuko Otani, In Otani,  In formation S ecurity ecurity in the  N etwork A ge, ge, 70 P HI L. L.J. 1 (1995)

P un un o

A te tech ni nical d et ail an d the definition definition of the Internet

Tano v. Socrates (1997)20

Jay Batongbacal, Note, T he Coastal E nvironment and the S mall-Scale Fisherfolk Fisherfolk :  A dvocacy dvocacy for Com mun ity-B ased C oastal Z one  M anagement , 66 P H IL . L.J. 149 (1991)

D av avid e

T he he b en en ef efit s o f co ra ral reefs on nearby ecosystems.

Kilosbayan v. Guingona (1994) 21

Romulo, T he Supreme Court and E conomic Policy: Policy: A Plea for Judicial Judicial A bstinence bstinence,, 67 P H IL . L.J. 348 348 (1993); (1993); Fernandez,  Judicial O verreaching verreaching in S electe electedd S upreme Court D ecisio ecisions ns A ffec ffecting E conomic onomic Policy Policy, 67 P HI L. L.J. 332-347 332-347 (1993); Castro & Pison, T he E conomic onomic Policy Policy D etermining etermining Fu nction nction of the Supreme Court in T imes of  of   N ational C risis, risis, 67 P HI L. L.J. 354-411 (1993)

Kapunan (dissentting)

The Supreme Court has been accused of  interfering interfering too often with the political branches.

at 205 n.147. at 241 n.251. 16  Id. at 271 n.83 (Kapunan, J., separate opinion). opinion ). 17 G.R. No. 139465, 343 SCRA 377, 386 n.13, Oct. 17, 2000. 18 G.R. No. 124630, 303 SCRA 432, 444 n.17, Feb. 19, 1999. 19 G.R. N o. 127685, 293 SCRA 141, 162 n.58, 168 n.83, Jul. 23, 1998. 20 G.R. No. 110249, 278 SCRA 154, 184 n.35, Aug. 21, 1997. 21 G.R. N o. 113375, 232 SCRA 110, 190 n.8, May 5, 1994 (Vitug, J., J., separate opinion). opinion ). 14  Id. 15  Id.

9

10

P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL

People v. Malmstedt (1991) 22

Vicente V. Mendoza,  R eflections eflections on the Constitutional L aw of of A rrest, rrest, Search Search and  Seizure, Seizure, 63 P H IL . L.J. 241 (1988)

Narvasa (concurrin g and dissenting)

[VO L 79 To refer to an American case cited in the article

From 1991 to 2003, the Court promulgated fourteen cases that cited twenty-three P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL articles, or roughly two citations a year. This figure, however, must be scrutinized qualitatively. For example, thirteen of these articles articles – over half – were cited cited by Justice Justice Reynato Reynato P uno . Sixteen Sixteen were merely appended to a historical or technical point in a preliminary discussion, or suggested for further reference. Of t he remainder, only only one form ed the d octrinal bedrock of a Justice’s Justice’s opinion , but t his was Justice Justice Anto nio Carpio citing citing his own JOURNAL article to anchor his dissent. The articles closest to advancing doctrine were one by Rodrigo Kapunan on labor-only contracting and the series on indigenous peoples and land rights by Owen Lynch, Jr. The latter, in fact, has the most articles recently cited by the Court due solely to Justice Puno’s separate opinion in Cruz v. Secretary of  the D epartment of of E nvironment nvironment and N atural R esourc sourcees , which dealt with the Indigenous 23 Peoples Rights Act. Note that Lynch is not a Filipino author; he was a visiting professor from Yale University. Finally, the Court referred to only one article pub lished lished within th e last last ten years, years, and and m erely for a definition of t he In ternet.24 Let me make two propositions. First, it is not enough that the Court cite our articles to support doctrinal statements, not when the very best articles have been adopted as the very frameworks of decisions. My dream as a P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL student editor is to showcase the next Dean Irene Cortes, whose Constitutional Foundations of Privacy has been reiterated in every privacy ruling to date,25 or th e next Justice Jose B. L. Reyes, Reyes, whose interp retations of th e Civil Civil Code 26 in periodicals were were explicitly explicitly adopt ed b y the Court . Second, it is not enough to be the best legal journal in the country. If the Court cited twenty-three P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL articles in the period 1991-2003, twenty-one of its rulings cited twenty-three  H arvard L aw R eview eview articles.27 In fact,

G.R. No. 91107, 198 SCRA 401, 414 n.7, Jun. 19, 1991. Rep. Act No. 8371 (1997). 24 There may be other articles cited but not listed here. The difficulty stems from the lack of uniform citation in Court decisions. Roughly half of the above recent citations cited the J OURNAL properly as “P H IL . L.J.,” while others listed “Philippine Law Journal,” “P HI L. L. J.” J.” with an extra extra space, space, or “P.L.J “P.L.J.” .” This inconsistency means a computer search may not return a complete count. Parenthetically, each of Volume 79’s 79’s articles now has a sample citation on its first page. 25 T HE C ONSTITUTIONAL F OUNDATIONS OF P RIVACY (1970) (adapted from the second Albino Z. SyCip SyCip Lecture Series delivered at the UP Co llege llege of Law, Feb . 21 and 28, 1970), cited in Ayer Prod’ns Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong, G.R. No. 82830, 160 SCRA 861, Apr. 29, 1988; Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 293 SCRA 143, Jul. 23, 1998. 26 See, e.g., Diaz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66574, 182 SCRA 427, June 17, 1987, citing Jose B.L. Reyes,  R eflections J. I NTEGRATED B. P HILS. 40 (1976). eflections on th e R eform eform of H ereditary ereditary S uccessio uccessionn , 4 J. 27 For comparison, comparison, th e Court cited cited th e following following  H arvard L aw R eview eview articles in 1991-2003: 22 23

20 04 ]

RANSCEND END ENCE O F ACADEMIC L EGAL W RITING T H E T RANSC

11

eview alone: Samuel examine the impact of the first ten issues of the  H arvard L aw R eview ight to Privacy Privacy in Volume 4,28 James Bradley Warren and Louis Brandeis’s T he R ight Origin and S cope of the A merican merican D octrine octrine of of C onstitutio onstitutional nal L aw in Volume Thayer’s T he Origin

1. Estrada v. Escritor, A.M No. P-02-1651, 408 SCRA 1, 85 n.115, Aug. 4, 2003, citing Stephen Carter, T he  R esurrection esurrection of R eligious eligious F reedom, reedom, 107 H ARV . L . R EV . 118 (1993). 2. Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA at 126 n.284, citing Michael McConnell, T he O rigins rigins and H istoric istorical U nderstanding nderstanding of Free E x ercise ercise of of R eligion eligion,, 103 H ARV . L . R EV . 1409 (1990). 3. Estr ada v. Escritor , 408 SCRA at 175, n.420; Estr ada v. Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan, G .R. No . 148560, 369 SCRA SCRA 394, 447 n.36 (Mendoza, J., concurring), concurring), both citing Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., T he Path of of the Law , 10 H ARV . L . REV . 457 (1897). 4. Macalintan v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 405 SCRA 614, 721 n.203, Jul. 10, 2003, citing Harold Bruff & Ernest Gellhorn, Congressio Congressional nal Control of A dministrative Regulation: Regulation: A S tudy of L egislative egislative V etoes etoes,, 90 H ARV . L . R EV . 1369 (1977). 5. Ho rnilla v. Salunat, Salunat, A.C. N o. 5804, 405 SCRA 220, 225 n .13, Jul. 1, 2003, citing Note, D Note,  D evelopments evelopments in t he L aw: 1244 (1981 (1981). ). Conflict of Interest , 94 H ARV . L . R EV . 1244 6. MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 135306, 396 SCRA 219, 230 nn.34-35, Jan. 28, 2003, citing Magruder , Magruder , M ental an d E motional D isturban ce in th e L aw of T orts, 49 H ARV . L. REV . 1033, (2003) 7. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 369 SCRA 394, 442 n. 22 (Puno, J.), 466 n.20 (Mendoza, J., concurring), concurring), Nov. 19, 2001, citing Richard Fallon,  A s A pplied and F acial Ch allenges, allenges, 113 H ARV . L . REV . 1321 (2000). 8. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 147571, 357 SCRA 496, 505 n.12, May 5, 2001, citing John Hart Ely, Flag D esec esecration: a C ase Study in the R oles oles of Cat egorization egorization and Balancing in F irst   A mendm ent A nalysis, 88 H ARV . L . R EV . 1482, 1497 (1975) 9. Estr ada v. Desierto, G .R. Nos. 146710, 353 SCRA 452, 542 n.5, Mar. 2, 2001 2001 (Mendoza, J., concurring), concurring), citing Mendoza, Political Political Q uestions uestions,, 38 H ARV . L . R EV . 296, 305 (1925). 10. People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, 333 SCRA 699, 718 n. 67, Jun. 19, 2000, citing Note,  In competency competency to Stand T rial, rial, 81 H ARV . L . R EV . 454, 459 (1967). 11. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 133486, 323 SCRA 811, 827 n.43, Jan. 28, 2000, citing Note, E x it Polls Polls and the First A mendment  mendment , 98 H ARV . L . REV . 1927 (1985). 12. Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114508, 318 SCRA 516, 534 n.19, Nov. 19, 1999; Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91332, 224 SCRA 576, 624 n.36, Jul. 16, 1993, both citing Frank Schechter, Schechter, T he Rational B asis of Trademark Protection, Protection, 40 H ARV . L . R EV . 813, 814 (1927). 13. Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 293 SCRA 141, 153 n.29 (Puno, J.), 172 n.2 (Romero, J., concurring), concurring), Jul. 23, 1998, citing Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, T he Right to Privacy 193 (1/ (1/ 890) 890).. Privacy, 4 H ARV . L . R EV . 193 14. Osmena v. Comm’n on Elections, G.R. No. 132231, 288 SCRA 447, 486 n.8, Mar. 31, 1998 (Puno, J., Barron, A ccess concurring), concurring), citing Barron, A ccess to the Press – A N ew F irst A mendm ent R ight, 80 H ARV . L . R EV . 1641 (1967) 15. Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, 297 SCRA 754, 790 n.65, Oct. 12, 1998, citing Note, T he 1505 (1974 (1974). ).  R ights of th e Public an d th e Press to G ather I nformat ion, ion , 87 H ARV . L . R EV . 1505 16. Iglesia Ni Cristo, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, 259 SCRA 529, 577 n.20, Jul. 26, 1996 (Mendoza, J., concurring), concurring), citing Henry Monaghan, First A mendment “Du e Proce Process”, ss”, 83 H ARV . L . R EV . 518, 520 (1970) 17. INC, 259 SCRA SCRA at 566 n. 26 (Kapunan, J., concurring and dissenting), dissenting), citing Donald Gianella,  R eligious eligious L iberty,  N onestablishment and D octrinal octrinal D evelopment: evelopment: P art I T he R eligious eligious L iberty G uaran tee, 80 H ARV . L . R EV . 1381 (1967). 18. Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, 246 SCRA 540, 617, Jul. 17, 1995, citing Louis Jaffee, Standing  A gain, gain, 84 H ARV . L . REV . 633. 19. Almonte v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 244 SCRA 286, 295 n.12, May 23, 1995, citing Paul Freund, T he Supreme Court 197 3 T erm — Forewo Foreword  rd : On Presidential Privilege, Privilege, 88 H ARV . L . R EV . 13 (1974). 20. Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, 235 SCRA 506, 519 Aug. 19, 1994 citing Note, Congressio Congressional nal A ccess ess T o T he Federal Courts, Courts , 90 H ARV . L . R EV . 1632 (1977). 21. Philconsa, 235 SCRA at 545, citing Note, Im Note,  Im poundm ent of F und s, 86 H ARV . L . R EV . 1505 (1973). 22. Salud v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100156, 233 SCRA 384, 389 n.11, Jun. 27, 1994 (Padilla, J., concurring), concurring), 1485 (1974 (1974). ). citing Note, Collateral E stoppel stoppel of N on-Parties on-Parties, 87 H ARV . L . R EV . 1485 23. Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno to the Court of Appeals dated 14 November 1990, A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA, 210 SCRA 589, 597 n.23, Jun. 29, 1992, citing Note, Political Political R ights as Political Political Q uestions: uestions: T he Paradox of L uther v.v. Borden, Borden, 100 H ARV . L . R EV . 1125 (1987). 28 4 H ARV . L . R EV . 193 (1890). (1890).

12

P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

7,29 O liver liver Wend ell H olmes’s olmes’s T he Path of the L aw in Volume 10.30 Simply, I take it as rancisco v. H ouse of R epresentatives epresentatives a challenge when I read a landmark case such as F rancisco and see a Justice cite the P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL in support of a point regarding medieval England,31 and then see Justice Puno ground a convincing separate opinion on an array of foreign law reviews. reviews.32 Going to the second role, the JOURNAL must also serve as a vehicle for education, education, on e that stimulates stimulates both the academe and the profession. profession.33 Ho wever, wever, the JOURNAL has not been integrated into the academic routine. While a few articles are included in class reading lists, they are rarely discussed discussed in d epth , or merely assigned assigned as supplemental reading. Thus, the average student’s first first serious encoun ter with th e JOURNAL is often in Senior year, when he is required to write a Supervised Legal Research paper before graduating. On this point, my dream is to have a journal released released qu ickly ickly enough that its latest articles articles may be used for class class discussion. Finally, law reviews further the education of the select few chosen as student editors, giving them a venue to sharpen their English skills, build critical thinking, and take a broader view of law. 34 Tongue-in-cheek, some writers cast law reviews’ last supposed role as one of advancing student editors’ careers.35 Th e P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL wants for noth ing in in term s of p restige, restige, and I trust that t his role is filled excellently in both senses. We conclude that much untapped potential remains to be harnessed, and there remains much ro om for the growth of legal legal writing. writing. The JOURNAL has enjoyed ninety years of excellent groundwork, and we stand on the shoulders of giants. Allow Allow me to d escribe , then, a vision vision – a transcend ence – for th e next ninety years. years.

I I . T H E T RANSCENDENCE OF THE P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL Let me begin by saying that administering a law journal is like dancing on the edge of a knife. On one hand, a student editor cannot allow the institution to lose its moorings to tradition and lose itself in the tides of time. On the other, he

7 H ARV . L . R EV . 129 (1893). (1893). 10 H ARV . L . R EV . 457 (1897). 31 G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003 (Vitug, J., separate opinion), opinion ), at n.5. 32 See, e.g., Robert Schapiro,  Judicial D eferenc eferencee and I nterpretative C oordinacy in S tate and F ederal ederal C onstitut ional 85 C ORNELL L. REV . 656(2000);Thay 656(2000);Thayer, er, supra note 29.  L aw, aw , 85 33 Martin, supra note 1, at 1097. 34 John Noonan, Jr.,  L aw R eviews 1117-18 (1995); (1995); E. Joshua Rosenkranz,  L aw eviews,, 47 STAN . L . REV . 1117, 1117-18  R eviews’ eviews’ E mpi re, re, 39 H ASTINGS L.J. 859, 877 (1988); James Harper, W hy Student-Run L aw Revie Reviews? ws?,, 82 MIN N . L. REV . 1261, 1272-73 (1998); Wendy Gordon, Count er-M er-M anifesto: anifesto: S tudent-E dited dited L aw R eview eviewss and the Intellec Intellectual 61 U. C HI . L . REV . 541, 543 (1994); (1994); Ronald Rotun da,  L aw R eviews Properties of Scholarship, Scholarship , 61 eviews – T he E x treme C entrist  L.J. 1, 4 (1987 (1987). ). S ee, Position, Position , 62 I N D . L.J. ee, however, James Gordon III,  L aw R eview eview and the M odern M ind , ind , 33 A RIZ . L. REV . 265, 267 (1991) (relating (relating the law review experience to m ass psychosis). 35 Max Stier et al.,  L aw R eview eview U sage and S uggestions uggestions for I mprovement: A S urvey of A ttorneys, Professors, Professors, an d Jud ges ges , 44 S TAN . L . REV . 1467, 1472-73 1472-73 (1992); (1992); Rosenkranz, supra note 34, at 890-91; Richard Harnsberger,  R eflections eflections  A bout L aw R eviews eviews and A merican L egal egal S cholarship cholarship , 76 N EB . L . R EV . 681, 686 (1997). 29 30

20 04 ]

RANSCEND END ENCE O F ACADEMIC L EGAL W RITING T H E T RANSC

13

must nevertheless heed the call of impatient, hot-blooded youth 36 and constantly incorporate new ideas and technologies. To paraphrase Dean Roscoe Pound, the JOURNAL must remain stable, but it cannot stand still.37 I have been involved in student publications since I was twelve years old, and I have found no greater passion in this life than to draw ideas and emotions from the soul and immortalize them in the written word. Articles, however, do not write themselves, so allow me to ou tline some steps th is Board Board h as taken.

A. AM ORE F OCUSED ARTICLE SOLICITATION P ROCESS First, this Board strives for a more focused article solicitation process. Some bewail that the pillars of our profession are all too busy. However, I feel that this is but a marketing problem. Thus, this year’s Board is actually sending out less invitations to write, but selecting invitees more carefully and spending more time following them up. Senate President Franklin Drilon, for example, readily respon ded. To describe anoth er tactic, tactic, this year’ year’ss Board actively actively court s youn youn ger authors, such as practitioners who have just returned from abroad with Master’s degrees. Three of the first issue’s authors come from this group. I hope experiments in article solicitation address the very high ratio of  student works in recent volumes, such that th e traditional traditional articl article/ e/ student not e distinction is no longer applied. I examined one recent volume, for example, and found that twelve out of twenty-two articles were student works, counting fresh graduates as students, or a ratio of 55%.38 Moreover, if one disregards disregards short notes and comments, twelve out of seventeen full article articless were student works, or 71%. Let me emphasize that student works concretely contribute to academic thinking. Moreover, student works tend to be more thoroughly researched than those o f practitioners. practitioners. However, I have had my apprehensions. apprehensions. O ne student articl articlee on Internet commerce, for example, discussed a framework for jurisdiction, but failed to note that it was grounded on the American Commerce Clause39 – which has no equivalent in the Philippine Constitution because we do not have a federal government.40 Another discussed the right to privacy and identified a “great gray

“The advice of the elders to young men is very apt to be as unreal as a list of the hundred best books.” Holmes, supra note 30, at 475. 37 R OSCOE P O U N D , I NTERPRETATIONS OF LEGAL H ISTORY 1 (1923). 38 I referred to Volume 78, or the immediately preceding 2003-2004 term. Papers written by authors when they were students but submitted after they began practicing were counted as student works. 39 Welson Chu & Nicolas Nangit, http:/ L.J. 312, 329-30 329-30 http:/ / www.Tax ingInter ingInternet netTT ransac ransactio tions.c ns.com om,, 75 P H IL . L.J. (2000), citing Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977). 40 On e might argue that the Commerce Clause parall parallels els principles principles found in th e Local Government Code of 1991. LOCAL G O VT C O D E , § 129, 130, 133. Although jurisdiction was a mere side point in the article’s very broad discussion, I feel it should have been treated more carefully. Parenthetically, the last, memorable Constitutional Law debate I had with Professor Samilo Barlongay in March 2003 was on parallels between the Commerce Clause and the Philippine Local Government Code, hence the point aroused my curiosity. 36

14

P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

area” 41 where I felt well-defined freedom of speech doctrines existed,42 specifically a line of jurisprudence credited to Justice George Malcolm.43 In fairness, were I to submit my own first published article to myself today, I might consider rejecting it.44 Thus, I hope to experiment and shift some of the JOURNAL’s space to young practitioners and academics. academics.

B. STRONGER E DITOR-AUTHOR RELATIONSHIPS Second, this Board strives to make it as easy as possible for authors to contribute. Among other things, I have personally experienced the agony of waiting three to four months only to discover that my article was rejected. This will no longer happen, and this Board has made it policy to give authors an answer within one week – in on e case, we gave an answer by the next d ay. ay. This is part of a conscious attitude of deference towards authors, given a student editorial board’s inherent limitations. While law students are a good representation of the general legal audience,45 they will rarely know the topic more

“The great gray area covers the situations wherein private citizens are involved in public matters…..” Lemuel Lopez, T he Right to Privacy L.J. 163 163 (2003 (2003). ). Privacy in Inqu iries iries in A id of L egislatio egislationn , 78 P HI L. L.J. 42 “[F]air commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged….” Borjal v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 1, 23, G.R. N o. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999. “Th e pub lic’s lic’s primary interest is in the event ; the pu blic focus is on the conduct of the participant participant and the content, effect and significa significance nce of th e conduct, no t the participant's participant's prior anonymity or notoriety.”  Id. at 27. No te that if one subscribes subscribes to G riswold v.v. Conn ecticut  ecticut , the freedom of  speech is a right from whose penumbras the right to privacy springs forth. 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). 43 In Phil. Comm’l & Ind’l Bank v. Philnabank Philnabank E mploye mployees’ A ss’n ss’n , Chief Justice Enrique Fernando attributed the  N ew Y ork T imes doctrine to a much older  ponencia by Justice Malcolm. G.R. No. 29630, 105 SCRA 314, 319, Jul. 2, 1981, citing United States v. Bustos, 37 Ph il. 731 (1918) (1918) (Malcolm, J.). J.). More recently and four years before the above article was written,  Borjal concretized a Philippine doctrine more liberal than the American. It unites two strands of jurisprudence: the person-centered  A yer  “public figure” doctrine, and the issue-centered  R osenbloom osenbloom “private persons involved in matters of public interest” doctrine now rejected in the United States. Ayer Productions v. Capulong, G.R. No 82380, 160 SCRA 861, Apr. 29, 1988; Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 116, 126-27, G.R. No. 26549, Jul. 31, 1970, citing Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 44-45 (1971), overruled by Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 346 (1974). The article’s privacy discussion centered around  A yer , but mentioned neither  Borjal no r  R osenbloom osenbloom,, though it curiously used  R osenbloom’s osenbloom’s language at some points that cited  A yer , despite the two cases’ completely different doctrines. doctrines . See, See, e.g e.g.,., Lopez, supra note 41, at 172. Thus, while the article gave a commendable discussion of the history of legislative investigation, a seasoned Constitutional Law professor might have taken a broader approach, and come to a slightly different conclusion. 44 Oscar Franklin Tan, T ouch ouch M e N ot: E x panding Constitutiona Constitutionall Frameworks Frameworks to C halleng hallengee L T O-R equired quired and  L.J. 618 (2002). (2002). For example, example, while while the article article initia initiall llyy discussed discussed the Other M andatory andatory Drug T esting, sting, 76 P HI L. L.J. problem from a D ue Process perspective, perspective, it failed failed to integrate how American doctrine points to D ue Process as the source of the right to privacy. Compare Griswold, 381 U.S. at 484; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, (Brandeis, J., dissenting); dissenting); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973). (1973). Were I to revise the article today, although there was technically nothing wrong with it in terms of doctrine, I would have more explicitly distinguished the evolutions of American and Philippine doctrine. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977). Compare Jeb Rubenfeld, T he Right to Privacy 737 1989 1989); ); I RENE C ORTES , T HE Privacy, 102 H ARV . L. REV . 737 C ONSTITUTIONAL F OUNDATIONS OF P RIVACY (1970). 45 Phil Nichols, Note,  A S tu dent D efense efense of S tu dent E dited Journals: I n R esponse to Professor Professor R oger oger Cra mt on, on , 1987 D UK E L.J. L.J. 1122, 1127-2 1127-28; 8; Howard Denmark, T he Death of L aw R eview eviewss H as Been Been Predicted: Predicted: W hat M ight ight Be L ost  21-24 (1996) (1996).. S ee Bernard H ibbitts, ibbitts,  L ast  W hen hen the L ast Law R eview view Shuts Down?, Down? , 27 SETON H ALL L. REV . 1, 21-24 41

20 04 ]

RANSCEND END ENCE O F ACADEMIC L EGAL W RITING T H E T RANSC

15

than the author, and I say this having opened an envelope from Justice Vicente V. Mendoza as my first submission. Thus, for example, we have made it policy to strive to submit written comments to an author and have him make the initial revision.46 Editing has also been restrained, and we have endeavored to preserve an autho r’s r’s original original words and t one as m uch as po ssible. ssible.47 We have also instituted a m ore d isciplined isciplined deliberation deliberation pro cess. I have seen the likes of Volume 77’s Gerard Chan and Joemer Perez at work, who would submit written written m emoranda to authors comp lete lete with paragraph paragraph references. references. On the other hand, I o nce heard a story story about about a P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL editor who who t ook a hundred-page article and wanted to reject it over a perceived mistake on Page 20. Another wanted to reject a Remedial Law article because he disagreed with an introductory point on Legal Philosophy.48 Th e JOURNAL’s editorial policy cannot change dramatically dramatically from year to year, or even from editor to editor.49 We have thus implemented a more structured deliberation process that focuses on an article’s main subt heses and basic structure, leaving leaving minor point s for later editing.50 We have also required editors to submit their deliberation comments in writing, subject to clear guidelines.51 With a more cooperative editor-author relationship, for example, we were able to create a timely Po litical litical Law issue issue after cont ributors emp hasized current issues in in their wor k while revising revising th ese. This way, way, we can pu blish not just excellent excellent articles, articles, but excellent excellent issues whose whose impact is greater than t he sum o f their parts.52 Finally, Finally, we are tailoring tailoring article formats to suit autho rs’ ability ability to cont ribute. For example, in the case of busy, senior practitioners, we would gladly accept brief  but insightful legal essays with minimal footnoting. We are also having younger students write short, nondoctrinal essays, and having them interview senior professors and resource persons. Our first issue, for example, features pieces on clinical clinical legal legal education, with with a n od to D ean Irene Co rtes.

N.Y.U.. L. R EV . 615, 653-54 (1996), revised online W rites? rites? R easse eassessi ssing ng the L aw R eview eview in the A ge of Cyberspac Cyberspacee , 71 N.Y.U www.law.pi aw.pitt.edu/ tt.edu/ hibbitts/ hibbitts/ lastrev.htm. lastrev.htm. version version at  http:/ / www.l 46 S ee Juan Perea,  A fter G etting to Y es: A S urvival G uide for L aw R eview eview E ditors a nd F aculty W riters , 48 F LA . L. REV . 867, 870-71 870-71 (1996); (1996); Carol Sanger, Sanger, E diting (1993); Gregory Maggs,  Just S ay N o?, diting,, 82 G EO . L.J. 513, 526 (1993); o?, 70 C HI .-K EN T L. REV . 101, 103 103 (1994); (1994); Richard Graves III ,  A dvice to N ew S tudent W ork s E ditors, ditors , 30 STETSON L. REV . 559, 562-63 (2000). 47 Sanger, supra note 46, at 517, 520; University of Chicago Law Review Articles Editors,  A R esponse, esponse, 61 U. C HI . L . REV . 553, 556-57 (1994). 48 S ee Carl Tobias,  M anu script script S election election A nti-M anifesto, anifesto, 80 C ORNELL L. REV . 529, 532, 538-39 (1995); Michael Vitiello,  Journal W ars, ars, 22 ST . MARY’S L.J. 927, 937-38 (1991). 49 S ee Richard Richard P osner, T he Fu ture of the S tudent-E dited L aw Review Review , 47 STAN . L. REV . 1131, 1134 (1995); Sonali Kolhatkar,  L aw’s G reatest (2000). reatest I nfluence: nfluence: T he L aw R eview eview P rocess rocess,, 30 STETSON L. R EV . 571, 572-73 (2000). 50 Anne Enquist, Substantive E diting V ersus ersus T echnic echnical al E diting, diting,  H ow L aw R eview eview E ditors D o T heir Job, Job, 30 STETSON L. REV . 451, 453-56 (2000). 51 S ee Terri LeClercq, T he N uts and B olts of A rticle rticle Criteria and Selec Selection, tion , 30 STETSON L. REV . 437, 447-49 (2000). 52 Modern law reviews reviews have been criticized criticized for publishing increasingly “esoteric titles.” Kenn eth Lasson, Comment, S cholarship (1990).. S ee holarship A mok : E x cesse essess in the Pursuit of Truth and T enure, enure, 103 H ARV . L . REV . 926, 928 (1990) also Leo Martinez,  B abies, B athwat er, and L aw R eviews eviews,, 47 STAN . L . REV . 1139, 1142-43 (1995).

16

P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

C. M ORE E FFICIENT ADMINISTRATION Third, this Board strives to pay more attention to small but crucial administrative details. For example, our job is not complete until the JOURNAL is in the reader’s hands. Thus, we will be tracking issues after publication more closely. To cite another example, we have taken pains to implement elegant citation formatting, and I guarantee that issues are technically on par with any publication from H arvard, Yale, Yale, Columbia, and th e Un iversity iversity of Pen nsylvania, nsylvania, and largely largely free of emb arrassing arrassing typographical, format, and citation citation err ors. If one logs all the activities undertaken to finish an issue of the P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL, one will realize that article deliberations actually consume a very small fraction of the total time expended. Far more time is spent, for example, on simple but time-consuming tasks such as source checking and formatting.53 Recognizing this, we have formed a mainly freshman intern pool under the Vice-Chair. They deload the editors and give the latter more time to review articles and do background research. I must note that our interns can be more fanatical than the editors themselves. I will not forget how one doggedly combed my own editorial exam subm ission ission and corrected a coup le of mistakenly cited cases in in fro nt o f me. Finally, we would also like to implement a more formal feedback  mechanism to allow better communication with the segments of our readership, from the faculty to alumni and even foreign readers. Modern technology, it is hoped, will make this very easy. At the same time, we would also like to introduce new articles to professors for classroom use, and invite authors for extended lectures when feasible. feasible.

D. M AXIMIZE U SE OF T ECHNOLOGY Finally, Finally, this Bo ard st rives to use every tech nological advantage available available to them. First of all, we upgraded the cover into a full-color design. Although law  journ  jou rn als maint ma int ain tr adit ion s54 and have maintained a particular resemblance to the  H arvard L aw R eview eview for over a century, we cannot deny that we live in an increasingly visual, multimedia world.55 As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is revolting revolting to h ave no better reason for a rule of law law than that so it was lai laidd down in the time of H enry IV.” IV.”56

Rosenkranz, supra note 34, at 903; Gregory Maggs, S elf-Publicatio elf-Publicationn on the Internet and the Fut ure of of L aw  R eviews eviews,, 30 A KRON L. REV . 237, 241 (1996); Shawn Pearson, Comment,  H ype or H ypertex ypertex t? A Plan for th e L aw 794.  R eview eview to M ove into the T wenty-First C entury , 1997 U TAH L. REV . 765, 794. 54 They have also been criticized criticized for taking themselves the most seriously in the entire range of academic and professional literature. Lasson, supra note 52, at 931. 55 Hibbitts, supra note 45, at 661; Trotter Hardy,  R eview eview of H ibbits’ L ast W rites?, rites?, 30 AKRON L.J. 249, 253 (1996). 56 Holmes, supra note 30, at 469. 53

20 04 ]

RANSCEND END ENCE O F ACADEMIC L EGAL W RITING T H E T RANSC

17

Corollarily, we will be purchasing new computers very soon. We realized the imperative need for this when one author submitted an article in a compact disc, because it contained very detailed maps from the National Mapping Information and Resource Agency. I had to check it using my home computer because none of the outdated equipment in the LAW JOURNAL room had enough memory to open the file. Aside from upgrading the computers, I hope to have at least one powerful enough to serve as a platform for graphic and website design. Speaking of websites, we will also be concretizing our online presence. More than a passive website with a few pages of information, however, we identify a far more interactive venue. For example, we hope to technologically facilitate discussion of and with authors, and hope to use a website as a tool to more closely integrate the JOURNAL’s outp ut with classroom d iscussion. iscussion. Aside from a website, we will also push for the encoding of the JOURNAL and take pains to raise the required money. At present, the P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL is too cumbersome a research source compared to American and international electronic databases.57 The ability to search for key words or phrases electronically, without the tediousness of flipping through pages in the library, will be indispensable in making the JOURNAL mor e accessible accessible to readers and researchers. All this requires money and we have also formed an informal marketing team to assist us. To cite a last project, these marketing volunteers are also exploring the feasibility of having trust funds set up for author honoraria, to add even more prestige to a JOURNAL submission.

CONCLUSION These are, to my mind, bold but necessary strokes, timely measures designed to keep pace with the fast-changing legal landscape. Everything returns to the twin interests I described: the need to keep ties with tradition, and the need to innovate for the institution’s growth. Hopefully, we will able to maintain the delicate balance. All this is summed up in one transcendental vision: to make the JOURNAL even more relevant and effective in the years to come. More focused article solicitation solicitation an d closer editor-auth or t ies will will hopefu lly lly result result in bet ter con tent. Mor e efficient efficient administration will hopefully result in qu icker releases, releases, which which in turn means more timely articles. The use of graphic technology, finally, means a more aesthetically beautiful JOURNAL, one that can entice a busy lawyer or judge to open its cover at the en d of a bu sy day, day, amidst amidst an ever-growing moun d of legal legal papers.

57 Hibbitts, supra note 45, at 658-59; Robert Berring, O n N ot Throwing Out the Baby: Planning the Fu ture of  of   L egal egal I nformat ion, ion, 83 C AL . L . R EV . 615, 619-22 (1995).

18

P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

APPENDIX A: T H E P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL SYLLABUS

PH ILIPP IN E LAW LAW JOURN OU RN AL Oscar Oscar Frank lin lin B . T an, S ylla yllabus bus fo for 20 04 -200 5 *** (the main articles are required reading; the ones in bullet points are optional ) I. T H E H ISTORY OF L AW REVIEWS eview’s Volume 1.) (You are also also required to read page one o f the  H arvard L aw R eview’s

a. Michael Swyg Swygert ert & Jon Br uce, T he H istorical istorical Origins, Founding, and E arly D evelopment evelopment of of Stu dentE dited dited L aw Reviews Reviews, 36 H ASTINGS L.J. L.J. 739 (1985) Influence of the L aw R eview eview Instituti on, 30 AKRON b. Michael Closen & Robert Dzielak, T he H istory and Influence L. REV . 15 (1996) (1996)

c. Amelia Custodio,  H istory of the P hilippi ne L aw Journal , 35 P HI L. L.J. 1461 (1960) d. Charles Hughes, Foreword , 50 YALE L.J. L.J. 737 (1941) University of Pennsyl Pennsylvania vania L aw R evie eview: w: 150 Y ears ears of of H istory istory , 150U. Ed win win G reenlee, reenlee, T he University 150U. P A. L . REV . 1875 (2002) (2002) of the Stetson Stetson L aw R eview view , 30 STETSON Robert Batey & Scott William Fitzpatrick, T he E arly Y ears of L. REV . 213 (2000) (2000) D avid Williams, Williams,  L ook ing B ack and L ook ing A head , 9 RO G E R W ILLIAMS U . L . R E V. 321 321 (200 (2004) 4) of T emple L aw R evie eview: w: Stasis and Change, 75 T E MP . L. Mark Rahdert & Laura Little, T he Future of RE V. 13 (2002 (2002)) gents of I nternat ional D iscourse: iscourse: A C onspectus onspectus on t he F utu re David Bederman & Jonathan Hamilton,  A gents of Int ernational ernational L aw Journals Journals , 40 40 VA. J . I NT 'L L. 817 (2000) (2000) Journal nal at 50 , 46 U.N.B.L.J.3 (1997) Gerard La Forest, T he L aw Jour (1997) eflections on the I owa L aw R eview eview P ast and F utu re, 75 Randall Bezanson,  R eflections 75 I O WA L. RE V. 829(1990 829(1990)) 



 



 

I I . T H E ROLE OF L AW REVIEWS IN JURISPRUDENCE , I N T H E ACADEME , AND IN TH E P ROFESSION

(You are also required to do a Lex Libris search for the terms “Phil. L.J.” and “Philippine Law Journal.” Journal.” N ote the last JOURNAL articles to be squarely cited as basis for a Supreme Court decision, as well as th e last articles cited p arenth etically etically.) .) egal E ducation in the P hilip pines: T he R ole of the P hilip pine L aw Journ al , 65 P HI L. L.J. a. Irene Cortes,  L egal L.J. 1 (1990)  

eview , 28 N.Y.U. L. R E V. 915 (1953) Stanley Fuld,  A Judge L ook s at the L aw R eview eviews, 47 STAN . L . RE V. 1117 ((1995) John Noonan, L aw R eviews 1995)

oodbye to L aw R eviews eviews, 23 VA. L . RE V. 38 (1936) b. Fred Rodell, Rodell, G oodbye (1936)

*** The listed articles were actually compiled and photocopied for the new editorial board members and student volunteers, and used to ground discussions on editorial policy during the new Board’s first meetings.

20 04 ]  

RANSCEND END ENCE O F ACADEMIC L EGAL W RITING T H E T RANSC

19

oodbye to L aw R evie eviews— ws— R evisite evisited  d , 48 VA. L . REV . 279 (1962) Fred Rodell, G oodbye (1962) eview C itadel: R odell odell Revisited  Revisited , 71 I O WA L. RE V. 1093 ((1986) Scott Martin, T he L aw R eview 1986)

eassessing the L aw R eview in the A ge of of C yberspace yberspace, 71 c. Bernard Hibbitts,  L ast W rites? R eassessing 71 N.Y.U. N.Y.U. L. R EV . 615 ((1996) 1996) (revised (revised and ill illustrated ustrated version version at http:/ / www.la www.law.pi w.pitt.edu/ tt.edu/ hibbitts/ lastrev.htm) lastrev.htm) esterday O nce M ore: ore: Sk eptics, eptics, S cribes, ribes, and the D emise of L aw R eviews eviews, 30 AKRON L. Bernard Hibbitts, Y esterday RE V. 267 (1996) (1996) Scholarship hip A mok : E x cesse essess in the Pursuit Pursuit of Truth and T enure , 103 H ARV . L . REV . Kenneth Lasson, Scholars 926, 949 (1990) eview U sage sage and Sugges Suggestions tions for Improvement: Improvement: A S urvey urvey of A ttorneys, ttorneys, Professo Professors, rs, Max Stier et al., L aw R eview and Judges , 44 STAN . L . R E V. 1467 ((1992) 1992) Leo Martinez,  B abies, B athw ater, a nd L aw R eviews 47 STAN . L . R E V. 1139 1139 (1995 (1995)) eviews , 47 Howard D enmark, enmark, T he Death of of L aw R eviews views H as Been Been Predic Predicted ted:: W hat M ight ight Be L ost ost W hen hen the L ast   L aw R eview eview S hut s D own?, 27 27 SE T O N H ALL L. RE V. 1 (199 (1996) 6) Howard D enmark, enmark,  H ow V alid is t he O ften-R epeated epeated A ccusati ccusati on T hat T here are T oo M any L egal egal A rticles and Too Many L aw R evie eviews? ws?, 30 30 A KRON L. RE V. 215 215 (199 (1996) 6) Richard Richard Delgado, E liminate the M iddle M an?, 30 A KRON L. RE V. 233 (1996) (1996) elf-Publication on on the Internet and the Futu re of of L aw R eviews eviews, 30 AKRON L. RE V. 237 Gregory Maggs, S elf-Publication 237 (1996) odest Proposal Proposals, s, Babies, Babies, and B athwater: athwater: A re H ibbitts’s ibbitts’s W rites rites R ight? ight?, 30 Thomas Bruce, Swift, M odest AKRON L. RE V. 243 ((1996) 1996) eview of H ibbit ts’s L ast W rites, 30 AKRON L. RE V. 249 (1996) Trotter Hardy,  R eview (1996) eassessing P rofessor rofessor H ibbitt s’ R equiem for L aw R eviews eviews, 30 AKRON L. RE V. 255 (1996) Henry Perritt,  R eassessing (1996) Scholarlyy L egal M onog onographs: raphs: A dvantage dvantages of the R oad oad N ot T ak en , 30 AKRON L. REV .259 William William Ro ss, Scholarl (1996) eview’s E mp ire, 39 Joshua Rosencranz, L aw R eview’s 39 H ASTINGS L.J. L.J. 859 (1988) (1988) Michael Vitiello,  Journal W ars , 22 ST . M ARY'S L.J. 927, 929 (1991) eflections about L aw R eviews and A merican L egal egal S cholarship cholarship , 76 N E B. L . R EV . Richard Richard Harnsberger,  R eflections 681, 682 (1997) hrowing Out the B aby: Planning the Fut ure of of L egal Information Information , 83 CAL . L. Robert Berring, Berring, O n N ot T hrowing RE V. 615 (1995) (1995) ypertexx t? A Plan for the L aw R eview view to M ove ove into the Twenty-First  Twenty-First  Shawn Shawn Pearsons, C omment, H ype or H yperte Century, 1997 1997 UTAH L. RE V. 765(1997 765(1997)) 





 



 



  

  





Student-Run L aw R eviews? views?, 82 M IN N . L . RE V. 1261 (1998) c. James James H arper, W hy Student-Run fficient nt M atching atching:: R eforming forming the Mark et for L aw R evie eview w A rticle rticless, 5 G E O . M ASON L. Stephen H eifetz, eifetz, E fficie RE V. 629 629 (199 (1997) 7) 

d. Bart Sloan,  N ote, W hat are W e W rit ing F or? S tudent W ork s as A uth ority an d T heir C itat ion by the Federal Bench, 1986-1990 , 61 G E O . WASH . L . RE V. 221 221 (1992 (1992)) unction and Feminist L aw Journals Journals, 12 e. Jane Schacter, Form, F unction 12 COLUM . J . G E N D E R & L.574 (200 (2003) 3) eview an d t he M odern M ind , 33 A RIZ . L . R E V. 265 (1991) f. James Gordon,  L aw R eview (1991) III-A. III-A. ARTICLE SELECTION , E DITORIAL P OLICY, AND AUTHOR R ELATIONS eview E ditors and F aculty W riters , 48 a. Juan Perea,  A fter G ettin g to Y es: A S urvival G uide for L aw R eview 48 F LA . L. REV . 867 (1996) (1996) (May Ann Ro sales sales certifie certifiedd article article on “Rambo editing”) editing”) bstantive E diting V ersus ersus Technic Technical al E diting: diting: H ow D o L aw E ditors ditors Do T heir heir Job? Job?, 30 b. Anne Enquist, Su bstantive STETSON L. RE V. 451 ((2000) 2000) of A rticle C riteria and Selection Selection , 30 STETSON L. RE V. 437 (2000) c. Terri LeClerq, T he N uts and Bolts of (2000)

20

P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

ditingg, 82 G E O . L.J. 513 (1993) d. Carol Sanger, E ditin      

uthors in Search Search of a Character  Character , 70 C HI .-K E N T L. RE V. 71 (1994) Ira Lupu, Six A uthors (1994) Mark Tushnet,  D eath of an A uth or, B y H im self , 70 C HI .-K E N T L. REV . 111 (1994) (1994) election A nti -M anifesto , 80 C ORNELL L. RE V. 529 (1995) Carl Tobias,  M anuscript S election (1995) Richard Richard Graves,  A dvice to N ew S tud ent W ork s E ditors , 30 STETSON L. RE V. 559 (2000) (2000) “C ustom of V etting” etting” as a Substitut e for for Peer Peer R eview eview, 32 ARIZ . L . REV . 1 (1989) Arthur Austin, T he “C (1989) emystifying L egal egal S cholarship holarship , 75 G EO . L.J. Roger Cramton, Comment, D emystifying L.J. 1 (1986)

e. Gregory Maggs,  Just S ay N o?, 70 CHI .-K E N T L. RE V. 101 (1994) (1994) eyond the M oot L aw R eview: eview: A S hort S tory wit h a H appy E ndin g, 70 CHI .-K E NT L. f. Randy Barnett,  B eyond RE V. 123 (1994) (1994) T he Symposium Symposium F ormat ormat as a S olution olution to Proble Problems ms Inherent Inherent in S tudent-E tudent-E dited dited L aw Journals Journals:: A V iew iew from from the Inside, 70 CHI .-K EN T L. RE V. 141 (1994) (1994) eview Symposium Issue: C ommun ity of M eaning or Re-inscription Re-inscription of of H ierarc ierarchy? hy? , Jean Stefancic, T he L aw R eview 63 U. CO LO . L . RE V. 651 (1992) (1992) 



g. James Lindgren,  R eformi 1995) eformi ng the A merican L aw R eview eview , 47 STAN . L . R E V. 1123 ((1995) Geo rge Priest, Priest, T riumphs or F ailings of of M odern odern L egal egal S cholarship holarship and the C onditions of of Its P roduction roduction , 63 U. C O LO . L . RE V. 725 (1992) (1992) 

lectronically ally S ubmit ting Man uscripts uscripts to L aw R eviews eviews, 30 STETSON L. REV . 577 (2000) h. Richard Bales, E lectronic (2000) III-B.S III-B.STATISTICAL AND H ISTORICAL STUDIES ON ARTICLE SELECTION view A rticle rticless R evisited  visited , 71 CHI .-K E N T L. RE V. 751 ((1996) a. Fred Shapiro, T he Most-Cited L aw R eview 1996)

William Landes & Richard Posner,  H eavily C ited A rticles in L aw, 71 C HI .-K EN T L. RE V. 825 (1996) of L aw R eviews views by the U nited St ates ates Courts of of A ppeals ppeals:: A n Louis Sirico, Jr. & Beth Drew, T he Citing of E mpiric mpirical A nalys nalysis is, 45 45 U. M IAMI L. REV . 1051 ((1991) 1991) ost-Cited L aw Review Review A rticle rticless, 73 CAL . L . RE V. 1540 ((1985) Fred Shapiro, T he M ost-Cited 1985) rticless from from the Y ale L aw Journal Journal, 100 YALE L.J. Fred Shapiro, T he Most-Cited A rticle L.J. 1449 (1991) Book s Published Published Since 19 78 , 29 J. LEGAL . STU D . 397 (2000) Fred Shapiro, T he Most-Cited L egal Book (2000) egal Scholars Scholars, 29 J. LEGAL . STU D . 409 (2000) Fred Shapiro, T he M ost-Cited L egal (2000) hicago-Kent L aw R eview eview Faculty Scholarship Scholarship Survey, 70 C HI .Colleen Cullen & Randall Kalberg, C hicago-Kent K E N T L. REV . 1445 ((1995) 1995) Schools and Faculties, 71 C HI .-K E N T L. James Lindgren & Daniel Seltzer, T he Most Prolific L aw Schools RE V. 781 (1996) (1996) 



    



 Judges an d S cholars: cholars: D o C ourts and S cholarly Journals C ite t he b. D eborah Merritt & Melanie Melanie Putnam,  Judges Sam e L aw R evie eview w A rticle rticles? s?, 71 C HI .-K E N T L. RE V. 871 (1996) (1996) of L egal S cholars holarship hip by C ourts: ourts: A n E mpirical mpirical Study , 51 O KL A. Michael McClintock, T he D eclining Use of L. REV . 659 (1998) (1998) 

egal S cholarship?; cholarship?; A c. Michael Saks et al.,  Is T here a G rowing G ap A mong L aw, L aw Practice, and L egal Systematic Systematic Comparison Comparison of L aw R eview view A rticle rticless O ne G eneratio nerationn A part , 28 SUFFOLK U . L . R E V. 1163 ((1994) 1994)

20 04 ]

RANSCEND END ENCE O F ACADEMIC L EGAL W RITING T H E T RANSC

21

III-C.T III-C.T H E (ALLEGED ) I NCOMPETENCE OF STUDENT E DITORS efense of S tud ent E dited Journ als: I n R esponse to Professor R oger  oger  a. Phil Nichols, Note,  A S tud ent D efense Cramton , 1987 D UK E L.J. L.J. 1122 (1987) eviews: T he E x treme C entrist Positi on, 62 I N D . L.J. 1, 10 (1986) Ronald Rotunda,  L aw R eviews: Wendy Gordon, C ounter-M anifesto: anifesto: S tudent-E dited L aw R eviews eviews and the Int ellec ellectual Properties Properties of  of  Scholarship, 61 U. C HI . L . RE V. 541 (1994) (1994) sponse se, 61 U. C HI . L . R E V. 553 Articles Editors of the University of Chicago Law Review, A R espon 553 (1994) of the Student-E Student-E dited dited L aw R eview view , 47 STAN . L . R E V. 1131 ((1995) Richard Richard Po sner, T he Future of 1995)  





b. James Lindgren,  A n A uth or’s M anifesto , 61 61 U. CHI . L . RE V. 527 (1994) (1994) Faculty-E dited dited L aw Journals Journals, 70 C HI .-K E NT L. REV . 87 (1994) Richard Richard E pstein, Faculty-E (1994) ducation to M ove B eyond eyond S truggle truggle, 70 CHI .-K E NT L. RE V. 95 James Lindgren, S tudent E diting: U sing E ducation (1994) Ann Althouse, W ho’s (1994) ho’s to Blame for L aw R evie eviews? ws?, 70 C HI .-K E NT L. REV . 81 (1994)  



ays to Think abou aboutt L aw R eviews views, 47 STAN . L . REV . 1147 (1995) (a Critical c. Robert Weisberg, Some W ays Legal Studies Studies view of editing for Marlon!) isjunction B etween etween L egal egal E ducation ducation and the L egal egal Professio Professionn , 91 M ICH . Harry Edwards, T he Growing D isjunction L. REV . 34 (1992) (1992) Richard Richard D elgado, elgado, T he Imperial Scholar: 132 U. P A. L. Scholar: R eflec eflections tions on on a R eview eview of of C ivil R ights L iterature, 132 RE V. 561 (1984) (1984) Imperial Scholar Scholar R evisited visited:: H ow to M arginalize arginalize Out sider sider W riting, riting, T en Y ears L ater  ater , Richard Richard Delgado, T he Imperial 140 140 U. P A. L . REV . 1349 ((1992) 1992) egal S cholarship: cholarship: In siders, O utsi ders, E ditors , 63 Richard Richard Delgado,  L egal 63 U. CO LO . L . RE V. 717 (1992) (1992) 







Problems in H igher igher E ducation ducation , 13 J.C.& d. Ralph Mawdsley, Mawdsley, Plagiarism Problems J.C.& U.L. U.L. 65 (1986) (1986) IV. IV. T H E E VILS OF F OOTNOTING AND CITATION ebook  , 53 a. Richard Richard Po sner, G oodbye to the Blu ebook  53 U. CHI . L . RE V. 1343 (1986) (1986) Citation F rustrat rustratio ions ns – and Solution Solutionss, 30 STETSON L. RE V. 477 ((2000) b. Darby Dickerson, Citation 2000)

Darby Dickerson,  A n U n-U niform S ystem of C itat ion: S urvivin g wit h the N ew B luebook , 26 STETSON L. REV . 53 (1996) (1996) Paratex ts, 44 STAN . L . RE V. 509 (1992) Ronald Collins & David Skover, Paratex 



Footnote Sk uldugg ulduggery ery and O ther Bad H abits, 44 c. Arthur Austin, Footnote 44 U. MIAMI L. REV . 1009 ((1990) 1990) 

ootnotes as Product D ifferentiation ifferentiation, 40 VAN D . L . RE V. 1131 ((1987) Arthur Austin, F ootnotes 1987)

eliability of of Cit ation Count s in Judgments Judgments on on Promotion, T enure and S tatus , 44 U. d. Arthur Austin, T he R eliability MIAMI L. REV . 1009 (1990), (1990), 35 ARIZ . L . REV . 829 (1993) (1993)

e. T HE BLUEBOOK : A U NIFORM SYSTEM YSTEM O F C ITATION (latest available available ed ition) f. M YRNA F ELICIANO , P HILIPPINE MANUAL OF LEGAL C ITATIONS (UP Law Complex, 1999) g. United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938) (note: Footnote Four) Footnote, 83 N W. U . L . R E V. 275 (1989) h. J.M. Balkin, T he Footnote (1989)

22

P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

V. STYLE , JARGON , L EGALESE , AND GOBBLEDYGOOK

a. W ILLIAM STRUNK ET AL ., T HE E LEMENTS OF STYLE (4th ed. 2000) rticle, 48 J. b. Eugene Volokh, W riting a Student A rticle J. LEGAL E DU C 247 (1998) (see e-group file)

c. Lawrence Lawrence Ch urch,  A Plea for R eadable L aw R eview A rticles, 1989 WIS . L . R E V. 739 (1989) eview , 44 J. Alfred Alfred Co nard,  A L ovable L aw R eview J. LEGAL E D UC . 1 (1994) (1994) reative Bridge Between Between A uthors and E ditors, 45 M D . L . R EV . 241 (1986) Ronald Lansing, T he C reative (1986) Reviews!, 27 ARIZ . L . REV . 317 (1985) John N owak, owak, W oe Unto Y ou, L aw Revie (1985) enses”: C ommun ication ication and L egal egal E x pression pression in Performance Performance Bernard Hibbitts, “Comin g to Ou r S enses”: Cultures, 41 E MORY L.J. L.J. 873 (1992)    

of W riting, 78 C AL. L . REV . 1677 ((1990) d. James Lindgren, Fear of 1990) eview, S tyle M att ers: A R eview eview E ssay on L egal egal W ritin g, 92 YALE L.J. James Lindgren,  B ook R eview, L.J. 161 161 (1982) James Lindgren,  R eturn to S ender , 78 CAL . L . RE V. 1719 ((1990) 1990) 



e. David Bryden, S cholarship (1992) holarship A bout Scholarship Scholarship, 63 U. C O LO . L . REV . 641 (1992) 

Brilliant, the Curious, and the W rong rong, 39 STAN . L . RE V. 917 (1987) Pierre Schlag, Schlag, T he Brilliant, (1987)

ucceedd in L aw S chool chool , 100 YALE L.J. f. James Gordon,  H ow N ot t o S uccee L.J. 1679 (1991) VI. AND I F YOU ’RE STILL SANE … ractical A dvice on on M anaging a L aw a. Vincent Vincent Branto n,  N ow T hat I’ve G ot I t, W hat D o I D o W ith It ? P ractical  R eview eview, 30 STETSON L. RE V. 533 (2000) (2000) essons L earned F rom M y F irst 10 0 D ays as E ditor in C hief , 30 STETSON L. b. Catherine Shannon Shannon ,  L essons RE V. 541 (2000) (2000)

c. James Vallee,  B ig S hoes to F ill: S tepping I nto the P osition of M anaging E ditor , 30 STETSON L. RE V.553 (2000) eview P rocess rocess, 30 STETSON L. REV . 571 (2000) d. Sonali Kolhatkar,  L aw’s G reatest I nfluence: T he L aw R eview (2000) howcasing Stu dent S cholarship: holarship: T he Scholarship Scholarship L uncheon uncheon , 30 STETSON L. RE V. 603 e. Andrea Kurak, S howcasing 603 (2000)

20 04 ]

RANSCEND END ENCE O F ACADEMIC L EGAL W RITING T H E T RANSC

23

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE I NTERNAL D OCUMENTS O utline for for E ditors’ A rticle rticle S ele election Prelimina Prelimina ry M emoranda **** Within Within on e week from receipt receipt of th e article article by the J OURNAL (not from the date of your deliberations), submit a memorandum that answers all these guide questions to the Chair, including including specific specific pro posed corrections, corrections, o ther recom mendations, and lovelife lovelife updates. Preliminary reminder to exercise restraint

1. When was the last time you you watched Rambo or any simila similarr mo vie? vie?***** 2. Have you read the articl articlee straight straight throu gh once, without without stopping to n ote errors? 3. What is the name, institution institution or office, and professional background background of t he author? What is the article’s title? When and how was it submitted to the Journal? Overview Overview of the thesis and stand

4. What is the thesis thesis statement? What What are the subtheses for each section? section? 5. Do es the author take a concrete position position o r stand? Or merely describe describe a field field of law? law? 6. Rate the th esis itself. itself. Is itit no vel? Int riguing? Timely? What imp act does it make? Review of structure

7. Describe the article’ article’ss structure. Ho w is its length length distributed among subtopics? 8. Do es this structure convey the thesis thesis and po sition sition in an organized, organized, logical logical manner? Review of general logical flow and quality of supporting sources

9. Are the thesis thesis and position position generally generally support ed by sound, credible credible sources? 10. Are there logical logical or other flaws in the thesis on the article article or section level? level? 11. Are there landmark landmark sour ces or relevant relevant doctrines missing missing from the article? article? 12. Is the piece supported by similar/ similar/ relevant relevant article articless used for background com parison? Review of writing style and overall reader impact

13. Evaluate the style, style, tone and grammar, tho ugh these are rarely rarely ground ground s to reject. 14. What was your initial initial reaction reaction to the article? What stru ck you as its its highlights? highlights? 15. D o you have criticism criticism on recurring collateral (not str uctural) errors? Any plagiarism? plagiarism? Recommendation

16. In summary, why why are are you you recommend ing to: a. b. c. d.

Accept the article article,, with with minor corr ections? ections? Accept Accept the article, article, subject subject to major recommend ed corrections by the author? Return the article article with your your recomm endations, without without accepting it? Reject Reject the article article outright?

This outline was used for this issue, and this author feels it greatly structured article deliberations. A running Editorial Board inside joke. S ee Juan Perea,  A fter G etting t o Y es: A S urvival G uide for L aw 48 F LA. L . R EV . 867 (1996) (1996) (on the highly highly discourag discouraged ed “Rambo editing”). editing”).  R eview eview E ditors an d F aculty W riters, riters, 48 ****

*****

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL Issue 1 Lineup as of September 5, 2004 (Target date: August 30) (Page 1 of 3)

 Article

013/ Randy Barlongay Goodbye, Dad! 

014/ Chair’s Foreword

003/ V.V. Mendoza Implmenting an Effective   Appellate Jurisdiction 

015/ Franklin Drilon  Judging Congress 

Deliberations 

Chair’s Prerog

Chair’s Prerog

1st Div  Oscar Mon (Gerard)

Chair’s Prerog

Deadline   Accepted   August 31 Deadline  -

Chair’s   Approval 

 Approved   August 31

 Approved  -

Cite and Source  Footnote Formatting 

Chair’s  Edit 

Page  Numbers 

Deadline  Sep. 1

 Approved   August 31

Pages  1-6

Completed   August 31

Completed  Sep. 1

Proofread  Sep. 1

Closed  Sep. 1

Deadline  -

Deadline  -

 Approved  -

Pages  7-26

Style & Grammar Edit   Article Formatting 

Oscar

Deadline  -

-

-

-

 Accepted  -

Completed  -

Completed  -

Proofread  -

Closed  -

Deadline   August 21

Deadline   August 27

Deadline   August 27

 Approved   August 30

Pages  27-34

Completed   August 30

Completed   August 30

Proofread  Sep. 1

Closed  Sep. 1

Deadline  -

Deadline  -

 Approved

Pages  35-37

Completed  -

Proofread  -

Closed  -

 Approved   August 16

Mon

 Accepted   August 16 Deadline   Accepted  -

 Approved  (Author submits after press, Sep. 8)

-

Mon

Completed  -

-

 All citations must be in Harvard Bluebook format. All Philippine citations must be in Philippine Manual format. A ll articles must use the PLJ Template, as uploaded.

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL Issue 1 Lineup as of September 5, 2004 (Target date: August 30) (Page 2 of 3)

 Article

Deliberations 

001/ Oscar Tan It is Emphatically the  Province and Duty of  Congress to Say What  Congress Is 

2nd Div  Gerard May Ann (*Francis)

002/ Gerard Chan  Ascertaining the Vox  Populi Within a  Democratic and  Republican Context 

1st Div  Oscar Mon (Marlon)

008/ John Virgino Power Without   Accountability 

1st Div  Oscar Mon (Gerard)

005/ Daniel Nicer The Law That Giveth  Life to a Watershed 

En banc

Deadline   Accepted   August 26 Deadline   August 21  Accepted   August 18 Deadline   August 21  Accepted   August 17 Deadline   August 21  Accepted   August 16

Chair’s   Approval 

 Approved   August 26

Style & Grammar Edit   Article Formatting 

Mon

 Approved   August 18

May Ann

 Approved   August 17 (author resubmits Sep. 3, 3:00 PM)

Francis Mon May Ann

 Approved   August 16 (author resubmits  August 27)

Oscar

Cite and Source  Footnote Formatting 

Chair’s  Edit 

Page  Numbers 

Deadline   August 30

 Approved  Sep. 5

Pages  39-105

Completed  Sep. 5

Completed  Sep. 1

Proofread  Sep. 5

Closed  Sep. 5

Deadline   August 30

Deadline   August 30

 Approved  Sep. 5

Pages  106-129

Completed   August 30

Completed  Sep. 1

Proofread  Sep. 4

Closed  Sep. 5

Deadline  -

Deadline  -

 Approved  Sep. 4

Pages  130-150

Completed  Sep. 3

Completed  Sep. 3

Proofread  Sep. 5

Closed  Sep. 5

Deadline   August 29

Deadline   August 28

 Approved  -

Pages  151-181

Completed   August 28

Proofread   Aug. 30

Closed   Aug. 30

Deadline  -

Hyacinth

May Ann

Francis

Completed   August 29

Mon Oscar

 All citations must be in Harvard Bluebook format. All Philippine citations must be in Philippine Manual format. A ll articles must use the PLJ Template, as uploaded.

PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL Issue 1 Lineup as of September 5, 2004 (Target date: August 30) (Page 3 of 3)

 Article

Deliberations 

010/ Iris Baguilat The Surging and  Receding Issue on the  Delineation of Municipal  Waters 

3rd Div  Marlon Francis (Gerard)

004/ Freddie Soto Comment, Analysis of  the Probable Cause  Doctrine in U.S.  Extradition Cases 

1st Div  Oscar Mon (Gerard)

012/ Izzy Laluna & Melissa Telan Feature, Office of Legal   Aid 

1st Div  Oscar Mon (Gerard)

011/ Teresita Sia & Ia Lee Feature, OLA and  Beyond 

1st Div  Oscar Mon (Gerard)

Deadline   August 24  Accepted   August 24 Deadline   August 21  Accepted   August 16 Deadline   Accepted  Sep. 3 Deadline   Accepted  Sep. 3

Chair’s   Approval 

 Approved   August 24 (Transfer to Issue 1) (computer can’t read)

Style & Grammar Edit   Article Formatting 

Cite and Source  Footnote Formatting 

Chair’s  Edit 

Page  Numbers 

Deadline  -

 Approved  -

Pages  182-198

Completed  Sep. 5

Completed  Sep. 5

Proofread  -

Closed  Sep. 5

Deadline   August 31

Deadline   August 31

 Approved  Sep. 3

Pages  199-209

Completed   August 31

Completed  Sep. 2

Proofread  Sep. 3

Closed  Sep. 3

Deadline  Sep. 3

Deadline  Sep. 3

 Approved  Sep. 3

Pages  210-220

Completed  Sep. 3

Completed  Sep. 3

Proofread  Sep. 3

Closed  Sep. 3

Deadline  Sep. 2

Deadline  Sep. 2

 Approved  Sep. 3

Pages  221-231

Completed  Sep. 2

Proofread  Sep. 3

Closed  Sep. 3

Deadline  -

Oscar

 Approved   August 16 (author resubmits  August 29)

Mon

 Approved  Sep. 3

Oscar (authors resubmit Sep. 3, 6:00 PM)

 Approved  Sep. 3

Oscar (authors resubmit Sep. 2, 6:00 PM)

Oscar

Mon

Completed  Sep. 2

Oscar

Oscar

 All citations must be in Harvard Bluebook format. All Philippine citations must be in Philippine Manual format. A ll articles must use the PLJ Template, as uploaded.

F  OREWORD 

SISYPHUS’ LAMENT, P ART I I : E DITING, OR THE STUDENT ’S ART OF N OT BE I N G O N E ’S O WN WORST E NEMY* O scar scar Frank Frank lin lin B. T an**

H andling andling pub licati lications ons thro ughout my grade school, high high schoo l, and and college years, I described writing as the art of coaxing ideas from the innermost recesses of one’s soul, wrapping them around one’s perspective of life to highlight its myriad aspects, and immortalizing the unique product that results. If writing is such a personal, creative act in the most liberating Hegelian sense,1 then editing can be no less. Professor Carol Sanger’s much cited “brief plea for a revival of common sense in editing” 2 captures this broad, hum an beauty: beauty:

This article discusses Volume 79’s 79’s ph ilosop ilosop hies in law review management , and continues from what was substantially the speech delivered by the author at the isyphus’’ L ament, ament, Part I: The N ex t  JOURNAL ’s 90th An niversary celebration. Fore word, S isyphus  N inety Y ears an d the th e T ranscendence of L egal egal W ritin g, 79 P H IL . L.J. 7 (2004). Th is was held last September 14, 2004, and was at the same time the Volume 79 Board’s induction and the release release o f its Issue 1. Cite as O scar scar F ranklin ranklin Tan, Foreword, S isyphus isyphus’’ L ament, ament, Part II : E diting diting,, or the Student’s Student’s A rt of of N ot Being Being O ne’ ne’s Own W orst orst E nemy nemy, 79 P H IL . L.J. 233, (page cited) (2004). The Board would like like to thank the following following students students who volunteered to h elp elp with Issue 2 and h ave been info rmally designated as the JOURNAL’s int erns: M elissa Telan (Head o f Feature s), Janice Janice Lee, Josh Josh T rocino, G erald Joseph Jumamil, Leandro Leandro Angelo Aguirre, and William Varias. All are from the Class of ’08, except for Mr. Varias who is from the C lass of ’06. ’06. ** Chair, P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL ; Member, Student Editorial Board (2004). Fourth Year, Ll.B., University of the Philippines (2005 expected). B.S. Management aude, Ateneo de Manila University Engineering Engineering / A.B. A.B. Economics Hono rs, Cum L aude (2001). First Freshman Awardee, Justice Irene R. Cortes Prize for Best Paper in Constitutional Law (2002). Awardee, Professor Araceli T. Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Law (2003). First Awardee, Professor Bienvenido C. Ambion Prize for Best Paper in P rivate Intern ational Law (2004). (2004). 1 G EORG H E G E L , T H E P HILOSOPHY OF RIGHT , § 57 (T.M. Knox trans. 1971) (1821), in 46 G REAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN W ORLD 26 (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Maynard Maynard H utchins ed. 1982). 2 Carol Sanger, E diting diting, 82 G E O . L.J. L.J. 513, 514 (1993). (1993). *

233

23 4

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

Editing is a highly complex set of functions, and no individual is capable of exercising them all with equal aplomb. The editor who wines and dines the agents and charms authors may be a clumsy negotiator; the brilliant dealmaker may have no patience for the tedious and demanding word-by-word task of copy-editing; the copy editor who brilliantly brings a book to life word by word, line by line, may be completely at sixes and sevens when it comes to handling authors.3

For all its beauty, however, my personal frustration is that the art of  editing is not always approached studiously and scientifically in law reviews. This, I feel, is exacerbated by the fact that P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL editors are chosen solely on the basis of a legal essay written in two hours and the equivalent of a thesis paper written in one week, meaning that it is quite possible for the majority of editors to assume office without any prior publication experience whatsoever, and especially without a deeper appreciation of the perspective and discipline an editorial position entails. No less than Judge Richard Posner calls student editors “inexperienced not only as students of the law but also as editors, writers, supervisors, and managers.” 4 Sanger puts it more bluntly: “Most student editors have likely had no editorial editorial experie experience nce befor e sitting sitting down to your paper ot her t han h aving aving h ad their own work hacked to bits by students who experienced the same thing the year before.” 5 It is quite possible, in other words, for a set of highly intelligent but otherwise clueless law students to claim the words “editorial discretion” as unbridled license to be the academic equivalents of bulls in china shops – and do as much damage to the law review institution. This, most curiously, in a profession profession that th rives rives on rules and frowns on unbo unded discretion. discretion. I. T H E I N H E R E N T I NCOMPETENCE NCOMPETENCE OF STUDENT E DITORIAL BOARDS The most shocking statement I have ever heard from law review editors goes something like, “Once the article is submitted to us, we can do whatever we want with it.” This is not simply the fault of my mind’s brusque

at 518, quoting Richard Curtis,  A re E ditors N ecessary? ecessary?, in E DITORS ON E DITING : WH AT W RITERS N E E D T O K N O W A BOUT W H AT E DITORS D O 33 (Gerald Gross ed., 3d ed. 1993). 4 Richard Posner, T he Fu ture of S tudent-E dited dited L aw Review Review, 47 STAN . L. R E V. 1131, 1132 (1995). 5 Sanger, supra not e 2, at 517. 3  Id.  Id .

20 0 4 ]

F OREWORD

235

phrasing since sterilizing the thought into the euphemism “editorial discretion” hardly makes it more palatable. This statement feels wrong primarily because of an undeniable fact: student editors are inherently incompetent. This is not to say that they lack  intelligence, though as Professor James Lindgren quips, “it’s a fallacy to mistake mistake brightness and effort for comp etence.” etence.” 6 To give a concrete example, the incumbent P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL Chair felt rather incompetent when he first stepped into the Justice Alex Reyes Room, opened the first envelope addressed to him, and read the words “Justice Vicente V. Mendoza” on the stationery. It is thus a reality that student editors’ knowledge of the extremely specialized fields and narrow lines of jurisprudence discussed in submissions will never come close to the authors’. 7 This is especially true with Volume 79, where five out eight editors are sophomores, and I must commend these five for handling articles on Commercial, Remedial, International and even Taxation Law without a single complaint. Thus, what some editors mistake as “editorial discretion discretion ” m ay well well be h ubr is. This attitude – which brings a macabre twist to Justice Louis Brandeis’s immortal line, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding” 8 – is the root of most howls of agony raised in the academe. Professor Sanger complains of “the multilayered attack on the draft by which editor after editor in the review hierarchy rethinks the commas and reassesses the arguments — what one friend calls ‘recreational paraphrasing.’” 9 Judge Posner articulates: Law review editors are notoriously erratic in attempting to improve an author’s style. … These inexperienced editors, preoccupied with citation forms and other rule-bound approaches to editing, abet the worst ten dencies of legal and academic writing.10

Professor Lindgren actually compiled various anecdotes:

James Lindgren, S tudent E diting: diting: U sing E ducation ducation to M ove ove Beyo Beyond nd S trugg truggle, 70 C H I .K EN T L. R E V. 95, 99 (1994). (1994). 7 Richard Epstein, Faculty-E Faculty-E dited L aw Journal Journalss, 70 C H I .-K E N T L. R E V. 87, 87, 88 (199 (1994) 4).. 8 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 9 Sanger, supra not e 2, at 523. 10 Posner, supra not e 4, at 1134. 6

23 6

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

One review accepted a manuscript and edited it, introducing over two hundred style errors into the manuscript. The author responded with a letter detailing the errors and providing excerpts from style manuals to illustrate them. The author requested either no style editing or a new, competent editor. The review refused. A law journal recently tried to change case citations in a historical article to courts listed in T he Blue Book  Book , rather than the courts that actually actually decided them . One law review editor thought that many uses of the word “the” were errors. Following this bizarre rule of thumb, he took as many “thes” out of manuscripts as he could, thus reducing many sentences to a kind of pidgin. 11

Professor Roger Cramton even went to the extent of drawing up a fictional conversation: [T]hat [T]hat must be a hot top ic. We got abou abou t sixty sixty pieces pieces on that in the last last couple weeks. weeks. We better take one of them . Well, Well, this one has mo re footno tes than any of them. Look guys, guys, I skimmed skimmed th rough th at piece. If we take itit – it hasn’t got any historical section, and it only gives a couple page explanati explanation on of the first first amendment. N o pr oblem, we’ll we’ll just just send it b ack to her t o fill in that st uff. Better get get her to beef up some of these footnot es: this one section looks a little thin. O .K. I guess it's it's settled, we’ll we’ll take take the piece. Anyone here take a first amendment course? … well, that’s all right – we all had constitution al law. law. Anything else else we gotta take care of today? Yeah – some jerk autho r called. called. That econo mics piece. piece. H e’s e’s all all bent out of shape because we fixed his piece up without telling him. I knew we shou shou ldn't have taken that piece. That’s the last last piece we take without foo tno tes. What was wrong with it? it? It had all this gibberish about some new theory I couldn't figure out, so I changed it to fit traditional economic doctrine.

11

James Lind Lind gren,  A n A uthor’s (1994). ut hor’s M anifesto ani festo, 6 1 U . C H I . L . R E V. 527,529 (1994).

20 0 4 ]

F OREWORD

237

Well the hell with the author. We’re publishing it, not him. Anything else?12

I can attest to such frustration myself. Allow me to present a hypothetical experience where the editor responsible for deliberations, an abstract figure in my imagination designated  X  for convenience, was so onth s after I subm itted a manuscript. remiss that I received a reply only  four m onths manuscript.  X  then detailed revisions he was requiring me to make by listing each of the five deliberating editors’ comments in bullet point form – many of which contradicted each each oth er. Suppose that was only the beginning. The article was very complex, to the point that when I requested a former dean to review it, he recomm ended th at I explain explain a n umb er of h ighly ighly technica technicall points further, and add analogies and imagery because even he had trouble with the nonlegal, mathematical principles I had to use in support of my Constitutional arguments.  X  later removed all these, claiming they were redundant and lengthy – which is in itself a justifiable judgment, of course – but did so in such a crude fashion that summaries and restatements at the ends of  sections were preserved but the original discussions were deleted. Nevertheless, the paper retained numerous references to portions that had been removed.  X  also also insisted o n r emo ving my critique of a case’s case’s dissenting opinion claiming it was irrelevant, never mind that the article dealt with proposed legislation and the dissent had been converted into a key House bill. (And while I was fuming, another student approached me and complained that someone, perhaps another manifestation of the abstract  X  , had almost deleted half of the substantive points in his professor’s paper, which was eventu ally ally pub lished lished in fu ll in th e same jour nal.) But suppose this impromptu fiction’s end is not yet in sight.  X  insisted on applying the Philippine M anual of of L egal Citation , where I had  B luebook . That editor also felt that the Philippine recomm recomm ended the H arvard arvard  Bluebook   M anu al prohibited the use of “ id .,” .,” and since my originally hundred-page article discussed mainly two cases, the printed version repeated the same two lengthy citations several dozen times, and at some points I even saw the same full citation five times on the same page – in consecutive footnotes. Even the formatting was salt in my wounds; some text was misaligned and headings were inconsistently capitalized. Finally, the last draft I was shown

ost R emark able Institution’: Institution’: T he A merican merican L aw R eview view, 36 J. Roger Cramton, ‘The M ost efense of S tu dent-E dited  LEGAL E D UC . 1, 8 (198 (1986) 6),, quoted in Phil Nichols, Note,  A D efense  Journals: In R esponse t o Professor R oger oger C ram ton, 1987 D UK E L.J. 1122, 1122 (1987). See also script S election election A nti-M nti -M anifesto ani festo, 80 C ORNELL L. R E V. 529 Carl Tob ias, ias,  M anu script 529,, 538 (1995 (1995). ). 12

23 8

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

even omitted my full name, my academic credentials, and – the unkindest cut of all! – the note of heartfelt thanks to my professor placed on the first page. Sadly, while one would readily sue a surgeon who insists on operating with a meat cleaver, there is little recourse against editorial hacks, except perhaps to turn the author-editor relationship into a counterproductive power struggle.13 The greatest greatest dangers and men of zeal indeed. indeed. I I . H ARNE SSIN G TH E STRENGTHS OF THE STUDENT E DITORIAL BOARD Although m ere students are, naturally, naturally, far far fro m masters of doctrine, their seeming greatest weakness is actually their greatest strength. Precisely because they are students, they are the lowly cogs in the legal machinery that allow allow its its academe academe t o function , because because no one else has the time to devot e to 14 the law review’s minutiae. They even have both the time and the skill to check auth ors’ references, which is a rare service.15 Tongue-in-cheek allusions to slave labor aside, however, law students’ inexperience is a great strength because it allows them to function as a sounding board for the larger audience of lawyers. Though lacking specialized experience in any particular field, students are nevertheless equipped with the latest knowledge in every general field. Thus, while they could not possibly write almost all the articles they review, student editorial boards make excellent referees, and what they publish are presumably appropriate for the general practitioner.16 They serve admirably as “first readers” 17 who can point out how to focus discussions of specialized, complex doctrines. Student panels are also free of professional bias that may creep into faculty panels with particular research interests.18 In short, once they disabuse themselves of delusions of grandeur and editorial discretion, these inherent incompetents stand to become the profession’s most effective handmaidens of academic exchange.

G regory Maggs, Maggs,  Just S ay N o?, 70 C H I .-K E N T L. R E V. 101 101,, 101 101-0 -022 (1994 (1994). ). James Harper, W hy S tudent-Run 1261,, 1274 1274-7 -755 tudent-Run L aw Revie Reviews ws??, 82 M IN N . L. R E V. 1261 (1998). 15 Posner, supra not e 2, at 1134. 16 Nichols, supra not e 10, at 1129-30. 17 Sanger, supra not e 1, at 519. 18 Nichols, supra not e 12, at 1127-28. 13 14

20 0 4 ]

F OREWORD

239

A. ARTICLE D ELIBERATION STRUCTURE In order to harness these strengths, Volume 79 formulated a simple but mor e structured articl articlee deliberation deliberation p rocess, which is the cor e of the law law review process. Noting journal articles such as Sanger’s, Posner’s and Lindgren’s, we agreed to maintain a deferential approach to authors. First and foremost, this entailed a commitment to refrain from “Rambo” editing, a Volume 79 inside joke better explained by Professor Juan Perea: A Rambo edit was one of the worst experiences of my professional life. … The first editor with whom I worked did a good  job , conc co ncen entr tratin atin g on mat ter s of or ganiz atio n and an d rep etit ion , and suggesting that an additional section might be helpful. I agreed and implemented the changes he suggested, and everything seemed to be going smoothly. Then a higher-level editor decided, on his own initiative, to “take a fresh crack” at my article. In hindsight, I can see that his choice of words revealed a Rambo editor. The second editor didn't like my writing style nor my diction throughout a long manuscript, so he resolved to make my article sound like him. He proceeded to slash and burn almost every sentence and paragraph in my entire manuscript, and in the process introduced many outright errors. The one that I remember best is that, after his edit, he had John Jay, one author of the Federalist papers and an early Supreme Court Justice, quoting contemporary sociologist Milton Gordon. Think about that. I cannot publish what I said and thought after receiving receiving th e still-smoking, still-smoking, smo ldering ruins of my man uscript.19

Second, we made sure that authors were informed of our decisions to accept or reject an article within a week of receipt by the JOURNAL . This anti-Rambo and pro-author attitude is facilitated by the deliberation structure suggested by Vice-Chair Gerard Chan. Instead of  hand ling ling articles articles en banc, the Board divided itself into four divisions of two, with the Chair or Vice-Chair breaking ties. This ensures that every article receives both a thorough and a speedy review. Further, since each pair also serves as the Issue Editors of a particular issue, clear lines of accountability and authority are drawn. This has allowed each division to complete issues in record time, yet solicit articles thematically. 20 At the same time, the

Juan Perea,  A fter G etting ettin g t o Y es: A S urvival urviv al G uide uid e for L aw R eview eview E ditors and F aculty W rite riters, 48 F LA . L . R E V. 867, 867, 871 (1996 (1996). ). 20 Issue 1, the Professor Samilo Barlongay Political Law Memorial Issue, was handled by myself and Ramon Sarmiento. This issue has an economics and commercial law theme, and was handled by Gerard Chan and May Ann Rosales. Issue 3, sent to 19

24 0

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

workload becomes more manageable in that, except for the Chair, each editor expects to focus on only the submissions of one senior practitioner, two junior practitioners, practitioners, and on e student author, and h e even has more time to communicate at length with them. And so we have been able to Rambo sparingly, and in all cases gave the author the first opportunity to shoot his own horse instead of firing a bullet into the air,21 trusting that he is the mo st capable of implementing editors’ recommendations. This structure actually enhances the Board’s collegial nature. Each division is required to provide a written summary of deliberations for each article. These are e-mailed to each editor, and each recipient is able to reply with questions, similarly reproduced to the rest of the Board. Further, the Chair retains his traditional certiorari powers to reverse the review of a division or, more often, bring it to the attention of the entire Board. The fact that speeches of Justices Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban 22 h ad recently been published in the  M anila ani la B ulletin but accepted by our Second Division, for example, was quickly resolved through e-mail during the semestral break, without need for a physical meeting. Parenthetically, this greatly benefits the Board’s working students, and even corrections to article drafts are efficiently efficiently circulated circulated th rou gh e-m ail. ail. In contrast, I actually believe that the traditional structure makes for less effective collegiality. Given the constraints of setting up meetings between students with different schedules, including evening students, larger deliberating panels can degenerate into a simple declaration of votes even before discussing each editor’s reasons. When the article is then assigned to a specific member for editing, specific arguments or conditions for acceptance may well be disregarded, which is important for articles of  bo rderline qu ality. ality.

press at the same time as this one, deals with procedure and was handled by Francis Joseph Cruz and Charles Cheng. 21 Otherwise, one gets anecdotes such as: “[T]he editor sent back a completely rewritten piece which co nverted my article article attacking an S.E.C. policy into a practitioneroriented article advising lawyers how to comply with the S.E.C. position. The last instructions from the editor were to ‘write the conclusion within one week and return.’ I calle calledd th e editor and told her that she had m isunderstood isunderstood t he purp ose of my article, article, and eviews – T he E x treme C entrist  that her deadline was unrealistic.” Ronald Rotunda,  L aw R eviews Position , 62 I N D . L.J.1, L.J.1, 10 (1987 (1987). ). 22 Reynato Puno,  Judicial R eview: eview: Q uo V adis?, 79 P H IL . L.J. L.J. 249 (20 (2004) 04);; Artemi Artemioo ilipp ines, 79 P H IL . L.J. Panganiban,  Judicial A ctivism in the Ph ilippines, L.J. 265 (2004). (2004).

20 0 4 ]

F OREWORD

241

A deliberation structure in itself addresses administrative problems, but not uncontrolled editorial discretion itself. The main problem in the context of deliberation remains that different Boards, different panels or even different individual editors can have wildly differing standards of  review. This creates a problem of inconsistency, and is hard to check on a case to case basis. For example, invoking editorial discretion, I once heard of  an editor vote to reject a hundred-page article because of a single perceived error on page twenty. twenty. I heard of another who voted to reject reject another lengthy article because of a perceived error in an introductory discussion on legal philosophy, although he had been deliberating on a Remedial Law paper. Such problems can only be addressed with clear editorial policies. 23 Volume 79 uses a very simple one-page set of guidelines, which is used to prepare written memoranda required for each article. At its heart is a simple distinction between what Professor Anne Enquist calls substantive and techn ical ical editing. B. SUBSTANTIVE E DITING The distinction is explained: Substantive editing is the process of examining and commenting on an article’s substance, that is, the ideas, arguments, and the overall organization. Substantive editing is concerned with what the article says. Technical editing, on the other hand, is the process of  examining and commenting on an article’s technical features, that is, the words, sentences, and minor details. Technical editing is concerned with how the author expresses his or her ideas. 24

The article deliberations for acceptance or rejection are confined only to substantive editing, and Volume 79’s simple guidelines require an editor to first read the article once without stopping to note perceived errors, and then review only: 1) the thesis and subtheses, and their novelty, significance and impact; 2) the structure and flow; 3) the general quality of  sources and substantiation of points; and 4) the general quality of writing. 25

S ee Terri LeClerq, T he N uts and B olts olts of A rticle rticle Criteria Criteria and S ele election, 3 0 STETSON L. RE V. 437 437,, 441 441-4 -433 (2000 (2000). ). 24 Anne Enquist, S ubstantive E diting V ersus T echnic echnical al E diting: diting: H ow L aw Review Review E ditors ditors  D o T heir Job , 3 0 STETSON L. R E V. 451 451,, 452 (2000 (2000). ). S ee Perea, supra not e 18, at 869. 25  Id.  Id . at 453. Professor Enquist uses six points: (1) the thesis; (2) the line of  reasoning and arguments; (3) the large-scale organization; (4) what is not in the article; (5) what is in the text versus wh at is in in th e foot no tes; and (6) the aut hor’s voice. voice. 23

24 2

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

The ideal is a well-structured piece with a strong thesis, and a thesis is more than a topic sentence in that it incorporates a concrete stand on an issue. (Parenthetically, some student articles may fall short of this in that they have impressive research but take the wishy-washy thesis, “This is an important emerging field of law and the author hopes this article will inspire further research on the matter.” Such a thesis makes for an excellent bibliography, but a po or legal legal article. article.)) The key is to force the reviewing editor to deliberate using a broad view, dealing with the structure of sections instead of going into individual paragraphs and sentences. Most obviously, this approach avoids the absurdity of rejecting a hundred-page article based on a perceived error in one paragraph, or nitpicking over points collateral to the author’s actual thesis. The initial focus is solely on overall substance, a sensible notion I believe believe inexperience inexperiencedd editors con fuse with with oth er areas areas for improvement that are less significa significant nt and less immed iate in the initial initial deliberation deliberation s. The app roach furt her saves a lot lot of time when d ealing ealing with with less than excellent articles because the editor is forced to identify structural problems that cannot be solved merely by correcting individual sentences. And even with already good articles, the mindset becomes one of being able to propose enhancements rather than unilaterally effecting what one feels are corrections. One common comment, for example, is that an author did an excellent job researching but spent relatively few pages articulating his analysis. One important result, I feel, is that Volume 79 has been able to accommodate authors with more substance than style who would otherwise be rejected. I remember one especially difficult article that was put to an en banc vote. Four editors voted to return it to the author for revision, and the other four voted to reject it outright. The Board, it seemed, unanimously believed that the author had religious objections to certain usages of the  pream bles and whereas clauses of laws English language, and he even quoted  preambles verbatim at some points. I assigned it to myself and discussed with the author my outline of the article and my co-editors’ memoranda, and he agreed to submit a restructured draft within the week. I then took the draft and spent twenty-five hours further reorganizing his scattered ideas and rephrasing his sentences solely to cure verbosity, eventually trimming fiftyfive pages into seventeen. After it was published, we discovered that the article reflected an important government position, and no member of the Board regrets accepting it. Similarly, for that same issue, another editor had to restructure another article that could scatter a single point across three to

20 0 4 ]

F OREWORD

243

five different places, yet the reorganized article turned out to be a very interesting, no vel, and and practical piece. I recall countless such incidents from college. Handling inexperienced aspiring freshman writers, I would review draft outlines and proposed interview questions with them in great detail only to get a disorganize disorganized, d, confused draft. N evertheless, evertheless, I would tell them th ey had do ne well, before proceeding to delete two out of every three words. I would explain that they had done such thorough research that the article could be reorganized and rephrased. What, again, is the editor’s task but to help an author find find his voice? voice?26 The truly disastrous authors were those who submitted well-written but ultimately superficial material and filled space by waxing poetic for several paragraphs. They, for example, failed to build rapport with interviewees and take the time to ask detailed follow-up questions, sometimes just asking resource persons to answer a questionnaire. In these cases, I found myself deleting close to three out of every three words, and asking them to add content. In legal writing, the equivalent would be authors who paste lengthy excerpts from decisions with barely any analysis, without even so much as a train of thought revealed by the selection of decisions and particular excerpts, nor any buildup towards a discernable thesis. No amount of structural buttressing by editors can salvage such. C. T ECHNICAL E DITING Technical editing deals with the devils in the details, and amounts to what most people associate with editing. One generally checks for grammar, spelling, punctuation, organization of ideas on a paragraph level, paragraph and sentence structure, and precision and conciseness of wording. 27 If  substantive editing is done properly and the article’s structure is sound, technical editing is thus a very simple matter of checking individual paragraphs and sentences against the rules of grammar. As Professor Perea puts it: If you conceive of your role as that of rewriting an article…. you are probably not thinking enough about the “macro” issues discussed

ho’s to Blame for for L aw R eviews? views?, 7 0 C H I .-K E N T L. R E V. 81 , 8 4 Ann Althouse, W ho’s (1994). 27 Enquist, supra not e 24, at 461-62. 461-62. 26

24 4

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

above which you should be thinking about. You are beginning with a microscopic view of your role.28

I believe good substantial editing leads to more deferential, less invasive technical editing as well, since the editor initially examines the article as a whole, including the author’s particular tone and voice. Inexperienced editors are tempted to feel obliged to make as many changes as they can, but that is as much the measure of successful editing as the number of footnotes is a measure of substance. There are, rather, true corrections justified by principles of grammar or conciseness, and there are “corrections” dictated by an editor’s sense of style. The latter are generally left alone, lest th e article lose its person ality. ality.29 In Volume 79, individual editors have on occasion expressed apprehension that a particular author is written in such simple language that the ton e may not be form al or even scholarly scholarly enough for a legal legal publication, publication, or simply sounds less impressive compared to others in the lineup. Nevertheless, if the piece is grammatically correct and hardly verbose, we leave it alone and let the author be judged as he is. It would be unrealistic, for example, to fire every article with the flourish of a Justice Reynato Puno, Isagani Cruz, Jose Laurel, or Gregorio Perfecto. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, for example, writes simply, yet his style has innate strength driven by its meticulousness and incisiveness, and in the end inspires as much respect as the other names I have mentioned. The same surely holds true for younger authors, any of whom could be the next V.V., and it would not do to ask  them to masquerade as someone else while their style ripens and matures. Of course, when an article and especially a student article is characterized by impo ssible ssible passive sentences and liberally liberally substitut es the elusive elusive spark o f wit with legalisms such as “aforecited,” “be that as it may,” and the malevolent “said,” it must be translated into English, and such a tone bereft of all personality cannot be immortalized in print. As Professor Sanger cautions editors: Many revisions seem to emanate from an unhappy idea of what legal writing, especially law review writing, ought to sound like. An antiquated sense of legal rhetoric has resulted in a bureaucratic impulse toward the impersonal, the flattened, and the pompous.30

Perea, supra not e 18, at 871. Sanger, supra not e 2, at 525. 30  Id . at 520. 28 29

20 0 4 ]

F OREWORD

245

Especially atrociously written articles aside, the bulk of Volume 79’s technical editing focuses on footnotes, which have a special significance in a profession that emphasizes precedent. The policy is not to merely format footnotes while taking one’s turn cursing the unbelievable complexity of the  Bluebook   B luebook , but to check the accuracy of each one, down to opening physical copies of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated and identifying the exact pages an author m eant to refer to. While one primarily checks the existence and proper context of  references, one may be surprised by what a disciplined check reveals. We take pains to footnote all direct quotations, for example. In Issue 1, this paid off after we found out that supposedly classic lines from the likes of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Alexander Bickel had been misquoted without citing the source, and we corrected these and placed the footnotes. Such attention to detail is, again, part of the student editorial board’s job. And even with footnoting, we maintain a level of deference. Some authors use them sparingly, while others mark very clear research trails, especially students who must clearly establish their legal bases. So long as main sources and sources of direct direct quo tes are prop erly erly cited, cited, we accept accept b oth styles as they are as well. What we have discouraged, however, are articles that p ush d iscuss iscussion ion into lengthy lengthy footn ote p arenth arenth etical eticals. s. I I I . T H E H EART OF LAW REVIEW Having discussed Volume 79’s attempt to concretize editorial policy, I cannot end without discussing how daunting a task running the JOURNAL is. It is all the more daunting because in many respects, the institution itself  works to u nderm ine student editorial editorial boards. Consider that a new Board is usuall usuallyy constituted constituted to wards the end of  September, which is the thick of Bar Operations work and immediately before final exams in October. Yet, the Board that realistically convenes in November is expected to produce the year’s quota of journal issues by early March, or graduating editors are not recognized at their ceremony and lowerclassmen are barred from taking the next editorial exam. Further, the Board is officially prohibited from creating a staff because faculty and alumni believe that crediting students who have not passed the editorial exam in the editorial box diminishes the exam. To appreciate the gravity of  this restriction, consider that American law reviews recommend allotting thirty hours per fifty footnotes to be checked, and my editorial exam paper alone had 461.

24 6

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

Nevertheless, it is actually easy for unscrupulous student editors to beat the o dds. O ne need only lapse lapse into into the stereotype stereotype o f editing, editing, and merely take articl articles es and pro duce a stream of red marks, then cut all all the corn ers one can and hope one graduates by the time any truly atrocious oversights are luebook  actually checks your discovered – and that no one familiar with the  B luebook  footnote formats. Again, there is an undue focus on producing four issues of whatever quality come March that there is sometimes an impression that the truly important aspects of the process are not under scrutiny. One past JOURNAL issue, in fact, merely took all the papers from a recent conference on tuna and published published th em as a special special issue issue to help meet th e quota. Student editors’ simplest trick is liberally raiding the last batch of  graduates for their theses and research papers, particularly those that won legal writing awards. By the second semester of the Board’s term, it is a simple matter to cite these authors as fresh junior associates instead of as student authors. There is a world of difference, of course, between a student-edited publication and a student publication, and the student article ratio may well be the acid test of a Board’s dedication. I emphasize, of  course, that there is nothing wrong with student articles – aside from the usual nightmare of editing editing them – and I dream of featuring the next Anto nio Carpio-esque student piece during my watch, one so legendary that the author is already sitting in the Supreme Court yet it remains standard in class reading lists.31 I merely wish to avoid having student pieces dominate. I am glad that, so far, Volume 79 had the luxury of keeping very conscious of other aspects of quality. However, as I opened this piece, editing is as beautifully a human art as writing itself, and although this is more difficult to see in a law review process where author-editor relationships are not as close as those in one’s high school and college publications, editors should not lose sight of this beauty. While, as Sanger pointed out, the editor is often peon and proofreader, he must also be maestro, cheerleader and even evangelist in relating to the authors under his care.

ilippi ne L aw, 47 P H IL . L.J. Antonio Carpio,  In tention al T orts in Ph ilippine L.J. (1972 (1972). ). This This student piece only takes on greater significance today because of its application to the right to privacy’s Civil Law aspects, and I suppose I would consider it the Philippines’ upon the Citadel (S (S trict trict L iability to the C onsumer) onsumer), equivalent of William Prosser, T he A ssault upon Journal nal. 69 YALE L.J. 1099 (1960), the second-most widely cited article in the Y ale L aw Jour ost-Cited A rticle rticless from from the Y ale L aw Journal Journal, 1 00 YALE L.J Fred Shapiro, T he M ost-Cited L.J. 144 1449, 9, 146 14611 (1991). 31

20 0 4 ]

F OREWORD

247

One early but unforgettable Volume 79 moment came when, at our induction, Dean Raul Pangalangan held up a copy of our freshly released Professor Samilo Barlongay Political Law Memorial Issue in front of his children, seated in the audience. Atty. Randy Barlongay, who wrote the foreword, was approached by another Issue 1 author, Atty. Daniel Nicer, who to ld him at length length h ow m uch he app reciated reciated his father. father. Even a Filipi FilipinonoAmerican law student, Freddie Soto, requested the Board to dedicate his articl articlee to Professor Barlongay Barlongay, even even th ough h e did not have the op port unity to study law in the Philippines. We were formally inducted in the middle of  September, in the middle of the bar examinations and roughly at the time Professor Barlongay would busy himself finalizing comments on the Po litical litical Law exam. Advising student writers through the years, I always emphasized that it is too late to begin editing when one receives the final drafts. Rather, one must proactively influence the process from the moment articles are conceived or solicited, and take opportunities to communicate with authors to build an issue-level issue-level vision, vision, anticipating and st imulating debate in p articular articular 32 fields that will find its way into the JOURNAL . I am glad we were able to come close to such a vision for our Political Law-themed first issue, and hon or o ur dear professor with the coin h e valued valued the m ost and freely gave. gave. That triumph of editorial planning brought out the best of the JOURNAL ’s academic and human spirit, and reminded me how truly alive this institution is. The ultimate personal challenge, then, is for student editors to stay conscious that their task not a passionless, mechanical abstraction of  correcting grammar and checking footnotes, but a fulfilling, dynamic partnership and h uman endeavor with authors striving striving to find find their voices. voices.33 Practitioners often advise students, after all, to enjoy student life while they still can.

Nichols, supra not e 12, at 1133. 1133. S ee Ronald Lansing, T he Creative Creative Bridge Bridge Betwe Between A uthors and E ditors ditors, 45 M D . L . R EV . 241 (1986) (1986).. 32 33

24 8

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

APPENDIX A: O UTLINE FOR D ELIBERATION MEMOS Within Within on e week from receipt of th e article article by the JOURNAL (not from the date of your deliberations), submit a memorandum that answers all these guide questions to the Chair, including including specific specific pro posed corrections, corrections, o ther recom mendations, and lovelife lovelife updates. Preliminary reminder to exercise restraint

1. When was the last last time you you watched  R amb o or any similar movie?*** 2. Have you read the articl articlee straight straight throu gh once, without without stopping to n ote errors? 3. What is the name, institution institution or office, and professional background background of t he author? What is the article’s title? When and how was it submitted to the Journal? Overview Overview of the thesis and stand

4. What is the thesis thesis statement? What What are the subtheses for each section? section? 5. Do es the author take a concrete position position o r stand? Or merely describe describe a field field of law? law? 6. Rate the th esis itself. itself. Is itit no vel? Int riguing? Timely? What imp act does it make? Review of structure

7. Describe the article’ article’ss structure. Ho w is its length length distributed among subtopics? 8. Do es this structure convey the thesis thesis and po sition sition in an organized, organized, logical logical manner? Review of general logical flow and quality of supporting sources

9. Are the thesis thesis and position position generally generally support ed by sound, credible credible sources? 10. Are there logical logical or other flaws in the thesis on the article article or section level? level? 11. Are there landmark landmark sour ces or relevant relevant doctrines missing missing from the article? article? 12. Is the piece supported by similar/ similar/ relevant relevant article articless used for background com parison? Review of writing style and overall reader impact

13. Evaluate the style, style, tone and grammar, tho ugh these are rarely rarely ground ground s to reject. 14. What was your initial initial reaction reaction to the article? What stru ck you as its its highlights? highlights? 15. D o you have criticism criticism on recurring collateral (not str uctural) errors? Any plagiarism? plagiarism? Recommendation

16. In summary, why why are are you you recommend ing to: a. b. c. d.

Accept the article article,, with with minor corr ections? ections? Accept Accept the article, article, subject subject to major recommend ed corrections by the author? Return the article article with your your recomm endations, without without accepting it? Reject Reject the article article outright?

S ee Juan Perea,  A fter G etting to Y es: A S urviva l G uide uid e for L aw R eview eview E ditors and  Faculty W riters riters, 48 F LA. L . R E V. 867 (1996) (1996) (on the h ighly ighly discouraged discouraged “Rambo editing”). editing”). ***

F  OREWORD 

SISYPH ISYPH US’ LAMENT , P ART III: * CITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO OK

O scar scar Frank Frank lin lin B. T an**

As a newly-minted student editor, you might imagine that I was apprehensive when I asked Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, himself a past JOURNAL chair, for feedback regarding our first issue. His initial comment, however, surprised me. Of all the encouragement such a paragon of  Constitutional Law and legal education could offer to a greenhorn, the first thing the legendary V.V. noted was Volume 79’s adherence to the standard international citation format. Foo tno tes, then, for all all the agonized groans and curt dismissal dismissalss th ey elicit, must be important, if the likes of Justice Mendoza read them carefully. In fact, if I could place the Supreme Court in a brass lamp and rub it to get one wish, I would probably ask them to place paragraph numbers in all  judicial  jud icial decision de cision s. It is simply sim ply imp ossible os sible to discuss disc uss a land m ark bu t

This article continues t he discussion o f Volume 79’s philosophies in law review management, and serves as a companion to the second installment. Foreword, Sisyphus’  L am ent, Part II : E diting, dit ing, or th e S tu dent’s A rt of N ot B eing O ne’s O wn W orst E nemy, 79 P H IL . Sisyphus’ L ament, ament, Part I: T he N ex t N inety inety Y ears and the L.J. 233, (2004); Foreword, Sisyphus’ T ranscendenc ranscendencee of L egal egal W riting, 79 P H IL . L.J. 7 (2004). Cite as O scar isyphus’ L ament, Part III: Citation and the L ittle scar Franklin Franklin T an, Foreword, S isyphus’  Black  B lack B ook , 79 P H IL . L.J. 547, (page cited) (2004). The Board would like like to thank the following following students students who volunteered to h elp elp with Issue 2 and h ave been info rmally designated as the JOURNAL’s int erns: M elissa Telan (Head o f Feature s), Janice Janice Lee, Josh Josh T rocino, G erald Joseph Jumamil, Leandro Leandro Angelo Aguirre, and William Varias. All are from the Class of ’08, except for Mr. Varias who is from the C lass of ’06. ’06. ** Chair, P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL ; Member, Student E ditorial Board Board (2004). (2004). Four th Year, Ll.B., Ll.B., University University of th e Ph ilippines ilippines (2005 expected). B.S. B.S. Management Engineering Engineering / A.B. A.B. Economics Hono rs, Cum L aude University aude, Ateneo de Manila University (2001). (2001). First Freshm an Awardee, Justice Justice Irene R. Co rtes Prize for Best P aper in Constitut ional Law (2002). (2002). Awardee, Awardee, Pro fessor Araceli T. Baviera Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Civil Law (2003). (2003). First First Awardee, Pro fessor Bienvenido C. Am bion Prize for Best Paper in P rivate Intern ational Law (2004). (2004). *

547

54 8

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

rancisco v. H ouse of R eprese epresentat ntat ives ives1 with precision, kilometric ruling such as F rancisc and a user of Philippine electronic legal materials is likened to a provincial gawking at the sight of Rome when he accesses the American WestLaw and Lexis-N Lexis-N exis databases.2

I stated at the Volume 79 induction that the JOURNAL must be the handmaiden of jurisprudence.3 If so, a reliable citation system is in turn the academic writer’s loyal servant girl. AN D N AYS R EGARDING CITATION I. T H E YE AS AN

The academe has seen extreme positions with respect to citation over the years. Yale legal research professor Fred Shapiro, for example, wrote: [R]eaders often peruse the citation links (footnotes) with an occasional occasional gla glance nce at the “top of the page” text, rather than the oth er way around, because the really interesting scholarly conversation is taking place at the bottom… [Footnotes] proliferate and become discursive because they are where the action is. If I am right that citations are the crux of legal documents, then it is inevitable that legal writers will be drawn to insert text in the footnotes where the citations live.4

Shapiro bewailed that Yale’s famous law review critic Fred Rodell “missed “missed the point.” 5 Rodell was, was, of course, famous fo r th e assertion, assertion, “Th ere are two t hings wron g with almost all all legal legal writing. O ne is its styl style. e. Th e oth er 6 is its content.” One of Rodell’s prominent complaints against “the antediluvian or mock-heroic style in which most law review material is written” 7 was “this business business of fo otn otes, the flaunted Phi Beta K appa keys keys

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003. These, for example, among many other features, use star pagination to mark the actual page numbers found in physical copies of law reviews and court reporters. Communication Communication between someone using using the p hysica hysicall copy and anoth er person using the electron ic copy is is thu s seamless. seamless. In lieu of star pagination, paragraph n umb ering presents the simplest but most logical solution. 3 Foreword, S isyphus’ isyphus’ L ament, Part I: The N ext N inety Y ears ears and the T ranscende ranscendence nce of  L.J. 7, 7 (2004 (2004). ).  L egal egal W ritin g, 79 P H IL . L.J. 4 Fred Shapiro, T he M ost-Cited ost-Cited L aw R evie eview w A rticle rticless R evisited  visited , 7 1 C H I .-K E N T L. R EV . 751, 752 (1996) (1996).. 5  Id . 6 Fred Rodell, G oodbye oodbye to L aw R evie eviews ws, 23 V A. L . R E V. 38, 38 (1936). (1936). 7  Id . 1 2

20 0 4 ]

C ITATIONN ITATIONN AND T H E LITTLE BLACK BO O K

549

of legal writing, the pet peeve of everyone who has ever read a law review piece, for any other reason than that he was too lazy to look up his own cases.” 8 Hesitant to paraphrase this classic polemic, let me share: [T]he footnote foible breeds nothing but sloppy thinking, clumsy writing, and bad eyes. Any article that has to be explained or proved by being cluttered up with little numbers until it looks like the Acrosses and Downs of a cross-word puzzle has no business being written. And if a writer does not really need footnotes and tacks them on because they look pretty or because it is the thing to do, then he ought to be tried for willful murder of his reader’s (all three of them) eyesig eyesight ht and p atience.9

eview This visceral antipathy is well alive today. A  H arvard L aw R eview article, article, for example, read: [M]any modern professors tend to toss their excess research into the annotation ho pper and leave leave it to t heir readers (or (or editors) to separate the salient stuff from the mildly tangential. And it’s safer, both intellectually (allowing the writer to straddle any issue by taking a strong position in the text while waffling below) and morally (permitting him to stave off plagiarism with grudging acknowledgments in four-point type) - not to mention more egogratifying (enabling intricate citation of arcane sources at stupefying length).10

Another author complained: Anyone who follows legal literature experiences the frustration of  plowing thro ugh tedious and verbose notes. It is exasperating to lower your eyes from text o nly to d iscover mean ingless ingless signals signals like like id. or supra . Having to jog your your memo ry for the meaning meaning of  cf., but see, or but cf. is even worse. 11

The same author argued that not only are hordes of long footnotes used to create the illusion of scholarship, they are abused in many other ways as well. Some writers attempt to superficially differentiate themselves by citing exotic material from both other disciplines and rock and roll lyrics,

8  Id .

at 40. at 41. S ee Abner Mikva, G oodbye 56 U. C O LO . L . R E V. 647, 648 oodbye to Footnotes, 56 (1985). (1985). Judge Mikva is acknowledged as the crusade’s crusade’s inheritor . 10 Kenneth Lasson, Comm ent, S cholarship holarship A mok : E x cesse essess in the Pursuit of T ruth and  Tenure, 103 H ARV . L . R E V. 926, 937 (1990). 11 Arthur Austin, Essay, F ootnotes ootnotes as Product Product D iffere ifferentiat ntiat ion, 40 V AN D . L . R E V. 1131, 1134 (1987). 9  Id .

55 0

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

and “fugitive” sources have mutated from the “letter on file with the author” cite to informal – and unverifiable – hallway conversations with colleagues.12 He even accuses some circles of authors by inflating each others’ reputations through liberal acknowledgements in author’s footnotes.13 If one accepts the impression conveyed by the most colorful academic discussions, the only sure thing is that the original purpose of  citations has long since been forgotten. Incidentally, the  B luebook  states that footnotes support propositions made in the text.14 TRADDLING IN TH E F OOTNOTING D EBATE I I . A STUDENT ’S F ENCE -STRADDLING

When I spoke to Justice Justice Mendoza, I informed him that while he was in the United States, I had footnoted an innocuous quote he had attributed to Justice Justice Louis Louis Brandeis, Brandeis, “The m ost impo rtant th ing we do is not doing.”15 I clarified clarified th at th e specific quote h ad recent ly closed Justice Steph Steph en Breyer’s Breyer’s dissent in  B ush v. G ore, which in turn quoted Professor Alexander Bickel’s angerous rous Branch,16 which in turn quoted Justice Brandeis. I book  T he L east D ange explained that I wanted to be careful with direct quotations, if only to avoid trivial trivial embarrassments embarrassments to the JOURNAL because classic lines are so easily and so often misquoted. As a former chair, the good Justice Justice reminded me th at I did no t need his permissi permission on t o make such additions, additions, but cautioned no t to insert too many footnotes. They must be used sparingly, he explained, because not only is an overdose of citation distracting, it may well intimidate the reader. Of course, I cannot conceive of the academic material that would intimidate the likes of Justice Mendoza, but having researched the subject, I feel that the use of citation has never been discussed from the student’s viewpoint. Specifically, I feel that a student cannot possibly employ footnotes the way a luminary would, and this must be clearly articulated in the academe. In the Philippines, students do tend to footnote more heavily

ulduggery and O ther Bad H abits, 44 Arthur Austin, Footnote S k uldugg 44 U. M IAMI L. R E V. 1009, 1019, 1021 (1990). 13  Id . at 1023. 14 T H E BLUEBOOK : A U NIFORM SYSTEM YSTEM O F CITATION , Rule 1.1, at 21 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 17th ed. 2000). 15 Vicente V. Mendoza,  Im plement ing an a n E ffective ffective C ertiorari J urisdiction urisdi ction, 79 P H IL . L.J.27, L.J.27, 33 (2004), quoting Bush v. G ore , 531 U.S. 98, 158 (2000) (Breyer, J., J., dissenting). 16 T H E L EAST D ANGEROUS BRANCH 71 (1962) (1962).. 12

20 0 4 ]

C ITATIONN ITATIONN AND T H E LITTLE BLACK BO O K

551

than senior practitioners, but I feel they have important reasons for doing so, beyond beyond the usual citati citation on p adding that attempts t o impr ess professors. First of all, one wonders what is in fact wrong with being “too lazy to look up his own cases.” While a law review would ideally be read immediately to satisfy current interests – and should aim to be in part, so as not to be a dull product completely divorced from the editors’ brief stay in law scho ol – its greater strength lies lies in h ow it facilitates facilitates later research. Wh ile ile an article that articulates a new point is valuable, one that does so while providing a bibliography that lays a foundation for that topic’s discussion may be even more valuable. Certainly, having the main sources regarding a point at arm’s length is helpful, but it is indispensable for a student exploring the topic for the first time. Unlike a professor, a student would be barely familiar with the point’s context, and would welcome a listing of more than the main related sources, especially when one moves to the more advanced fields of study, and more so when one needs to integrate several advanced fields. On this point, I have always been frustrated by the lack of citation with respect to the classic lines. If not for a Constitutional Law professor like Dean Raul Pangalangan who took care to point these out, I may never have realized that many of them were academic sound bites. For example, so many Constitutional discussions refer to the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch”17 but many footnote the quote with a vague “ T he F ederalis deralist t ” or om it the citation altogether. Only with the powers of the almighty Google did I find the original text. And so to aid other students similarly starved for a sense of history, Volume 79 made the effort to attribute the phrase to deralist ist N o. 78 , as well as other choice thoughts Alexander Hamilton in T he F ederal from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to Georg Hegel that many professors may nevertheless consider ubiquitous. Student writers are in a position to more thoroughly map out the bibliographic contours of a topic. Senior practitioners certainly no longer have the time and many of their contributions lie in shorter pieces that organize the already familiar to articulate new ideas, pointing broadly to areas for development that junior writers can then tackle more comprehensively.

Federalistt N o. 78 (“T he Judic Judiciary iary D epartment” epartment”)), in 43 ALEXANDER H AMILTON , T he Federalis G REAT BOOKS OF THE W ESTERN W ORLD 230 (hereinafter “G REAT BO O K S”) (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Maynard Maynard H utch ins ed., 1982). 1982). 17

55 2

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

Second, while a footnote most obviously identifies the source that supports a proposition, this is not so simple in practice, as the confusing array of citation signals implies. For example, a thought may be supported by many possible lines of thought, and identifying the specific trail may lend an indispensable context. I remember proposing to Dean Pacifico Agabin that the essential prerequisite of John Locke’s articulation of property is equality,18 and that this may underlie a criticism that globalization has created created un equal acces accesss to prop erty. erty. When I prop osed to substantiate substantiate this by quoting the likes of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Karl Marx, however, he gently advised advised m e t o r eview less less ideologicall ideologically-c y-charged harged material, such as p apal 19 encyclicals. To cite another example, precision is needed when an author relies only on part o f a source, but no t the rest. This would would be very relevant relevant when 20 dealing with a controversial case such as  R oe v. W ade, since discussing its general due process doctrine in the Philippines may well be very different from discussing its specific holding on abortion. A citation of  R oe v. W ade, in fact, would probably encourage a Philippine reader to take a second look, onnecticut .21 unlike a related related b ut d octr inally inally different case such as G riswold v. C onnecticut  N ot o nly is is establi establishing shing the con text imp imp ortant for studen t readers, it it is indispensable for student authors as well. It is one thing to fault a scholar for “waffling” short of a strong position, but quite another to fault a student. N aturally aturally,, the latter would be mo re cautious and would n eed to lay lay his bases more clearly. In fact, he may well lay a basis different or more evolved than the familiar ones. Encouraging students to lay detailed bases facilitates more incisive analysis, allowing journals to become more graceful handmaidens of jurisprudence. For example, the Class of 2004’s Neil Silva, of Pictet international moot court fame, was praised by international law professors for writing a controversial paper on just war theory justifications

JO H N L OCKE , C ONCERNING C IVIL G OVERNMENT , SECOND E SSAY , chap. V (“Of Property”), ¶31 (1690) in 35 G REAT BO O K S 31. 19 S ee, ee, generally, P IERRE -JOSEPH P ROUDHON , W HAT IS P ROPERTY? O R, AN I NQUIRY INTO THE P RINCIPLE OF RIGHT AND OF G OVERNMENT 94 (chap. II, § 2 “Universal Consen t no Justification Justification of P rop erty”) (Benj. (Benj. Tucker tr ans., 1890) (1840); (1840); KARL MARX & F RIEDRICH E NGELS, M ANIFESTO (Samuel Moore trans., ANIFESTO O F THE C OMMUNIST P ARTY (Samuel Friedrich E ngels ed., Londo n, 1888) (1848), (1848), in 50 G REAT BO O K S 419; P O PE JO H N P AUL II, L ABOREM E XERCENS: O N T H E N INETIETH ANN IVERSARY IVERSARY OF R ERUM N OVARUM , § 4, 10 (Sep. 14, 1981); P O PE JO H N P AUL I I , SOLLICITUDO RE I SOCIALIS: F OR THE IVERSARY OF “P OPULORUM P ROGRESSIO ”, § 12 (Dec. 30, 1987). T WENTIETH ANN IVERSARY 20 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 21 381 U.S. 479 (1965). 18

20 0 4 ]

C ITATIONN ITATIONN AND T H E LITTLE BLACK BO O K

553

for the invasion of Iraq, a paper whose conclusion they thoroughly disagreed with but whose sources were unassailable. Needless to say, he won this year’ year’ss Sabido P rize for Best Legal Pap er. To cite a final example, a student may want to support a point with a string citati citation on not because he wants to p ad his work, but b ecause ecause he wants to illustrate that the point has been widely held. A string citation showing dates, moreover, establishes that the point has been widely held through many years. It may also allow a reader to judge the quality or general nature of the sources presented, com com pared to o ne or two examples. Third and finally, aside from establishing one’s context, it helps the academe when writers establish clear research trails. Not only does this properly acknowledge all authors whose works were referred to, especially with the advent of electronic databases, it makes it easier to gauge a work’s authoritativeness. The United States Supreme Court, for example, explicitly credited a large part of its personal jurisdiction framework to Harvard professors Arthur Von Mehren and Donald Trautman. The explicit reference encourages future researchers to more closely examine discussion eview piece.22 and critique of that particular  H arvard L aw R eview With t he increasing ease of citing citing referen ces, given given easier access with with the won ders of WestLaw and easier easier p ersonal anno anno tation tation and o rganizati rganization on of  material with the advent of electronic documents, establishing such research trails should be done if only to give credit where it is due. It costs little after all, and if the citations are not made cumbersome, it costs little even in terms of space and reader distraction. Again, it may benefit scholarship to err on the side of research overkill and an editor can rein such in, after all. The truly abominable excesses of Filipino law students lie in inflating footnotes with off-tangent parentheticals. I think this is true of  certain certain o ther studen t-edited t-edited law journ journ als als where too many pages are are bo ttom heavy and devote at least half the page to footnote discussion. I saw one international law issue, for example, with a running preliminary lecture regarding the basic terms state practice and opinio juris in one article’s footnotes, which is a stone’s throw away from including a special appendix explaining the difference between ratio decidendi and an d obiter dictum . Another article devoted similar length to citations of the Revised Penal Code, again in

H elicopt elicopt eros N acionales de Columb ia v. Hall, 466 U.S. U.S. 408, 414 (1984), (1984), citing djud icate: A S uggested uggested A nalysis, Arthur Von Mehren & Don ald ald Trautman,  Jurisdiction to A djudicate: 79 H ARV . L . R E V. 1121 (1966). (1966). 22

55 4

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

an international law issue. I would compare such treatment to this reinterpretation of a children’s favorite: Humpty1 Dumpty2 sat on a wall.3 Humpty4 Dumpty5 had a big fall.6 All the King’s horses and all the King’s men 7 couldn’t put Humpty8 Dumpty9 together again.10 Has reference to an egg. egg. See See M. GO O SE, NURSERY RH YMES at 44 (G rimm’s rimm’s ed. 1850). 2  Id.  Id . at 45. 3 For discussion of walls, see Jericho (tumbling down), Jerusalem (waili (wailing), ng), China (length), and Berlin (swift (swift co nstruct ion). 4 Supra note 1. 5  Id.  Id . 6 Here the term “fall” has reference to gravitational pull and is not to be confused with autumn, as if to say Mr. Dumpty’s “big fall” was truly a reference to his magificent autumn. For a general discussion of autumn, see, e.g., Robert Frost. 7 It follows, of course, that if the opposing thumbs of the King’s men could not reassemble an egg, then the hooves of horses would be doubly inept. 8 Supra note 1. 9  Id . 10 The legal implications of the failure to reassemble Humpty (supra note 1) Dumpty (id .) .) are disturbing because while there might be a moral duty to rescue, there is no legal obligation to do so. S ee generally generally, PROSSER ON TORTS, Sec. suchnsuch at suchnsuch page (suchnsuch ed. 19 hundred and suchnsuch.) 23 1

Again, the number nor length of footnotes does not make for a good legal article, and neither does the thickness of a volume make for a good law journal issue. Used properly, however, footnotes are a device that help the student writer grow and test the waters of legal writing. Some may even develop a semblance of citation style, able to punctuate a point by relating it a particular source, but doing so briefly and without distraction through citation, a subtle signal nevertheless recognizable to the careful academic reader. I II II . T H E N EED FOR U NIFORM CITATION

While I indulge in a flight of fancy, I may as well soar. If I could put the Supreme Court in a lamp and rub it, I may as well expect three wishes.

Creative Bridge Betwee Between A uthors and E ditors ditors, 45 M D . L . R E V. Ronald Lansing, T he Creative 241, 249 (1986) (1986).. 23

20 0 4 ]

C ITATIONN ITATIONN AND T H E LITTLE BLACK BO O K

555

The second would certainly be to have the Court apply uniform citation in its decisions. decisions. (O f cour se, wishing wishing th at th ey all all subm itted articles articles when we gathered the first batches last August is probably too fanciful, so I should probably save the third for the Fraternity Ball.) For citation to be effective, it must be both simple and standard, such that writers can make footnotes brief but readers readily recognize the shorthand. This is increasingly crucial today because uniformity is key in computer applications. For example, I experienced great difficulty attempting to identify all P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL articles previously cited by the Co urt simply because because the citations citations were n ot uniform.24 Citation in the Philippines is extremely problematic, however. The University of the Philippines, College of Law prescribes the Philippine Philippine M anual 25  for L egal egal C itations ita tions for supervised legal research papers. This creates problems for students with respect to international standards because the Philippine Philippine M anual no longer reflects the current international citation practices. The inconsistencies create nightmares for JOURNAL editors, Philippine M anual lists authors without their full moreover. For example, the Philippine first first n ames, leadi leading ng to an impo ssible ssible footn ote check given given an obscure bo ok  available available only in som e distant library. O n a p erson al point, it also also creates prob lems lems for people with extremely extremely short O riental riental names. The Harvard  B luebook , on the other hand, reflects the international standard, but mutated from a simply 26-page pamphlet made by Dean Erwin Griswold as a student 26 into an impossibly complex volume. No less than Judge Richard Richard Po sner wrote: Anthropologists use the word ‘hypertrophy’ to describe the tendency of human beings to mindless elaboration of social practices. The pyramids in Egypt are the hypertrophy of burial. The hypertrophy of  nif orm S ystem of C itat ion, now in its fourteenth edition (1986) law is  A U niform

isyphus’ L ament, Part I: The N ext N inety Y ears and the Transcende Transcendence nce of  Foreword, S isyphus’  L egal egal W ritin g, 79 P H IL . L.J. 7, 7-10 (2004). 25 M YRNA F ELICIANO , P HILIPPINE M ANUAL OF L EGAL C ITATIONS (UP Law Comp lex: 1999). 1999). 26 Darby D ickerson, ita tion: S urvivin g W ith the N ew B luebook  ickerson, A n U n-U niform S ystem of C itation: (In cluding Compendia of St ate and Federal Federal Court R ules Concerning Concerning Cit ation Form), 26 STETSON L. RE V. 53, 53, 57 (199 (1996) 6).. 24

55 6

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

– a 255-page pamphlet on legal citation form, published by a consortium of law reviews led by Harvard.27

He criticizes that the  B luebook  now defeats itself because no reader can possibly remember all its rules, defeating the purpose of uniformity, and especially where lengthy tables of abbreviations are concerned. 28 Most distinctions imposed are nevertheless trivial: Among the useless (and costly) elaborations of citation form are the rules (suggested although not required) for typeface in law reviews— large and small capitals for books, italics for articles and signals (‘see,’ ‘cf.,’ ‘contra,’ etc.), and so forth. These would be useful if it were otherwise possible to confuse a book with an article, or to misunderstand when words like ‘see’ and ‘cf.’ and ‘see also’ and ‘see generally’ introduce citations and when they are part of ordinary discussion. discussion. But such con fusions are very rare.29

Finally, not all these subtleties are even self-consistent. 30 It even has a separate set of rules for practitioners’ memoranda as opposed to journal writing.31 With respect to law journals, moreover, citation checks and formatting have been derisively referred to as a form of hazing 32 and as mass psychosis.33 Very few student editors, if any, can claim to have mastered it, and the Volume 79 e-group has seen a few side debates about whether to place commas in certain citations or not, and whether or not to capitalize certain letters. While they are readily seen as inane, the JOURNAL ’s appearance cannot be marred by inconsistent footnoting, much less sloppy formatting. Moreover, aside from formatting the citations, actually checking them is indispensable. For example:

Richard Richard Posner, G oodbye 53 U. C H I . L . R E V. 1343, 1343 (1986). (1986). oodbye to the B luebook  luebook , 53 Speaking Speaking of r esearch trails, Judge Posn er’s er’s title makes it one o f th ree famou s Rod ell sequels. Anot her is Judge Mikva’s Mikva’s on foot not es, while while the third is Rodell himself. himself. Fred oodbye to L aw R eview eviewss – R evisited  visited , 48 V A. L . R E V. 279 (1962). Rodell, G oodbye (1962). 28 Posner, supra not e 27, at 1344, 1346. 29  Id . at 1345. 30 Dickerson, supra note 26. 31 BLUEBOOK , supra not e 14, Rules P.1-7, at 11-17. 32 Darby D ickerson, ickerson, Citation Frustrations – and Solutions, 30 STETSON L. R E V. 477, 477, 479 (2000) (2000).. 33 James eview a nd the th e M odern M ind , 33 A RIZ . L . R E V. 265, James G ordon III, E ssay, ssay, L aw R eview 265, 267 (1991). 27

20 0 4 ]

C ITATIONN ITATIONN AND T H E LITTLE BLACK BO O K

557

Fraud does occur. To embellish their discussion of automobile seat belts, two writers attributed this statement to the Earl of  Andrews: “Quoth what fool darest upon the highways of this realm without properly strapping his ass to his cart.” The editors subsequently discovered that the quote and citation was a hoax: “Contrary to numerous personal assurances by the authors that the quoted statement was accurate, the Editorial Board has learned that neither the quote nor the reported source exist. A card on file at the Washington Supreme Court Law Library, personally viewed by Review personnel, was apparently a forgery, part of a hoax perpetrated by the authors of the article. While acknowledging the sophistication of the authors’ humor, we apologize to our readers for the auth ors’ indiscretion indiscretion an d ou r dup ability. ability.””34

Some errors can be unintended but fatal. I once checked an article, for example, where the author cited a case that discussed how a court is free to reverse its own precedents, but misphrased his sentence and seemed to say that a lower court is free to reverse a higher one’s precedents. Others are mor e serious. serious. Before becoming Chair, I once vehement ly refused refused to perform the footnote check for an article because its footnotes had obviously been pasted from electronic copies of other journal articles. Even broad, general checks help, and I once adamantly voted to reject a corporation law article whose citations primarily referred to basic finance and accounting textbooks. Nevertheless, problems with citations formats themselves waste a lot of editors’ time. First, authors themselves use a variety of ad-hoc citation formats. Second, when editors must then apply the standard format, it Philippine M anual and the becomes a confusing process of reconciling the Philippine  Bluebook   B luebook , and not even holding the latter as the authoritative source solves everything because it is its own source of confusion. Most Issue 1 articles, in fact, had to b e reformatted because of num erous format errors. Drawing from personal experience and the discussions with editors while the first three issues were being processed, I thus feel the need to propose a simplified student’s citation manual for the JOURNAL . Although simpler citation manuals such as the C hicag hicagoo M anual on Style are available,35 luebook -inspired one remains hesitant hesitant to stray too far from th e  B luebook  -inspired appearance.

Caveat V iator: iator: T he Austin, supra not e 12, at 1012 n.21, quoting Ho glund glund & Parsons, Caveat  D uty ut y to t o W ear S eat B elts U nder C omparat omp arat ive N eglige egligence nce L aw, 50 W ASH . L . R E V. 1, 2 n.3 (1974); E rrata rrata, 50 W ASH . L . R E V. 230 (1975). (1975). 35 Posner, supra note 27, Appendix. 34

55 8

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

Black Book  Book , attached as an appendix to this I hope that T he L ittle Black foreword, will serve as a modest first step towards solving the JOURNAL ’s citation format nightmares, and perhaps even attaining a modicum of  consistency in the academe.

- o0o -

56 0

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

T H E LITTLE BLACK BOO K*

O scar scar Frank Frank lin lin B. T an**

Scholars must learn to both use and interpret footnotes with consistency, brevity, wit, and flair. These are placed at the end of the appropriate phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph to support the proposition with the appropriate source. Footnote references are commonly placed after the punctuation mark at a phrase or clause’s end. Foo tno tes must b e brief yet yet allow allow a reader to identify and locate the cited source. The citation forms vary to allow a reader to identify the source’s source’s nature. These form s may be reduced to a handful of general forms, each rep resenting a catego ry of legal materials. materials. These fo rms are generally: generally: 1) Constitutions, codified statutes, and the Rules of Court 2) Ordinary statutes and treaties 3) Judicial decisions 4) Books and non periodical periodical publicati publications ons 5) Journals and other periodicals 6) Other documents 7) Internet sources

 B luebook  and the state of the author’s This title title pokes fun at both th e Harvard  Bluebook  social life after he began work on Volume 79. He hopes this compilation honors Professors An ton io Santos and Myrna Feliciano, Feliciano, his Legal Bibliography Bibliography and Legal Metho d teachers, respectively. respectively. Du ring the autho r’s r’s first, freshman freshman year attempt at legal writing, Professor Santos lent him his personal copy of the  B luebook  and helped him decipher a cent uries-old uries-old K ing’s ing’s Bench citation in a 19th century American case. Professor Felici Feliciano ano graded graded the product and later sent the polished polished draft to the P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL without the author’s knowledge, nudging him onto a scholastic path that has since led to this page. Cite as O scar isyphus’’ L ament, ament, Part II I: Citation Citation and the L ittle ittle scar Franklin Franklin T an, Foreword, S isyphus  Black  B lack B ook , 79 P H IL . L.J. 541, (page cited) (2004). ** Chair, P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL ; Member, Student E ditorial Board Board (2004). (2004). Four th Year, Ll.B., Ll.B., University University of th e Ph ilippines ilippines (2005 expected). B.S. B.S. Management Engineering Engineering / A.B. A.B. Economics Hono rs, Cum L aude University aude, Ateneo de Manila University (2001). (2001). First Freshm an Awardee, Justice Justice Irene R. Co rtes Prize for Best P aper in Constitut ional Law (2002). (2002). Awardee, Awardee, Pro fessor Araceli T. Baviera Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Civil Law (2003). (2003). First First Awardee, Pro fessor Bienvenido C. Am bion Prize for Best Paper in P rivate Intern ational Law (2004). (2004). *

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

561

This internal guide for the P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL hopes to of L egal Citat ions ions with the  B luebook ,1 but at the reconcile the Philippine M anual of same tim e simplify the latter’s latter’s overly com plex and detailed detailed r ules. I. GENERAL RULES A. N AMES

1. In general, cite an author’s name as the source lists it, but omit middle initials unless an author is popularly known by these. E x ampl ample Oscar Franklin Tan  N ot  Oscar Franklin B. Tan  But   B ut  Vicente V. Mendoza Jose B.L. Reyes

2. When th ere are two authors, cite them using an ampersand. E x ampl ample Mark D ennis Joven & William William Varias  N ot  Mark D ennis Joven an d William William Varias

3. When th ere are more th an two authors, unless one n eeds to identify all all of  them, cite the name of t he first first autho r and add “ et al.” al.” and no te the p eriod eriod in “et al.” This is not preceded by a comma. E x ampl ample Victorino Mamalateo et al.  N ot  Victorino Mamalateo, et al. Victorino Mamalateo, Mark D enn is Joven Joven & William William Varias Varias

MYRNA F ELICIANO , P HILIPPINE MANUAL OF LEGAL C ITATIONS 13-17 (1999); T H E BLUEBOOK : A U NIFORM SYSTEM YSTEM O F C ITATION (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. th eds., 17 ed. 2000). 1

56 2

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

4. For juridical persons, businesses, government agencies, and organizations, use the full name, but apply the abb reviati reviations ons b elow elow in bo th bod y and and footn ote text. N ever abbreviate abbreviate the first first word o f a name, however.  A ssociati ssociation on  Brothers  B rothers Company Corporation

Ass’n Bros. Co . Corp.

 In corporated  corporated   L imited  im ited   N um ber 

Inc. Ltd. N o.

E x ampl ample Manila Electric Co.  N ot  Manila Electric Company

5. Further, use the abbreviations abbreviations in Appendix A in footn ote text on ly, ly, unless unless the full name is difficult to infer from the abbreviations: E x ampl ample D ept. of Transp. and Comm’n Comm’n

6. In case of a long name, or if you wish to use a more familiar name, add a parenthetical parenthetical “(hereinaf “(hereinafter ter “< name> ”)” after the name,2 then use the shortened n ame for succeeding succeeding footnot es and and supra references. references. Intro duce Philippine Philippine M anual abbreviations for government agencies3 this way, to avoid confusing foreign foreign readers. When using words in ALL CAPS o f four letters letters or m ore, reduce the font size by one point for t hat word o nly. nly. E x ampl ample D ept. of Transp. and Comm’n (hereinafter (hereinafter “ DOTC ”)

B. D ATES

1. Use a more convers conversati ational onal < day> day> , format, but abbreviate abbreviate names o f mo nths to t he first three letters letters only. only. E x ampl ample Jan. 25, 2004

This expands the use of “hereinafter” compared to the  Bluebook   B luebook  prescriptions . Many Philippine legal citations tend to be longer and material is less organized or catalogued. Using short names for repeatedly-used sources in an article may well be more convenient for a reader. 3 F ELICIANO , supra not e 1, at 13-17. 13-17. 2

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

563

2. Dates are usually placed at the end of a citation in parentheses and often shortened to the year only. In general, they are not enclosed in parentheses when necessary to ident ify a sour ce, as in in letters, emails, emails, uno fficial fficial or unpublished decisions, and treaties. Refer to the specific forms provided. C. P AGES, ARTICLES, CHAPTERS, SECTIONS, P ARAGRAPH ARAGRAPH S, F OOTNOTES

1. When citing citing multiple page, page, secti section, on, paragraph or footn ote references – but not articl article, e, chapter, and and simil similar ar references references – use commas to separate separate each page reference. When citing consecutive ones, use a dash and omit all but the last two digits unless this would be confusing. E x ampl ample 1134, 1135, 1139-42 C IVIL C O D E , art. 2176-2180  N ot  1134, 1135, 1139-1142 C IVIL C O D E , art. 2176-80

2. In general, when necessary to avoid confusion or to indicate a page num ber, the reference is is preceded by a com com ma and th en the word “at.” Refer to th e specific specific forms provided. N ote th at “at” precedes only page page references, references, never section, section, paragraph, paragraph, o r fo otno te references. E x ampl ample N o. A-13-24, at 2 JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., T H E 1987 1987 C ONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE P HILIPPINES: A C OMMENTARY , at xxxvii (2003).  N ot  N o. A-13-24, 2 N o. A-13-24, p. 2 JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., T H E 1987 1987 C ONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE P HILIPPINES: A C OMMENTARY , xxxvii (2003).

3. For articl articles, es, chapters chapters or titles, titles, precede precede th e references with with “art.”, “ch.” or “tit.” “tit.” respectivel respectively. y. Use the designations designations in the source. E x ampl ample art. VIII  N ot  Art. VIII or Article VIII

56 4

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

4. For sections, precede the references references with with the section section (“§”) symb symb ol followed by a space. Use parentheses to refer to specific subsections, if  necessary, following the designations in the source. Note that the section symbol is never preceded by “at,” unlike page references. E x ampl ample art. VIII, § 1(a)

5. When referring to multiple subsections in the same section, use a dash but enclose each subsection reference in parentheses. E x ampl ample § 1(4)-(6)  N ot  § 1(4-6)

6. When referring to multiple sections otherwise, use two section symbols, then comm as. Use dashes dashes for co nsecutive nsecutive sections. sections. E x ampl ample §§ 1, 3, 6-8

7. When dashes would be confusing because the source designates subsections subsections u sing sing dashes, use the conn ector “to ” instead. E x ampl ample §§ 1-2 to 1-5

8. Apply the same rules for paragraphs, using the paragraph (“¶”) symbol. Th e section symb ol is like likewise wise never preceded by “at,” un like like page references. E x ampl ample  ¶¶ 4-6

9. Paragraph Paragraph references are commo nly used for In ternet sources and docum ents with numb ered paragraphs paragraphs such as International Court of Justice Justice decisions. When helpful, add a section or paragraph reference to make a page reference or references more specific. E x ampl ample at 10, ¶¶ 4-6

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

565

10. For foo tnot es, use use a page reference reference and add “n .” followed followed by the footnote number without a space. Do not precede “n.” with a comma. Note footnotes within the article itself are not cited using “n.” E x ampl ample at 543 n.42  N ot  at 543, n.42

11. When referring to both the text on a page and a footn ote on that page, place place an ampersand between th e page and and t he footn ote reference. E x ampl ample at 543 & n.42  N ot  at 543, 543, 543 543 n.42

12. When referring to both the text on a page and an an endn ote on that page, use an an amp ersand ersand and cite cite the page the endnote is found on . E x ampl ample at 277 & 1094 n.131

13. When referring to m ultiple ultiple footn otes, use the rules for sections sections and paragraphs. paragraphs. H owever, for mu ltiple ltiple non consecutive consecutive footn otes, substitute an ampersand for t he last last com ma, to avoid confusion when citing citing foot notes on different pages. E x ampl ample at 61 nn.42-43, 45 & 48, 62 n.50  N ot  at 61 nn.42-43, 45, 48, 62 n.50

14. When referring to specific material, add a descriptive abbreviation such as “fig.” or “tbl.” after the page or other reference. If this appears confusing, use a parenthetical remark. E x ampl ample at 2 f ig.3

15. Do not use section section and paragraph symbols outside an actual cita citation, tion, unless abbreviating a lengthy reference, similar to how one would cite the

56 6

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

United States Code. Note that the words “article,” “section” and the like are not capitalized in body text. E x ampl ample “Art. VIII, §1 provides…. However, examining section 5….”

D. SIGNALS

1. A source cited cited in a foo tnot e but n ot p receded by a signal signal must identify identify the source of a quo tation tation or cited authority, or directl directlyy supports th e prop osition osition in the text. The latter is a strong signal. 2. A source preceded by “ S ee” sup ports a pro position position less less directly directly,, but clearly clearly does so, either by inference o r b y drawing a parallel. parallel. It m ay also also present sources that con tain tain a b roader discussion discussion than what is stated stated in th e proposition. This is a moderate signal. ee, e.g.,” presents an example or examples 3. “ S ee, examples that suppor t the p ropo sition. sition. ee, generally,” pr esents “ S ee, esents a general reference for the p ropo sition. sition. ee, h owever, owever,” presents a source that contradicts the propo sition. 4. “ S ee, sition.

5. “ S ee also” indicates a source that indirectly supports the proposition, discusses discusses material material that in in turn suppor ts the p ropo sition, sition, or p recedes additional supp ort ing material. This is a weak signal signal.. 6. Limit use of signals to these simple, readily understood ones. Avoid use, for example, of “ cf. ” which h as been critici criticized zed as vague. vague. Limit Limit th e use of  parenthetical explanations of more tangential sources. 7. Use semicolons and periods in “citation sentences” as one would an ordinary sentence. Semicolons connect related sources in such a sentence. E x ampl ample S ee Rachel Barkow,  M ore S upreme upr eme T han C ourt? ourt ? T he F all of th e P olitical Q uestion D octrine octrine and the R ise of Judicial Judicial Su premacy, 102 C OLUM . L . R E V. Ju sticiabilit y: 237 (2002); (2002); Mark Tushnet,  L aw and Pru dence in th e L aw of Justiciabilit T he T ransformation and D isappearance of the Political Political Q uestion uestion D octrine octrine, 80 N.C.L. N.C.L. R E V. 1203 (2002). See also Robert Post, Foreword: Fashioning the  L egal egal C onstitut onstit ution: ion: C ulture, ult ure, C ourts, and L aw, 117 H ARV . L . R E V. 4, 7 (2003); (2003); Ronald Dw orkin,  H ard C ases, 88 H ARV . L . R E V. 1057, 1061 (1975).

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

567

8. To connect sources in the same “citation “citation sentence” with with descriptive descriptive phrases such as “ citing”, “ cited by”, “ quoting”, “ quoted by”, “ reversing”, “ reversed  by”, “ partially  part ially reversing reversing”, “ partially  part ially reversed reversed by ”, “ amending”, “ amended by ”, “ repealing”, “ repealed by”, and the like, place a comma after the first source, followed followed b y the descriptive descriptive phrase and th e second source. Use periods to avoid avoid confusion wh en using a number o f sources and and p hrases in in th e same footnote. E x ampl ample Ayer Product ions v. Capulong, G .R. N o 82380, 160 SCRA SCRA 861, Apr. 29, 1988; Lopez v. Court of Ap peals, 34 34 SCRA 116, 126-27, 126-27, G.R. N o. 26549, Jul. 31, 1970, citing Curtis Pu blishing blishing Co . v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). (1967). Rosenb loom v. Metro media, 403 U.S. 29, 44-45 (1971), (1971), 323, 346 (1974). (1974). overruled by G ertz v. Ro bert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,

mpare… , with with” and “ Compare Compare… …, 9. Finally, one may connect sources with “ C ompare with… with… , and  and ”. ”. E x ampl ample Compare Jeb Rubenfeld, T he R ight ight t o Privacy Privacy, 102 H ARV . L . R E V.737 (1989), with I RENE C ORTES , T H E C ONSTITUTIONAL F OUNDATIONS O F P RIVACY (1970). Compare Lemuel Lopez, T he Right to Privac Privacyy in Inq uiries uiries in A id of   L egislation egislation , 78 P H IL . L.J.163 L.J.163 (200 (2003) 3),, citing Ayer Productions v. Capulong, G .R. No 82380, 160 160 SCRA 861, Apr. 29, 1988; with Borjal v. Court o f Appeals, 301 SCRA 1, G.R. No . 126466, Jan. 14, 1999, 1999, citing Ayer, 160 160 SCRA 861; Rosenbloo m v. Metrom edia, 403 U.S. 29 (1971). (1971). The first cites only half half the jurispruden ce cited in the secon d.

E . GENERAL SHORT F ORMS

1. Use “ id. ” when referring to the immediately preceding source in the same footn ote, or to the imm ediately ediately preceding source source in th e immediately immediately preceding preceding foo tnot e if the foot not e cites cites only one source. Use “id. ” by itself  to refer to the same specific specific point referred to in th e preceding citation. citation. Use “at” to refer to anoth er page and and a com ma to refer refer to another article, article, section, section, or paragraph. No te that “ id. ” m ay be used to refer to decisions, decisions, but not t o Con stitutions stitutions and statutes. E x ampl ample 1 James Bradley Thayer, T he Origin and S cope of the A merican merican D octrine octrine of  Constitutio Constitutional nal L aw, 7 H ARV . L . R E V. 129, 135 (1893). (1893). 2 Id.  Id . at 136.

56 8

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

3 Id.  Id . 4 Id.  Id .

at 138.

2. Use “< abbreviated abbreviated name> , supra ,” to refer to a previous source cited in the same same footnote, footnote, and and “< abbrevia abbreviated ted name> name> , supra note ,” to refer to a source cited cited in a previous previous foo tno te, or to a source in the immediately immediately preceding footno te if it it cites cites mo re than one sou rce. Not e that “ supra ” is never used to refer to Constitutions, statutes, or decisions. E x ampl ample 1 James Bradley Thayer, T he Origin and S cope of the A merican merican D octrine octrine of  Constitutio Constitutional nal L aw, 7 H ARV . L . R E V. 129, 135 135 (1893); (1893); Edwin Meese, T he L aw of of the C onstitution onstitution, 61 T UL . L . R E V. 979, 981 (1987). Thayer further argues that judicial review review is best emplo yed narrowly. Thayer, supra, at 136-37. 2 Thayer, supra note 1, at 140. 140. 3 Meese, supra not e 1, at 983.

3. Avoid Avoid th e use of o ther Latin words such as “ ibid.” and “ op. cit. ” F. I NTERNAL CROSS-REFERENCES

1. To refer to preceding pages, use “ See supra pp. < page page numbers> ”. This This is the only instance “p.” is used to indicate page numbers. E x ampl ample See supra pp. 10-13.

2. To refer to p receding receding footn otes, use use “ See supra notes < numbers> numbers> ”. E x ampl ample See supra notes 12-15 and accompanying text. See supra text accompanying notes 20-21.

3. To refer to preceding sections, use “ See supra Parts Parts < numbers> numbers> ”. E x ampl ample See supra Part I.A.

4. Use “ infra” similarly to refer to succeeding pages, footnotes, or sections.

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

569

I I . P RIMARY SOURCES: CONSTITUTION AL AND STATUTORY MATERIAL A. CONSTITUTIONS

1. Use “C ONST .” in Small Caps. Cite specific specific articles articles using using “art.” with no comma in between “C ONST .” and “ art.” E x ampl ample C ONST . art. VIII, §1  N ot  C ONST ., art. VIII, §1

2. For a Co nstitution nstitution no longer in in fo rce, add add the year year in parenthesis to “C ONST .” Cite specific articl articles es by adding a com ma t hen citing citing n orm ally. ally. E x ampl ample C ONST . (1935), art. VIII, §1

3. For a fo reign reign Con stitution, stitution, p recede “CONST .” with with th e prop er country or state abbreviation. E x ampl ample U.S. U.S. C ONST . art. III, §1

4. For an amendment, use “amend.” instead of “art.” This is generally used for references to th e United States States Constitution. E x ampl ample U.S. U.S. C ONST . amend. I

B. STATUTES AND O RDINANCES

1. If referring to a code, use the appropriate abbreviation in Small Caps. 4 In case of new cod es, use Append ix A. Because Ph ilippine ilippine codification codification is not as organized organized as the United States Code, you you m ay opt to add a comm ent indicating the actual law the first time the Code is cited. E x ampl ample T AX C O D E , § 42(A)(4) 42(A)(4).. The N ational Intern al Revenue Code is Rep. Act N o. 8424 (1997). (1997).

4

S ee F ELICIANO , supra not e 1, at 15-16. 15-16.

57 0

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL  A gricult gricultural ural L and R eform eform C ode Child and Y outh W elfar elfaree Code Code Civil Code C oconut oconut In dustry Code Code of Commerce Cooperative Code Corporate Code Family Code Fire Code Forestry Code  In suran ce Code  In tellectu tellectual al Property C ode  L abor C ode  L and an d T ransportat ran sportation ion and T raffic C ode  L ocal ocal G overnment C ode  M uslim C ode of P ersonal L aws  N ational ation al B uilding uild ing C ode  N ational ation al C ode of M ark eting of   Breastmi  B reastmilk lk S ubst itu tes an d S upp lements  N ational ation al In ternal R evenu evenu e C ode O mnibus E lec lection C ode Omnibus Investments Code Philippine E nvironment nvironment C ode  R evised evised A dm inistrat inist rative ive C ode  R evised evised Penal Pena l C ode Sanitation Code S ecurities ecurities Regulation C ode State A uditing uditing Code T ariff ariff and C ustoms C ode W ater ater Code Code

[VO L 79

AGRARIAN C O D E C HILD & YOUTH W ELFARE C O D E C IVIL C O D E C OCONUT I NDUS. CO D E CO M . CO D E C OOPERATIVE C O D E C O RP . C O D E F AM . C O D E F IRE C O D E F ORESTRY CO D E I N S. C O D E I NTELL . P RO P . C O D E L AB. C O D E T RANSP . & T RAFFIC CO D E L OCAL G O V’T C O D E MUSLIM CO D E BLD G . C O D E M ILK C O D E T AX C O D E E LECT . C O D E I NVESTMENTS C O D E E NVIRON . C O D E RE V. AD M . C O D E RE V. P E N . C O D E SANITATION C O D E SE C . R EG . C O D E A UDIT C O D E T ARIFF C O D E W ATER C O D E

2. O therwise, therwise, use < law law form> < reference> reference> (year (year of effecti effectivi vity) ty)..5 Because Philippine codification is not as organized as the United States Code, you may opt to add a comment indicating the law’s short name the first time it is cited. Because Because of the sam e lack lack of co dification, dification, it is perm issible issible to use these short forms in t he text of articl articles. es.

5  Id .

at 14-15.

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

571

E x ampl ample Rep. Act. No . 8792, § 28 (2000). (2000). This is the E -Comm erce Act of  2000. Public Public L aws aws (1900-19 34) Commonwe Commonweal alth th A cts (1935-19 45) Preside Presidential ntial D ecre ecreees (19 72 -19 86 )  Bata  B atass P amba am bansa nsa (1 9 8 4 -1 9 8 6 ) E x ecutive O rder rder (198 6-19 87 )  R epublic A ct  < U nit> nit> Ordinanc Ordinancee

Act No. Com. Act No. Pres. Dec. No . Batas Blg. Exec. Order N o. Rep. Act Act No . Ordinance N o.

3. To cite cite a Senate Senate or H ouse Bill Bill,, use the form < reference> reference> , < congress>, 6 < session> session> (year) (year).. For section section references, place place these after after the session session num ber. You may indicate indicate the author author or th e short short n ame with with a comment . E x ampl ample S. No. 437, 12 th Con g., 2 nd Sess., § 3 (2003). This is the proposed University of the Philippines Charter of 2003. Senate Bill  H ouse B ill S enate C oncurrent oncurrent R esolution esolution  H ouse C oncurrent R esolut esolution ion S enate Committee Report  Report   H ouse C omm ittee R eport   R esolut esolution ion of both H ouses, sittin sit tin g together  together  but voting separately

S. No . H. No. S. Con. Res. H. Con . Res. Res. H. Rpt. H. Rpt. R.B.H.

4. Refer Refer to th e Philippine citation forms fo r Ph ilippine ilippine Philippine M anual for o ther citation 7 legislative legislative m aterials. Refer to the  B luebook  for the m ore com plex citati citation on o f  American federal and state statutes. C. E XECUTIVE I SSUANCE SSUANCE S AN AN D ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS

1. Cite executive issuances issuances and adm inistrative regulations regulations as on e would a regular statute. Again, cite cite th e issuing issuing agency’s agency’s nam e in full instead of using

6  Id . 7  Id .

at 16-17. at 17.

57 2

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

Philippine M anual abbreviations, unless one introduces these using th e Philippine “hereinafter.” Finally, omit the date if evident from the regulation’s serial number. E x ampl ample Sec. and Exchange Comm’n (hereinafter “SEC”) Memo. Circ. No. 2 (2002). Rev. Regs. 19-93, § 4. E x ecutive O rder  rder  < A gency> ncy> A dministrati dministrative ve Order  Proclamation G eneral eneral O rder   L etter of I nstru ction  L etter of I mplementa mp lementation tion  L etter of A uth ority

Exec. Order N o. < Agency Agency> > Adm. Order No. Proc. No. Gen. Order No. Letter of Inst. No . Letter of Impl. N o. Letter of Auth. N o.

D. RULES OF COURT

1. Although not a statute, the Rules of Court are cited in the same way a codified law is, except one uses “Rule” instead of “art.” Use R ULES OF C OURT , Rule . E x ampl ample RULES OF C OURT , Rule 111, § 1(a).

2. To refer to rules no longer in force, add the year after “R ULES OF C OURT ”. E x ampl ample RULES OF C OURT (1940), (1940), Rule 41, § 3.

E . T REATIES

1. For conventions and m ultila ultilateral teral treaties, treaties, use the form < name> , < date of  signing signing> > , e> , < reporter citation citation or docum ent> . One may add add the date o f entry into force o r ratificati ratification on in a comment after the citation. citation. E x ampl ample 1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Jul. 9, 1992, preamble, 31 I.L.M. 849.

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

573

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994, available at  http:/ http:/ / www. www.wto. wto.org/ org/ englis english/ h/ docs_e/ docs_e/ lega legal_e l_e// 04-w 04-wto.doc to.doc.. 2

2. For bilateral treaties, add the two countries’ abbreviations and connect these with with a dash, using using the form < name> , < date of signing signing> > , < countrycountry> country> , < cited cited articl article> e> , < reporter citati citation on or do cument> . No te that “RP” or “Repu blic blic of th e Philippines” Philippines” is not t he comm only-used only-used abbreviati abbreviation. on. E x ampl ample Conven tion with Resp ect to I nco me, O ct. 1, 1976, 1976, Phil.-U.S Phil.-U.S., ., art. art. 8, §1-2, available at  http:/ http:/ / www. www.ir irs. s.gov gov// pub/ irsirs-trty trty// philip. philip.pdf. pdf.

F. CONSTITUTION

AND

STATUTE SHORT F ORMS

1. D o not use id. or supra as short form s for for constitutions or statutes. For consecutive footnotes, you may use the section or article reference alone after the first, without without th e reference reference to the statute, adapting adapting the sho rt form for the United States Code. Note that because United States law is primarily cited using cod ified ified versions, P hilipp hilipp ine statut e citations are relatively relatively shorter. E x ampl ample 1 Rep. Act. No . 8792, § 28 (2000). (2000). This is is the E -Comm erce Act of  2000. 2 §§ 23-24. 3 § 28.

2. For n oncon secutive secutive footn otes referring referring to a statute after after th e first first reference, it is permissible to use section or article references alone if the reference is is on the same page or within roughly five five footnotes o f the full citation. However, if this short form appears confusing, especially because of section references to other sources, use the statute or bill reference with the section section or article article reference, reference, and om it the oth er data.

57 4

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

E x ampl ample 1 S. No. 437, 12 th Cong., 2 nd Sess., § 3 (2003). This is the proposed University of the Philippines Charter of 2003. 2 §§ 3-4. 3 § 5. 4 Christine Avendano,  H ostage U niversity: S en. S antiago an tiago holds fate fat e of U P Charter , Phil. Daily Inq uierer, No v. 4, 2004, available at  http:/ http:/ / news.i news.inq7. nq7.net/ net/ nation/ nation/ index. index.php?i php?index=1&stor ndex=1&storyy_id= _id= 170 17034. 34. 5 § 6. 6 C ONST . art. II, § 13. 7 S. N o. 437, §§ 8-10.

3. O ne m ay opt to u se a short name, indicated indicated by a parenthetical “(hereinafter “(hereinafter “< name> ”)” before th e section section reference in in t he first fill fill statute reference. reference. Use the same short forms, but use the indicated indicated short name in place of the statute or bill reference. E x ampl ample 1 S. No. 437, 12 th Cong., 2 nd Sess. (hereinafter “Proposed UP Charter”), § 3 (2003). 2 §§ 3-4. 3 § 5. 4 Christine Avendano,  H ostage U niversity: S en. S antiago an tiago holds fate fat e of U P Charter , Phil. Daily Inq uierer, No v. 4, 2004, available at  http:/ http:/ / news.i news.inq7. nq7.net/ net/ nation/ nation/ index. index.php?i php?index=1&stor ndex=1&storyy_id= _id= 170 17034. 34. 5 § 6. 6 C ONST . art. II, § 13. 7 Proposed UP Charter, §§ 8-10.

I II II . P RIMARY SOURCES: JUDICIAL D ECISIONS A. P HILIPPINE SUPREME COURT CASES

1. Use the form < last last name of first first party> v. < last last name of first first op posing party> party> , < docket docket numb er> , volume> < reporter abbrevi abbreviati ation> on> < first first page of decis decision ion in reporter> , < specific specific page number in reporter> , < full date of decisi decision> on> . E x ampl ample United States v. Arceo, N o. 1491, 3 Ph il. il. 381, 384, Mar. 5, 1904. O ple v. Torr es, G.R. N o. 127685, 239 SCRA 143, 170, Jul. Jul. 23, 1998.

2. No te that “ versus” versus” is abbreviated abbreviated as “v.” and no t “vs.”

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

575

3. When there are multiple multiple co-parties, co-parties, use use only the first first on each side. D o n ot use “et al.” When a decision resolves more than one case, use the names in only the first. E x ampl ample United States v. Arceo, N o. 1491, 3 Ph il. il. 381, 384, Mar. 5, 1904. O ple v. Torr es, G.R. N o. 127685, 239 SCRA 143, 170, Jul. Jul. 23, 1998.

4. For natural persons, use last names only and omit titles, prefixes, and suffixes in party names. However, when the name is entirely in Mandarin or another Oriental language where names begin with the last name, use the whole name. E x ampl ample United States v. Chu Chang, N o. 2307, 6 Phil. 74, 74, Apr. 9, 1906.

5. For juridical juridical persons, spell spell out abb reviati reviations ons unless they they form p art of th e actual actual name. D o n ot o mit suffixes suffixes that indicate indicate a corporation such as “Inc.” 8 and “Corp. “Corp.”” D o n ot o mit first names or m iddle iddle initia initials ls when a p erson’s erson’s name is used as part of a juridical person’s name. E x ampl ample Agan v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155001, 402 SCRA 612, 664, May 5, 2003.  N ot  Agan v. PIATCO , G.R. No. 155001, 402 SCRA 612, 664, May 5, 2003.

6. For local government units, indicate the type of unit using prefixes such as “Province of”, “City of”, or “Municipality of”. When particular government offices offices are named, use the com plete name. 7. For cases that begin begin with pro cedural terms, use the prefix “In re” and th e last last name of t he person concerned o r the subject subject of t he decision. decision. E x ampl ample In re Sotto, N o. 14576, 38 Phil. 532, Sep. 6, 1918.  N ot  In t he matt er of Vicente Sott o, N o. 14576, 38 Ph il. il. 532, Sep. 6, 1918. 1918.

8

This is a simplification simplification of B LUEBOOK , supra not e 1, Rule 10(h), 10(h), at 61.

57 6

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

8. O ld Philippine Philippine Supreme Co urt cases are are comm only reported in the Philippine R eports ports (“Phil.”), (“Phil.”), and mo re recent ones are found in the Supreme C ourt R eports ports A nnotate nnotated  d  (“SCRA”). In case an author uses a less commonlyused reporter, it is is recommend ed that o ne replace replace the reference or add th e reference to the com mo nly-use nly-usedd repo rter. If the decisi decision is found found nowhere else, one may also refer to the Official Gazette (“O.G.”).  N ot R ecomm ecomm ended  Republic v. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. , , G.R. No. 147062, 423 Phil. 735, Dec. 14, 2001 .

Philippine M anual convention is to use the G .R. num ber and full date 9. The Philippine only for cases reported in unofficial reporters, namely the SCRA. Thus, official reporters, namely the Philippine R eports generally cited using using the ports , are generally reporter and year only. Because, however, Philippine electronic sources are not organized using reporter citations, the easiest way to find a case using these is is to enter t he G .R. numb er and th en check the date in case case more th an one decisi decision on was rendered. Thus, for th e benefit of increasi increasingly ngly comp uterports savvy students, use the full, expanded citation even for Philippine R eports references. The page reference to the physical reporter must be included because there is no o ther way to refer to specifi specificc po rtions of Philippine Philippine electro electro nic m aterials. aterials. Permissible United States v. Arceo, 3 Phil. 381, 384 (1904). (1904).  R ecomm ecomm ended  United States v. Arceo, N o. 1491, 3 Ph il. il. 381, 384, Mar. 5, 1904.

10. Omit the “L-” from docket numbers, and use only the number of the first case, in in case o f m ultiple ultiple cases covered in o ne d ecision. ecision. E x ampl ample Estr ada v. Desierto , G.R. N o. 146710, 356 SCRA SCRA 108, 155-56, Mar. 2, 2001.  N ot  Estr ada v. Desierto , G.R. N o. 146710-15, 356 356 SCRA 108, 155-56, 155-56, Mar. 2, 2001.

11. When the case is being cited in general and no particular page is referred to, omit the reference to a specific page. If, however, the first page is referred to, do not om it the reference. reference.

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

577

E x ampl ample United States v. Arceo, 3 Phil. 381, 381 (1904). (1904).

12. The convention is to foot note the first instance instance of a case name with a general citation to the case, then footnote succeeding points with specific references. Note that case names are italicized in text, but not in citations. E x ampl ample rceo,1 the Court stated…. In U nited S tates v. A rce 13

Phil. 381 (1904). at 384.

2  Id.  Id .

13. When the reporter citation is unavailable, omit it and rely on the docket number and full date. This is used for very recent and still unpublished decisions. E x ampl ample Francisco v. Hou se of Representatives, G.R. No . 160261, 160261, No v. 10, 2003.

14. When referring to a case available only on an electronic database such as WestLaw, as opposed to electronic copies not catalogued using a particular system, such as the Philippine Lex Libris or PhilJuris compilations, substitute the database reference reference for the repo rter citation. citation. P age age num bers are indicated using star pagination, however, and use “at” to indicate these pages. E x ampl ample Rambus, Inc. v. Infineo n Tech nologies AG , 2004 WL 383590, 383590, at *17 *17 (E.D .Va. 2004). 2004).

15. When referring to copies of decisions initially released by the Court instead instead o f copies printed in report ers, use use “at” after the date to refer to specific pages. Add a description of the source the first time it is cited. Note that because of the limited limited availabili availability ty of such cop ies, such p age citations citations will rarely be useful. E x ampl ample Lopez v. Senate of th e Philippines, G.R. N o. 163556, Jun Jun . 8, 2004, 2004, at 12. This article article refers to the co py of t his resolution sp ecially ecially released by the Court in boo klet klet form.

165. When referring referring to a separate separate op inion, inion, add “(< name> , J., J., < desc description> )” description> )” to t he end of th e citati or “(< name> , C.J. C.J.,, < desc citation. on. Cite the first

57 8

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

page of the d ecisi ecision on and no t th e first first p age age of the separate separate op inion inion as the first page. This notation may also be used to emphasize the  ponente in a majority decision decision . E x ampl ample Francisco v. Hou se of Representatives, G.R. No . 160261, 160261, No v. 10, oncurring an d d issentin issentin g). 2003 (Puno , J., J., concurring Phil. Comm ’l & In dus. Bank v. P hilnabank E mplo yees’ yees’ Ass’n, Ass’n, G .R. No. 29630, 105 SCRA 314, 319, Jul. 2, 1981 (Fernando, C.J.).

B. O T H E R D ECISIONS

1. Cite other P hilipp hilipp ine cases cases and and adm inistrative decisions decisions using the same same form and rules. rules. Reprodu Reprodu ce the full full docket number and n otation used. For trial trial courts, indicate indicate the branch and area before the docket num ber. Except for t he com mon ly-used ly-used abbreviations abbreviations below,9 spell out the deciding body’s name. E x ampl ample 1 Philippine Philippine Refining Refining Co. v. Commissioner Commissioner o f Int ernal Revenue, Revenue, CTA Case N o. 2872, Jan. Jan. 15, 1986, at 1. 2 Philippine American Life Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, CA-G.R. SP N o. 31283, Apr. 25, 1995, 1995, at 2. 3 Peop le v. Vill Villanueva, anueva, RTC-Branch 50, Malolos, Malolos, Crim. Case N o. 1051-M-200, Mar. 11, 2003. 4 G utierrez v. MAX Manufacturing Cor p., Nat’l Lab. Rel. Com m’n m’n (hereinafter “ NLRC ”) Case No. 04-0015-04, 04-0015-04, N ov. 5, 2004. C ourt of A ppeals ppeals Sandiganbayan Court Court of T ax A ppeal ppealss  R egional egional T rial C ourt   M un icipal T rial C ourt   M etropolitan T rial C ourt   M un icipal C ircuit T rial C ourt  S hari’ah hari’ah D istric istrict C ourt  Shari’ah Circuit Court 

CA Sandiganbayan CT A RTC RT C MT C MeTC MCTC Shari’ah Dist. Ct. Shari’ah Circ. Ct.

2. Because even electronic copies of American and other foreign decisions follow follow repo rter citations, citations, simply simply use the form < last last name o f first party> party> v.

9

F ELICIANO , supra not e 1, at 6-7.

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

579

< last last name of first first opposing party> party> , < reporter volume> volume> < reporter abbreviation> abbreviation> < first first page of decisi decision on in repo rter> , < specific specific page number in reporter> , < year of decisi decision> on> . There is is no need to specify the docket num ber un less less the case is is recent recent and has not yet been p ublished. ublished. E x ampl ample Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

3. Lower court rulings commonly specify the court before the year. E x ampl ample Blumenthal v. Dr udge, 186 F.R.D F.R.D . 236 (D (D .D.C. 1999). In re Santa Fe Int ernational Cor p., 272 F.3d F.3d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 2001). 2001).

4. Refer Refer to th e  B luebook  for o ther fo rms such as those specify specifying ing old American American reporters. Con sider sider th ese optional, however, and and avoid avoid using using multiple multiple report ers and lengthening the citation citation by noting, for example, how certiorari was denied. Such detail is of lesser use to non-American readers. E x ampl ample Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 (1803). McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.).

5. When a reporter citation form already uses the year as the volume number, omit the year from the citation. If the full date is necessary, merely omit the year. E x ampl ample Bellinger Bellinger v. Bell Bellinger, inger, 2003 UK H L 21, ¶ 46. H ere, the H ouse o f  Lords….

6. For international decisions and arbitrations, omit prefixes such as “Case Concerning.” Add a parenthetical “(< country abbreviati abbreviation> on> v. < country abbr eviation> eviation> )” after the case nam e, unless unless the decision decision is an advisory opinion. N ote th at the full date is is specifie specifiedd in th ese citati citations. ons. E x ampl ample Military Military and P aramilitary aramilitary Activities Activities in and against against N icaragua icaragua (N icar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 I.C.J. 14, 142, 149 (Jun . 27). Advisory Advisory Opinion o n t he Legali Legality ty of the Threat or Use of N uclear uclear Weapons, 35 I.L.M. 809 (Jul. 8, 1996).

58 0

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

ASE SHORT F ORMS F. CASE

 I d. ” may be used with cases, but not “ supra .” Considering the length of  1. “ Id. Philippine Phi lippine case case citations, citations, it cannot be emph emph asiz ed enoug enoughh that th at ignoring ignoring this ru le leads leads to embarrassingly grotesque formats. 10 T his is the height height of editorial editorial m alpractice alpractice..

2. In case of nonconsecutive but repetitive references to a case, one may use the short form < abbrevi abbreviated ated case case name> , < reporter reporter volume> volume> < reporter abbreviation> abbreviation> at < specific specific page page reference> reference> , omitting omitting oth er information that would be rep eated. The abbreviated abbreviated case name is comm only the first party name, unless the second identifies the case clearly, such as when the first party name is a government reference such such as “P eople” or “ Republic.” Republic.” Use this short form only when when th e subsequent reference is is on th e same page or roughly within five footnotes of the full citation. E x ampl ample Military and Paramilitary Activities, 1986 I.C.J. at 138. Arceo, 3 Ph il. il. at 384.

3. When a case is is referred to th roughou t an article article or the n ame is exceptionally long, one may also use to use a parenthetical “(hereinafter “< name> ”)” and use th is in in p lace lace of th e full reference in in succeeding succeeding footnotes. E x ampl ample Pimentel v. Joint Committee of Congress to Canvass the Votes Cast for President and Vice-President in the May 10, 2004 Elections (hereinafter “Pimen tel”), G.R. No . 163783, Jun. 22, 2004.

IV. IV. SECONDARY SOURCES A. BOOKS, P AMPH LETS AND O T H E R N ONPERIODICALS

1. Books, pamph lets, lets, formal reports, and other nonp eriodical eriodical materials materials of  substantial substantial length length are distinguis distinguished hed fro m other sources and and form atted in SMALL C APS . Use Use the form form < volume volume number> number> < AUTHOR > < T ITLE > < pag page num ber> (year (year published). published).

S ee, ee, e.g., O scar Philippine pine Party-L Party-L ist ist E x perime periment: nt: A mending mending A scar Franklin Tan, T he Philip T ragedy ragedy of of Flawed M athemat ics ics and Policy Policy, 79 P H IL . L.J. 736, 761 (2004). 10

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

581

E x ampl ample AN T O N I O N ACHURA , O UTLINE REVIWER IN P OLITICAL L AW 442-43 (2002). II ARTURO T OLENTINO , C IVIL C O D E O F T H E P HILIPPINES 30 (1992). AYN RAN D , A TLAS SHRUGGED 382 (1957).

3. If an author is credited credited with with th e work but wrote it on b ehalf ehalf of an institution, specify this institution after the author’s name; otherwise, specify the institution as the author. If a work is part of a series, include the series num ber as part of th e title. title. 4. If a source has multiple editions, specify the edition by adding the notation “ed.” in parentheses with with t he year, year, using using no comm a. E x ampl ample JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., .J., T H E 1987 1987 C ON STITUTION OF THE P HILIPPINES: A C OMMENTARY 812 (2003 ed.). JO H N WIGMORE , E VIDENCE IN T RIALS AT C OMMON L AW , § 2290 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961).

5. If a source has an editor, editors, or a translator, specify these with the notation “ed.”, “eds.”, and “trans.”, respectively. E x ampl ample K ARL M ARX & F RIEDRICH E NGELS, M ANIFESTO ANIFESTO O F THE C OMMUNIST P ARTY (Samuel (Samuel Moor e tran s., Friedrich E ngels ed., 1888) (1848). T H E BLUEBOOK : A U NIFORM SYSTEM YSTEM O F CITATION (Columbia Law th Review Ass’n et al. ed s., 17 ed. 2000).

6. When referring to a copy with different pagination such as a later publication by another publisher, specify the edition or publisher information in another parenthetical before the year as follows: E x ampl ample P IERRE -JOSEPH P ROUDHON , W HAT IS P ROPERTY? O R, AN I NQUIRY (Benj. INTO THE P RINCIPLE RINCIPLE O F RIGHT AND OF G OVERNMENT 94 (Benj. Tucker trans., 1890) (1840). ALEXANDRE D UMAS, T H E T HREE MUSKETEERS 219 (Signet Classic, 1991) (1844).

58 2

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

7. G enerally enerally,, except except fo r th e Bible, Bible, ignore ignore  B luebook  special citation forms such 11 ederalist . These are not as com mon ly used in as those for T he F ederalist  in th e Ph ilippines, ilippines, and t hey do no t facilitate facilitate the citation o f specific pages, pages, anyway. anyway. 8. When referring referring to a short wor k in in a collecti collection, on, use the form < author> , < title> , in < T ITLE OF COLLECTION > < page num ber> (year (year pub lished). lished). If  the collection collection features the work of o nly one auth or, form at his name in SMALL C APS . In exceptional cases where books are compiled in a collection, format b oth t he author’s name and th e title title in in SMALL C APS . One may specify the publisher of the compilation if it helps identify the collection. E x ampl ample 1 Martha Johnson esearch on T raditiona radi tiona l E nvironmen nviron men tal K nowledge: nowledge: I ts Johnson ,  R esearch  D evelopment evelopment and It s R ole, in L O RE : CAPTURING T RADITIONAL E NVIRONMENTAL K NOWLEDGE 7-8 (Martha Johnson ed., 1992). 1992). 2 JO H N STUART M ILL , On L iberty iberty, in E SSENTIAL W ORKS OF JO H N STUART MILL 263 (Max Lerner ed., 1961). 3 C HARLES D E M ONTESQUIEU , T H E SPIRIT OF L AWS , in 38 G REAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD 70 (En cycloped cycloped ia Britannica, Inc., Maynard Hu tchins ed., 1982). 1982). AN D CONSECUTIVELY-P AGINATED P ERIODICALS B. JOURN ALS AN

1. Academic Academic journals journals are amon g the m ost com monly-ci monly-cited ted secondary sources in in academic writi writing. ng. Use the form < author> , < title of article> , < first first page of articl article> e> , < specific specific page page num ber> (year (year published). published). E x ampl ample ight to Privacy Privacy, 4 H ARV . L. Samuel Warren & Louis Brand eis, T he R ight RE V. 193 (1890). dultery and F ornic ornication ation in the Philippines: Philippines: A Bartolome Carale, C riminal A dultery  R e-E x amina am ination tion , 4 5 P H IL . L.J. L.J. 344, 346-47 346-47 (1970). (1970).

2. Note that only the journal abbreviation is in SMALL C APS . These These abbreviations abbreviations need not be mem orized, and are create createdd using standard standard geographic geographic and comm only-used only-used abbreviations. abbreviations. Thus, for examp examp le, le, the L.J.”” O nly a handf ul of institutions en joy P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL is “P H IL . L.J. special abbreviations such as Harvard (“H ARV .”) and Columbia (“C OLUM .”). 3. When the journal uses the year as its volume number, omit the year in parentheses.

11

BLUEBOOK , supra not e 1, Rule 15.7, at 113-14.

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

583

E x ampl ample oses and C opyrig opyrights hts, 1989 D UK E L.J. 1532, Linda Lacey, O f Bread and R ose 1536-37.

4. When th e articl articlee is prefixed prefixed by a description description such as “N ote”, “Com ment” , or “Essay”, place this before the title but do not italicize. E x ampl ample Edson Eufemio, Comment, T he E state Plannin g Proces Processs in the Ph ilippine C ontex t: Sub stant ive and Procedural Procedural I ssues in Protecting Protecting the Rights of the E state Owner , 79 P H IL . L.J. L.J. 834 (2004 (2004). ). comp etency etency t o S tan d T rial, 81 H ARV . L . R E V. 454, 459 (1967). Note, In comp

5. Incidentally, a “Note” refers to a student article. In the Philippines, however, the practice has been to publish these as full articles, because very few lengthier, comprehensive articles are written. Thus, in practice, a “Note” refers to a shorter student piece while while a “Comm ent” refers to a shorter p iece iece by an an autho r who is not a student. GAZIN ES AND O RDINARY P ERIODICALS C. MAGAZIN

1. These periodicals differ in that they are commonly referred to by date and not by volume volume number. Use the the form < author> , < title of article> , < P ERIODICAL ABBREVIATION > , < inclusi inclusive ve dates> dates> , at < first first page of  articl article> e> , < specific specific page number> . E x ampl ample Better Body Image, T EE N , Nov. 1997, at 59, 60. Maggie Keresey, G et a Better WSPAPE RS AN D D AILY P UBLICATIONS D. N E WSPAPE

1. Use the form form < author> , < title of article> , < N EWSPAPER ABBREVIATION (geographic (geographic indicator)> indicator)> , < date> , at at < specific specific page number> . If the newspap er’s er’s title does n ot reveal its coun try of p ublication ublication , specify this in parentheses. For example, “ TODAY (Phil.).” E x ampl ample Christine Avendano et al., al., Poe camp cries foul over joint committee, P H IL . D AILY I NQUIRER , Jun. 1, 2004, at A14. Paolo Romero, Opposition to question up to 25 COCs, P H IL . STAR , Jun. 2, 2004, at 1.

58 4

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

2. For op inion inion co lumns and o ther run ning pieces pieces,, add the title of th e column before the title of the article, but separate these using a colon instead of a comma. E x ampl ample Passion for R eason: eason: Bush vs. G ore, ore, Ph ilippine V ersion? rsion?, Raul Pangalangan, Passion P H IL . D AILY I NQUIRER , Jun. Jun. 4, 2004, 2004, ¶ 8, available at  http:/ http:/ / www. www.inq inq7. 7.net/ net/ opi/ 200 2004/ 4/ jun/ 04/ text/ text/ opi_rpanga opi_rpangala langa ngan-1n-1p.htm

E . D OCUMENTS AND LETTERS

1. This is a last, last, catch-all category for m iscell iscellaneou aneou s sources. If r eferring to a docum ent th at is formally formally catalog catalogued ued such as Un ited ited N ations ations D ocumen ts, use the form < author> , < titl title> e> , at < specif specific ic page page number> , < designa designati tion> on> (date). E x ampl ample International Decade of the World’s World’s Ind igenous igenous People, U.N. D oc. A/ RES/ 49/ 214 (1994 (1994). ). World Trade O rganiza rganization, tion, Elements of the O bligati bligation on to D isclose isclose the Source and Country of O rigin rigin of Biologic Biological al Resource Resource and/ or Traditional Traditional Kno wledge wledge Used Used in an In vention, WTO D oc. IP/ C/ W/ 429, at 2, ¶ 3 (Se (Sep. p. 21, 2004). 2004).

2. O therwise, therwise, use use the simp simp ler form < author> , < title> title> , at < specific specific page num ber> (date), (date), but o ne is advised advised to n ote where the do cument is located. located. This is often used for unpub lished lished papers. For academic academic works such such as theses, however, specify the institution and relevant degree. E x ampl ample 1 Ellanmark Pailan, How to Find Love in Friendster.com (Jun. 21, 2004) (unpublished manuscript on file with the author). 2 O scar scar Franklin Tan, Intra-Industry Trade: A Game Without Losers (Mar. 2001) (unpublished thesis for A.B. Economics Honors, Ateneo de Manila Unviersity, on file with the Ateneo de Manila Department of E conomics). conomics).

3. Use the same form for letters, interviews, speeches, and the like, but prefix them with descriptive descriptive phrases such such as “Letter from… to”, “I nterview nterview with” and “Speech delivered”. When applicable, specify the venue or the occasion.

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

585

E x ampl ample 1 Jovito Salonga, Salonga, Speech delivered at th e P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL ’s th 90 Anniversary, Malcolm H all, all, University of the Philippines (Sep. 14, 2004). 2 Letter to Tench Coxe (Mar. 28, 1790), in 13 T H E P APERS OF JAMES MADISON 128 (Charles Hob son et. al. eds, 1981). 1981).

V. I NTERNET SOURCES

1. Cite Internet sources the same way one would a similar conventional sources (for example, online versions of books are cited using S MALL CAPS ), but add a comma and then “ at  < URL> ” if the source is found exclusi exclusivel velyy on th e Internet, or “ available at  < URL> ” if the source is is an Internet copy of  a conventional source. The URL citation may replace a reporter citation, or may be cited in addition to a conventional citation. E x ampl ample O LIVER W ENDELL H OLMES, JR., T H E C OMMON LAW 207 (1881), http:/ / www. www.gut gutenberg enberg.or .org/ g/ dirs/ dirs/ etext00/ etext00/ cmnlw10 cmnlw10.tx .txt. t. available at  http:/

2. If an In ternet source is undated, add the last date the website website was updated or modified in parenthesis. If this information is not available, indicate when the web site was last last checked. E x ampl ample un icipalities es, ¶ 1 , at  National Statistical Coordination Board, L ist of M unicipaliti http:/ / www.nsc www.nscb.g b.gov.ph/ ov.ph/ activesta activestats/ ts/ psgc/ listmun.as listmun.aspp (la (last st modifie modifiedd Jul. 2004). ilippi nes, ¶ 5 at  www.gov.ph, A bout the Ph ilippines http:/ / www.g www.gov.ph/ ov.ph/ aboutphil/ general. general.asp asp (last (last visited visited Aug. Aug. 30, 2004).

3. If a web page has n o equ ivalent ivalent con vention al source, it is easily easily cited using , < title of page> , at  . E x ampl ample Supreme Court of the Ph ilippines ilippines,, A B rief H istory of the S uprem e C ourt , at  http:/ / www.s www.supremecourt.g upremecourt.gov.ph/ ov.ph/ history.htm history.htm (last (last vis visited ited Nov. 10, 2004).

- o0o -

58 6

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

APPENDIX A: COMMONLY-U SED ABBREVIATIONS  A cademic  A ccount ccount ing  A ccount ccount ant   A ccount ccount ancy  A dm inist rative  A dm inist ration  A dvocate  A dvocacy dvocacy  A nn ual  A ppellate  A rbitration rbitr ation  A rbitrator  rbitr ator   A tomic tomi c  A ttorney ttorn ey  B ank ruptcy rup tcy  B ar   B ehavior   B ehavioral  B ulletin  B usin ess Catholic Children Chronicle Civil C ollege ollege Commentary Commercial Communication Comparative Conference Congressional Constitution Constitutional Contemporary Contract  Counsel Counselor  Criminal Court   D efense efense  D epartm ent   D evelopment  evelopment   D igest  igest   D iplomacy iplom acy  D isput e

Acad. Acct. Acct. Acct. Admin. Admin. Advoc. Advoc. Ann. App. Arb. Arb. Atom. Att’y Bankr. B. Behav. Behav. Bull. Bus. Cath. Child. Chron. Civ. C. Comment.

Comm’l Comm. Comp. Conf. Cong. Const. Const. Contemp.

Cont. Couns. Couns. Crim. Ct. Ct . Def. Dep’t Dev. Dig. Dipl. Disp.

E ast  ast  E astern astern E conomics onomics E conomy onomy E ducation ducation E mployme mployment  nt  E nglish nglish E ntertai ntertainment  nment  E nvironme nvironment  nt  E nvironme nvironmental ntal E state state Family Federal Federation Finance Financial Fornightly Foundation G eneral neral G overnm overnm ent   H ispan ic  H istorical  H istory  H ospital  H um an  Im migration mi gration  In dependent   In dust rial  In format ion  In jury  In stitu te  In suran ce  In tellectu tellectual al  In terdisciplinary  In terest  terest   In ternational ternat ional  Journal  Judicial  M agaz ine  Justice  Juvenile  L abor   L aw  L awyer   L egislati egislative ve

E. E. Econ. Econ. Educ. Emp. Eng. Ent. Env’t Envtl Est. Fam. Fed. Fed’n Fin. Fin. Fort. Found. Gen. Gov’t Hisp. Hist. Hist. Hosp. Hum. Immigr. Indep. Indus. Info. Inj. Inst. Ins. Intell. Interdisc.

Int. Int’l J. Jud. Mag. Just. Juv. Lab. L. Law. Legis.

 L egislati egislation on  L ibrarian ibrari an  L ibrary  L itigation  L ocal ocal  M ana gement  gement   M aritime ariti me  M edical edical  M edicine edicine  M ilitary ilita ry  M ineral  M un icipal  N ational ation al  N atu ral  N eglige egligence nce  N ewsletter  ewsletter   N orth  N orthern Order  Organization Pacific Patent  Personal Perspective Philosophical Philosophy Policy Political Politics Practical Practice Practitioner  Probate Proceedings Procedure Profession Professional Property Psychology Public Quarterly  R ecord  ecord   R eferee efereess  R egister  egister   R egulat egulat ion

Legis. Libr. Libr. Litig. Loc. Mgmt. Mar. Med. Med. Mil. Min. Mun. Nat’l Nat. Negl. Newsl. N. N. Ord. Org. Pac. Pat. Pers. Persp. Philo. Philo. Pol’y Pol. Pol. Prac. Prac. Prac. Prob. Proc. Proc. Prof. Prof. Prop. Psychol. Pub. Q. Rec. Ref. Reg. Reg.

20 0 4 ]

C ITATION ITATION AND THE L ITTLE BLACK BO O K

 R egulat egulat ory  R elations  R eproduction  R eproductive  R esearch esearch  R eserve eserve  R esolut esolution ion  R esponsibility  R eview eview  R ights School S cience cience S ection ection Securities

Reg. Rel. Reprod. Reprod. Res. Res. Resol. Resp. Rev. Rts. Sch. Sci. Sec. Sec.

Social Society Solicitor  South Southern State Statistic Statistical Studies Survey Symposium System Taxation T eacher  eacher 

Soc. Soc’y Solic. S. S. St. Stat. Stat. Stud. Surv. Symp. Sys. Tax’n Tchr.

587

T echn echnolog ologyy

Tech.

T eleco elecomm mm unication

Telecomm.

T ransational ransational T ransporatio ransporationn Tribunal Trial U niversity niversity Urban U tilities tilities W eek  W eek ly W est  W estern stern Y earbo earbook  ok 

Transnat’l

Transp. Trib. Tr . U. Urb. Util. Wk. Wkly. W. W. Y.B.

- o0o -

AND R EGION ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIX B: COUN TRY AND

 A fghanistan fghanist an  A frica  A lban ia  A lgeria lgeria  A ndorra  A ngola  A nguilla  A ntigua nti gua &  Barbu  B arbu da  A rgent rgentina ina  A rmenia  A ustra lia  A ustria ustri a  A z erbaijan

Afg. Afr. Alb. Alg. Andorra Angl. Anguilla Ant. & Barb. Arg. Arm. Austl. Aus. Azer.

 Baha  B ahama ma s  Bahra  B ahra in  Bangladesh  B angladesh  Barba  B arbados dos  Belarus  B elarus

Bah. Bahr. Bangl. Barb. Belr.

 Belg  B elgium ium  Beliz  B elizee

Belg. Belize

Colombia Comoros Congo Costa R ica ica C ote d’Ivoire d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus

G uinea-Bissau uinea-Bissau Colom. Comoros Guyana  H aiti Congo Costa Rica  H ondu ras Cote d’Ivoir d’Ivoir H ong K ong Croat.  H un gary  Iceland  Cuba  In donesia Cyprus

Guinea-Bissau Guy. Haiti Hond. H.K. Hung. Ice. Indon.

Cz ech R epublic epublic  D enma rk   D jibouti jibout i  D omin ica  D omin ican  R epublic E cuador  uador  E gypt  E l Salvado Salvador  r  E ngland  ngland  E quatoria quatoriall G uinea uinea E ritre ritreaa E stonia stonia

Czech Rep.  Ira n  Ira q Den. Djib.  Irelan d  Dominica  Isra el Dom . Rep. Rep.  It aly

Iran Iraq Ir. Ir . Isr. Italy

 Jam aica Ecuador  Jamaica  Japan Egypt  Jordan El D al. al. Kazak hstan hstan Eng. Eq. Guinea Kenya

Jam. Japan Jordan Kaz. Kenya

Eri. Est.

Kiribati Korea, Korea, N orth orth

Kiribati N. Korea

58 8

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

 Benin  B enin E thiopia thiopia Korea, Korea, S outh Benin Eth.  Bermud  B ermud a E urope urope Kuwait  Berm. Eur.  Bhu  B hutan tan Falk land Islands Islands Falklang Is. Kyrgzystan Bhutan  Bolivia  B olivia Fiji  L aos Bol. Fiji  Bosnia  B osnia & Finland   L atvia Bosn & Fin.  H erzog erz ogovina ovina Herz.  Botswan  B otswanaa France  L ebanon Bots. Fr .  Braz  B raz il Gabon  L esotho esotho Braz. Gabon  Brun  B run ei Gambia  L iberia Brunei Gam.  Bulgaria  B ulgaria G eorgia eorgia  L ibya Bulg. Geor.  Burk  B urk ina F aso Burk. Faso G ermany, F eder ederaa F.R.G.  L iechtenst iechtenst ein  Buru  B uru ndi Ghana  L ithuan ith uan ia Burundi Ghana Cambodia ibraltar   L ux embourg Cambodia G ibraltar  Gib. Cameroon reat Britain  M acau Cameroon G reat Gr. Brit. Canada G reec reece  M acedonia acedonia Can. Greece Cape V erde rde Cape Verde G reenl reenland  and   M adagascar  Green. Cayman I sland  sland Cayman Is. G renada renada  M alawi Gren. C entral A frican frican Cent. Afr. Guadalupe  M alaysia Guad.  R epublic Rep. Chad  Guatamala  M aldives Chad Guat. Chile G uinea uinea  M ali Chile Guinea China, People’s P.R.C.  N iger  iger   M alta Niger  R epublic of   M arshall arsha ll I slan Marsh. Is.  N igeria igeria S outh A fric fricaa Nig.  M artin iqu e  N orthern Irelan d  N. Ir. S outh A meric mericaa Mart.  M auritan aur itan ia Sudan Mauritania  N orwawy Nor.  M auritiu aur itiu s Suriname Mauritius Oman Oman  M ex ico Pak istan istan Swaziland  Mex. Pak.  M icronesia icronesia Palau Sweden Micr. Palau  M oldova Panama Switzerland  Mold. Pan.  M onaco Portugal Syria Monaco Port.  M ongolia Qatar  Tunisia Mong. Qatar  M ontserrat  Turkey Montserrat  R eunion Reunion  M orocco orocco T urk menistan menistan Morocco  R oman ia Rom. Russ.  M oz am bique biq ue Mozam.  R ussia Tuvalu Myan. Rwanda  M yanm ar   R wan da U ganda  N am ibia S ierra ierra L eone W estern stern S amoa Namib. Sierra Leone  N auru aur u Singapore Y emen men Nauru Sing.  N epal Slovak Slovak ia  Z ambia am bia Nepal Slovk.  N etherlands Neth. Slovenia  Z imb abwe Slovn.  N ew Z ealand  N.Z. S olomon olomon Islands Solom. Is. Nicar. Somal.  N icaragua Somalia

[VO L 79 S. Ko rea Kuwait Kyrg. Laos Lat. Leb. Lesotho Liber. Libya Leich. Lith. Lux. Mac. Maced. Madag. Malawi Malay. Maldives Mali Malta S. Ar. S. Am. Sudan Surin. Swaz. Swed. Switz. Syria Tunis. Turk. Turkm. Tuvalu Uganda W. Samoa Yemen Zambia Zimb.

F  OREWORD 

SISYPH ISYPH US’ L AMENT , P ART IV: IV: STYLE AND * T H E SEDUCTION EDUCTION OF TH E SUPREME COURT O scar scar Frank Frank lin lin B. T an**

“D on’t let it be forgot  forgot  T hat once once there was a spot  F or one brief shining moment that was k nown  A s C am elot.” elot.” 1

The first time I sat down in Justice Vicente V. Mendoza’s class, he opened his lecture by stating that law has two elements: logic and rhetoric. He stated that logic forms the bedrock of our jurisprudence, but it is rhetoric that makes Constitutional Law so potent and so seductive. That is, he cautioned, one must read cases with great care, lest one be ensorcelled by the rhetoric and miss the actual logic.

This article closes the d iscussion iscussion o f Vo lume 79’s 79’s ph iloso iloso phies in law review isyphus’ L ament, Part III: Citation and the L ittle Black B ook  ook , 79 management. S ee Foreword, S isyphus’ isyphus’ L ament, Part II: E diting, diting, or the Student’s A rt of  P H IL . L.J. L.J. 541 (2004); (2004); Forewo rd, S isyphus’  N ot B eing O ne’s O wn W orst E nemy , 79 P H IL . L.J. isyphus’’ L ament, ament, L.J. 233, (2004); (2004); Forewo rd, S isyphus Part I: T he N ex t N inety inety Y ears and the Transcende Transcendenc ncee of of L egal W riting, 79 P H IL . L.J. 7 (2004). scar Franklin Franklin T an, Foreword, S isyphus Cite as O scar isyphus’’ L ament, ament, Part IV : Style and the S eduction eduction of the S upreme Court , 79 P H IL . L.J. 876, (page cited cited ) (2004). (2004). The Board would like like to thank the following following students students who volunteered to h elp elp with Issue 4 and h ave been info rmally designated as the JOURNAL’s int erns: M elissa Telan (Head of Features), John Fajardo (Co-Head of Marketing), Leandro Angelo Aguirre (Co-Head of Marketing), Robert Ty (Webmaster), Joshua Trocino, Nestor Molina, Bo Tiojanco, Arth ur Alicer, Janice Janice Lee, and William William Varias. All are from the Class of ’08, ’08, except fo r Mr. Varias who is from the Class of ’06. ’06. ** Chair, P HILIPPINE L AW JOURNAL ; Member, Student E ditorial Board Board (2004). (2004). Four th Year, Ll.B., Ll.B., University University of th e Ph ilippines ilippines (2005 expected). B.S. B.S. Management aude, Ateneo de Manila University Engineering Engineering / A.B. A.B. Economics Hono rs, Cum L aude University (2001). (2001). First Freshm an Awardee, Justice Justice Irene R. Co rtes Prize for Best P aper in Constitut ional Law (2002). (2002). Awardee, Awardee, Pro fessor Araceli T. Baviera Baviera Prize for Best Paper in Civil Civil Law (2003). (2003). First First Awardee, Pro fessor Bienvenido C. Am bion Prize for Best Paper in P rivate Intern ational Law (2004). (2004). 1 “Camelot (Reprise),” sung by King Arthur in the musical Camelot  by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Lowe. The play opened at the Majestic Theatre on December 3, 1960. The p art was o riginally riginally played by Richard Burto n. *

876

20 0 4 ]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

877

H owever, he asked, asked, does this mean th at one m ust separate the logic logic from the rhetoric like grain from chaff, and ignore the latter like so many sweet nothings whispered into a lover’s ear? “No,” he exclaimed, “we want those sweet nothings!” Similarly, logic and rhetoric combine to form the substance of law reviews. Sound logic is what makes for a good journal. Thus, the Volume 79 student editors (and their loyal office intern sidekicks) have taken great pains in deliberating over article structures and patterns, in editing everything from grammar to awkward legal personifications and incongruous mixed metaphors,2 and in implementing a citation format that conforms to international standards. Only rhetoric, however, can make a good journal great. Only style can inflame ideas with passion and give them the power to transcend the intellectual plane that is presumably the domain law lords over. Only style can imbue writing with its most powerful potential characteristic: imm ort ality. ality. It is styl stylee that infuses mere words with all the warmth of a lover’s embrace, and allows them to linger in the mind as a lady’ lady’s longing stare do es befo re on e is finall finallyy forced to turn and walk away. away. Student editors, then, must seek to master style, both as they warmly inspire autho rs as evangelists evangelists rou se their flocks, and as they coldly prune an d snip at words as sculptors coax beauty out of featureless stone. I stated at my ind ind uction as Chair Chair th at the JOURNAL must, first and foremost, “serve as a handmaiden of jurisprudence.” 3 To borrow Justice V.V.’s teachings, then, student editors must strive to do no less than seduce the Supreme Court on the academ e’s e’s beh alf. AND TH E D EATH EATH I. LAW SCHOOL AND

OF

ART

Too many, however, appear to believe that this is best achieved by being frigid. A sophomore once made the mistake of entering the JOURNAL office with an editor and then initiating a discussion on the difference between creative and legal writing writing – implying implying t hat JOURNAL articles tended to lean lean away from the form er. His mistake was was that I happened to b e sitting sitting on

See also James Lindgren, Review E ssays, of W riting riting, 78 C AL . L . R EV . 1677 ssays, Fear of 1677 (1990). 3 Foreword, S isyphus’ isyphus’ L ament, Part I: The N ext N inety Y ears ears and the T ranscende ranscendence nce of   L egal egal W ritin g, 79 P H IL . L.J. 7, 7 (2004). 2

87 8

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

the other side of the room, and promptly turned around and asked, smiling, what the difference difference might be. He had an immediate reply, but froze in midsentence, his face frozen in the expression of a child told that Santa Claus does not exist. This told me what h is ton gue suddenly declined declined to. H e had been abo ut to say that legal writing is, first and foremost, distinguished by the presence of  footn otes. It m ust be “cluttered “cluttered up with little little numbers until itit looks like like the Acrosses Acrosses and D owns of a cross-word cross-word p uzzle,” uzzle,”4 and the clutter must itself itself be accompanied by a mess of parenthetical comments in small print that occupy at least half of each page. Second, he had been about to say that legal writing must be characterized by grammatical eccentricities completely divorced from plain En glis glish. h. It must, for example, adhere to the p assiv assivee voice, and and turn sentence structures on their heads such that subjects are always at the ends of  sentences. Pronouns, further, are profanities that must be avoided at all costs. In fact, in the name of precision, legal writing must employ lengthy noun phrases that are repeated at least every other sentence. Most of all, its legal nature must be made unmistakable not just with Latin maxims, but with alien artifacts such as “hence,” “heretofore,” “aforecited,” “therewith,” and most of all, the sacred “said.” This last is paramount – no Volume 79 article article has ever suff ered any loss of meaning wh en I excised excised all its its “saids,” so it must serve solely solely to m ark the p assage assage of a lawyer’ lawyer’ss pen, a seeming m ark of  Cain but with less utility. Finally, it must be as disjointed as possible, and contain as many two-paragraph subsections as possible. Third, he had been about to say that legal writing must not only be dry and neutral, it must be devoid of any soul whatsoever. I recall one deliberation for an Evidence article where the author slightly overused the metapho r of a treasure hunt. The article article was was itsel itselff hurriedly hurriedly written written and would require several heavy-handed deletions and the rewording of entire sections if the author proved incapable of curing all its verbosity and fluff by himself. Sitting across me, however, was an indignant editor who must have been a boring bean counter in a past life,5 and this editor launched into a tirade against lawyers and their corny imagery. The prescription was for all

oodbye to L aw R evie eviews ws, 23 V A. L . R E V. 38, 41 (1936). Fred Rodell, G oodbye (1936). I have nothing against accountants, boring or otherwise, but given my undergraduate degree in B.S. Management Engineering, it remains too tempting for me not to let let an op portunity to poke fun at the stereotype pass. 4 5

20 0 4 ]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

879

JOURNAL articles to be “simple,” “straight,” “direct,” and as antiseptic as a

contract of sale sale for comp ost. In short, my forever anonymous sophomore had been about to say that law school’s daily lobotomy had implied to him that legal writing has become a necessary evil, that academic discourse has mandated an idolatry of th e most grotesque abom abom inations inations ever unleashed unleashed o n the En glis glishh speaking human population. So apparently powerful is this homogenization and hegemonization of thought that it never occurred to him until he stood openmouthed in the middle of the JOURNAL office to ask how the same collective human unconscious could produce passages as disparate as: She walks in beauty, like the night O f cloudless climes and starry skies; And all that’s that’s best o f dark and bright Meet in her aspect and her eyes:6

And: [H]ere is the legal translation that has been offered for the simple, everyday phrase, “I give you this oran ge.” Know all men by these presents that I hereby give, grant, bargain, sell, release, convey, transfer, and quitclaim all my right, title, interest, benefit, and use whatever in, of, and concerning this chattel, otherwise known as an orange, or citrus orantium, together with all the appurtenances thereto of skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice, to have and to hold the said orange together with its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice for his own use and behoof, to himself and his heirs in fee simple forever, free from all liens, encumbrances, easements, limitations, restraints, or conditions whatsoever, any and all prior deeds, transfers or other documents whatsoever, now or anywhere made to the contrary notwithstanding, with full power to bite, cut, suck, or otherwise eat the said orange or to give away the same, with with o r withou t its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, or juice.7

His, perhaps, may not be a unique mindset among law students. How many law review editors, for example, have ever questioned their selfperception th at they must be the h igh igh p riests riests who en force slavi slavish sh adherence to the incantations of this pseudo-religion mistaken for legal writing?

alk s in in Beauty Beauty, in T H E G OLDEN T REASURY George Gordon, Lord Byron, She W alk (Francis Palgrave ed., 1875). 7 James Gordon III,  H ow N ot t o S uccee ucceedd in L aw S chool chool, 100 100 YALE L.J. L.J. 1679, 1679, 1689 (1991). 6

88 0

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

Perhaps, at the very least, these frigid accountants reborn have never tasted love, nor have they ever seduced or been seduced. ETRACING TH E F ALL OF M AN I I . R ETRACING

AN D

LAW STUDENT

One laughs at all this supposed legalese and gobbledygook, and at supposedly lesser law journals that showcase articles written as though they were contracts comp lete lete with the n umb ers in parenthesis such such as “on e (1),” (1),” eview’s even after and with covers that still blatantly clone the  H arvard L aw R eview’s more than a century’s passage. It is easy to assume that the University of the Philippines College of Law, given how it prides itself in producing students with a pronounced analytical bent, is above such tomfoolery. This, sadly, is not the case, and I can say this with all the exhaustion of a Chair who has had to heavily edit several student articles for style or risk inducing bleeding in readers’ eyes. I can also say this as someone who personally knows that the authors averred to were students of excellent academic standing and agile minds. This begs the qu estion: estion: At which p oint b etween the adm issi issions ons t est and graduation day does this tainted facsimile of legal writing creep into law students’ minds? Perhaps the law professors are to blame? This, however, is impossible since they have been demanding clear, concise writing since time immemorial both to ease the burden of checking exam papers and to boost students’ chances at the Bar exam. Moreover, the very best m ount their own personal campaigns to preserve rhetoric. Justice V.V. makes his students arbu ry v. M adison 8 to, in his words, arm th em with memorize passages from  M arbury the p roper vocabulary vocabulary for the discussi discussion on of Co nstitutional nstitutional Law.9 Dean Raul Pangalangan takes great care to emphasize the memorable lines in great precedents, down to Justice Louis Brandeis’s:

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). See also Vicente V. Mendoza, Foreword, E nrique M . Fernando: Friend and T eacher  eacher , 79 P H IL . L.J. L.J. 863, 867 (2005). (2005). “Fro m him, generations of studen ts – including no less than eleven eleven who at one time or anot her were members of the Supreme Court – heard o f  Malcolm and Laurel in the same breath that they heard of Holmes, Brandeis, and Cardozo from him. But for Chief Justice Fernando, these great names would perhaps only be ancestral voices from a dim and distant past. Because of him, however, these great figures figures came to life, life, and it is now a mark of d istinction istinction for us to cite or quo te them.” 8 9

20 0 4 ]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

881

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.10

Style is certainly at its most seductive at legal practice’s highest tiers. Contesting the constitutionality of the Anti-Plunder Law 11 on deposed president Joseph Estrada’s behalf, Dean Pacifico Agabin prefaced his opening pleading with a quote from Cicero. Curiously, the government mperor’ r’ss could only retaliate with one from Hans Christian Andersen’s T he E mpero  N ew C lothes, saying that the former president stood naked before the Court, and that his arguments amounted to nothing. Dean Agabin’s riposte bewailed how the government could only cite children’s fairy tales against his client, and had to spend over fifty pages refuting “nothing.” I kept the pleadings from that case during my freshman year, and have Dean Agabin to thank for saving saving my mind’s mind’s ton gue from corruption. Perhaps, then, the Supreme Court is at fault, since it almost exclusively provides the classroom material for law schools. This, however, is an even m ore absurd prop osition. osition. While I have on occasion occasion vented m y ire against the indecipherable texts of some early American Justices, these are certainly overshadowed by the George Malcolm’s scholarship: Completely liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.12

Even assuming some decisions are below par, it is unimaginable how one could learn legalese from the likes of Justices Gregorio Perfecto and Jose B.L. Reyes. Finally, if the early United States Supreme Court had John Marshall, then its Philippine counterpart certainly had Jose P. Laurel: [W]hen the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which which that instrument secures and guarantees to them . This

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 480 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Rep. Act N o. 7080 (1991); (1991); Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan, G.R. N o. 148560, 377 SCRA 538, Nov. 19, 2001. 12 United States v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731, 739 (1918). 10 11

88 2

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

is in truth all that is involved in what is termed “judicial supremacy” … But much as we might postulate on the internal checks of power provided in our Constitution… In the last and ultimate analysis, then, must the success of our government in the unfolding years to come be tested in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts than in consultation consultation roo ms and court chambers.13

If the cream of the Philippine judiciary could give a good account of  themselves vis-à-vis Holmes, Brandeis and Cardozo, who then is to blame for stultified student minds? Certainly not the practitioners, because I complain of  student  papers with sound logic but atrocious rhetoric. Cafeteria food, perhaps? Whatever the problem’s root, it is undeniable that too many students come to perceive the artifacts of legalese as an easy crutch in lieu of  clarity, clarity, articulati articulation on , and truly regal writing, writing, never mind ho w inexplicable it it is to equate o bfuscation with lawyerly lawyerly caliber. caliber. The bestselling novel T he D a V inci inci Code Code proposed: “For the early Church… mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the Church out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as the sole conduit to God. For obvious reasons, they worked hard to demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the same.” 14

Perhaps a parallel argument can be made for the lingual docility I decry. If so, then law students must break free, come to grips with their supp ressed intellectual intellectual passion passion s, and seek to reclaim reclaim the full might o f style. style. I II II . T H E ROLE OF STUDENT E DITORS

Law journals’ student editors must be the first to shake off the sickening mindset I have described, and realize that they are the last defenders of academic civilization against the barbarians at the gates and the hordes of literary mediocrity. Theirs is a taxing and lonely vigil, but they must be willing to go to the lengths the most ardent of suitors would if the Court is to take note of the academe’s caress. Logic, again, is powerful, but it takes rhetoric to m ake it it immo rtal. rtal.

13 14

Angara v. Electo ral Comm ’n, G .R. No. 45081, 63 P hil. 139, 139, 158, Jul. Jul. 15, 1936. D AN BROWN , T H E D A VINCI C O D E 309 (hardcover prtg., 2003). 2003).

20 0 4 ]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

883

Sadly, the grievances I have described are not even new. Yale professor Fred Rodell decried “the antediluvian or mock-heroic style in which most law review material is written” and protested: “There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content.” 15 He added that “a pennyworth of content is most frequently concealed beneath a pound of so-called style.” 16 More recently, University of Wisconsin professor Lawrence Church bemoaned: For most lawyers, bound by imperative constraints on time and energy, but assailed with the burgeoning mass of legal materials, the solution is entirely predictable: only the most succinct secondary material materialss can afford to be read. All the o thers can be spared at most a cursory glance to see if they might be interesting. Unfortunately, many law review articles, bulky and encrusted with form as they are, do n ot fare well in in t his selection selection p rocess.17

Northwestern professor Robert Lansing quipped: “My article has lungs…. It wishes to breathe; but I fear that before it can do so, it will inhale the sea of monotony that engulfs it. Its body will be made to wash up on distant shores – forgotten before it was gotten.” 18

University University of Minnesota Minnesota pr ofessor D avid avid Bry Bryden den stated: The style of legal scholarship violates every precept in a manual of expository writing: writing: it is is abstract, plodding, pom pou s, and and p rolix. … … In our profession, however, most reading is in the line of duty: getting ready for class or preparing an article. It is no accident that bureaucrats write just as badly as we do. Like us, they are free from the discipline of the market. … If the leading article on equitable estopp el is is boring, why that’s that’s just too bad . You still have to read it to get ready for your ten o'clock class.19

15

oodbye to L aw R evie eviews ws, 23 V A. L . R E V. 38, 38 (1936). Fred Rodell, G oodbye (1936).

16  Id .

W. Lawrence Church,  A Plea for R eadable L aw R eview eview A rticles, 1989 W IS . L . R E V. eview, 44 J. L EGAL E D UC . 1, 1-2 739, 742. S ee Alfred Alfred Co nard,  A L ovable L aw R eview 1-2 (1994 (1994). ). 18 Robert Lansing, T he Creative Creative Bridge Betwee Between A uthors and E ditors ditors, 45 M D . L . R E V. 241, 241, 243 (1986) (1986).. 19 David Bryden, S cholarship holarship A bout S cholarship holarship, 6 3 U . C O LO . L . R E V. 641 641,, 647 (1992 (1992). ). 17

88 4

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

Finally, University of Puget Sound professor Pierre Schlag wrote: On the whole, reading mainstream scholarship leaves one with the impression that the authors don’t like their jobs very much – but that they have a strong sense of duty and that the rule of recognition for duty is pain.20

Let it not be said in the UP College of Law, thus, that there is an irreconcilable difference between creative and legal writing, nor that lawyers are craftsmen and not artists. I have always believed that the sexiest part of a woman, if it is at all proper to admire a lady piecemeal, is her mind. That said, said, student editors canno canno t claim claim to have hur dled the bar of excel excelle lence nce until each article bears, on an intellectual level, all the warmth in a lady’s tight emb race and each issue issue can exto l society’ society’s mo st ch erished values with with all the radiance of a lady’s smile. Perhaps one day, too, even taxation articles will partake of a setting sun’s poetry. So ends the P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL ’s 90th Anniversary term. I hope that the next student chair will continue this search for the full magnificence magnificence of style, style, for rh etoric to b olster logic logic.. I h ope, to o, that he o r she takes to heart all the many reforms Volume 79 has implemented, the many conventions it has initiated, and the many dreams that remain unfulfilled still. I hope, further, that he or she will be able to see beyond the muchhyped prestige prestige and the much-coveted resume entry that com es with with h eading eading th e JOURNAL , and instead finds the brand of passionate scholarship the institution institution co ntinually ntinually demands. And mo st import ant of all all to th e true artist, I hope he or she believes in love at first sight. AFTERWORD

It is hard to believe that my term is practically at an end, and that Issue 4 is in the press barely four months since the Volume 79 Board’s induction. Surprisingly, of all the Malcolm community’s student and faculty members, only Dean Pacifico Agabin gave me a knowing smile regarding the isyphus’ L ament . Little wonder, perhaps, that title of this series of forewords: S isyphus’ I consider him the man who nurtured my forays into legal writing, and told me one Saturday morning in the law library that good writing entails intellectual courage more than anything else.

Brilliant, iant, T he Curious, Curious, and T he W rong rong, 39 STAN . L. Pierre Schlag, Comment, T he Brill RE V. 917 917,, 927 (1987 (1987). ). 20

20 0 4 ]

STYLE AND SEDUCTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

885

Sisyphus is the epitome of hopeless labor, condemned to forever roll a boulder up a slope only to see it rush back down each time. No one else truly understood why I chose this cryptic mythological reference to depict the JOURNAL Chair’s lot. I still marvel at how the seven Volume 79 student editors and ten volunteer student interns – almost all freshmen and sophomores at that – accomplished so much in so short a time given all the problems we began with. Our computers are so slow and obsolete that I have actually ordered students not  to work in the JOURNAL room , and the rep lacements lacements got lost in a sea sea of UP red tape. We made do with with an elaborate elaborate Internet chain chain that stretches from the Fajardo law offices in Makati to May Ann Rosales’s workstation workstation in the D epartment o f For eign eign Affairs Affairs.. A previous editorial board had incurred a 33% wastage rate – one out of every three pages from the full print run had to be replaced due to typographical errors – and this was mistakenly imputed to our Board. The printing presses ground to a halt for several weeks despite our violent protests until the matter was settled. Some subscriber records were lost, lost, but a num ber of past issues issues were apparently undelivered because subscribers declined to send payments for Volume 79 until these back issues were delivered. Our Board began with a grand grand total of  three paid subscriptions. Worse still, we could not immediately solicit new subscriptions because I realized that the subscription price was below cost. Perhaps th e worst prob lem lem o f all was my own emotional state. state. I had been appointed Chair at a time when I was so thoroughly disillusioned with th e JOURNAL as an institution. I found out I had been named Chair when Dean Agabin walked up to me one Saturday morning and informed me personally, before the official announcement. I found myself in a pensive mood beside the Malcolm Theater, and another student, now curiously our neighbor in the adjacent Jessup Room, asked me how it felt to be the new Chair. Unsmiling and with quite a bit of sincerity, I believe I turned and answered answered her that I was not quite as happy as I expected I would b e. My thoughts had turned to what I felt were sometimes random article deliberations, editing that was at times crude or overly high-handed, a lack of deference to authors on doctrinal topics no student editor could possibly have mastered already, an ever-higher ratio of student theses, and a forever anonymous idiot of an editor’s conscious decision to disregard  H arvard L aw R eview eview international citation standards. Prestige was the last

88 6

P HILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

[VO L 79

thing in my mind at the time, perhaps just a freshman year year mem ory of D ean Agabin encouraging me to take the editorial exam during one conversation in the corridor. A teacher’s wish weighs heavily in the Confucian ethos, and if the best wanted me to undertake the Herculean – perhaps Sisyphean – task of tackling the institution’s many problems, so it would be. I choose to write all this down not in an attempt to tarnish the JOURNAL ’s ninety-year reputation, but perhaps to perpetually remind my successors that writing is an art, a discipline, and a formidable challenge, not a vvenue enue to seek seek prestige. prestige. I harp on p restige restige because of the JOURNAL ’s inherent lack of accountability: a Chair receives this much-coveted prestige upon appointment, and it remains with him or her regardless of  performance. Additionally, I wish to emphasize that managing the JOURNAL presents so many administrative challenges that have little to do with actual writing or editing, and neither do the solutions. Professor Eduardo Labitag even teases me for being my own circulation manager, and where indeed is the prestige in having having to h and ou t copies of the JOURNAL yourself? Perhaps I feel that th e Volume 79 editorial editorial board h as done its share 21 in rolling the boulder up the hill, and my deepest fear is that it will roll back down someday. If the written word’s power lies in its immortality, then perhaps the writer fears meaningless obscurity. This is likely the lot of our trip up the slope should the stone later slip once again, and perhaps the consignm consignm ent o f our H erculean erculean labors labors to the for gotten Sisy Sisyphean phean o blivi blivion on of  a dusty shelf is something to fear indeed.

- o0o -

This was done, incidentally, with quite a bit of assistance from the College and Law Center staff: our office’s staff members Virgilet Encarnacion and Edwin Birong, Sally Casis and the Dean’s Office Staff, Elise Ochoa and the Associate Dean’s Office, our Accounting Officer Bella Desamito, our favorite librarian Evelyn Cuasto, Luz Sobrevinas and the Property Office, and Manny Abaya and the printing department’s complement (who (who m ore than earned that bottle of Fundador). 21

SISYPHUS' SISYP HUS' LAM LAMENT, ENT, PART V: REINVIGORATING  JO OURNAL AS TH THE TH E PHILIPPINE LAw J THE E

CRUC CR UCIB IBLE LE OF LE LEGA GAL L WRI RITI TING NG

*

"[AJdminis "[AJdmi niste terin ringg a lawjou lawjourna rnall is like like danc dancing ing on the edgeof a k nife n ife.. On one hand, a student edit editor or cannot cannot allow allow the instituti institution on to lose its moorings moorings to tra radi dittio ionn an andd lo lose se its itse! e!ff in th thee ti tide dess of time time.. On the ot othe her  r  , he mu must  st  nevert nev erthel heless ess hee heedd the cal calll of imp impati atient ent,, hot hot-bl -bloode oodedyouth dyouth and  c o nstantlY  incotporate incot porate new ideas and tec technologi hnologies.To es.To paraphr paraphrase ase Dean Roscoe Pound, the  JOURNAL  must remai remainn stable, stable, but it cannot stand still. still. ''1 -Osc -O scar ar Fr Frank ankli linn Ta Tan, n, (' ('Si Si!y !yphu phus' s'Lam Lamen entt, P ar ar t   I" (There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. Thee oth Th other er is its co cont nten ent. t."2 "2 -Fre -F redd Ro Rode dell4 "G "Goo ood! d!?J ?Jeeto La Law w Reviews" 

Nothi No thing ng cou could ld po possib ssibly ly hav have e pre prepar pared ed me for ch chairm airman anshi ship p of th the e PHIUPPINE LA w JOURNAL JOURNAL.. Th The e inc incom ompar parabl able e bli bliss ss soo soon n gav gave e way to to ha harsh rsh reality rea lity and and the sen sensati sation on of a great great weight weight sett settlin ling g itself itself up upon on my shoulders. sh oulders. Osca scarr Fra Frank nklin lin Ta Tan n de descri scribe bed d thi thiss sam same e sen sensati sation on in 2004: 2004: [T]he inc [T]he incum umbe bent nt PHIUPPINE LA w JOURNAL Chai airr fe felt lt ra rath ther er incom inc ompe peten tentt wh when en he ftrst stepped stepped into the Ju Justice stice Al Alex ex Re Reye yess Ro Room om,,

• S ~h ~h us us ' L am am en en t   wa wass a se seri ries es of es essa says ys writt written en by Osca Oscarr Fr Fran ankl klin in Ta Tan n th that at se serv rvee bo both th as a chron ronicl iclee of  le Blac Blackk Book, his term term as Chair Chair of Volum Volumee 79 and as instr instruct uction ional al too tools ls for future future edi editor tors, s, inc includ luding ing Oscar's Lit t t le S~hus' '  Lament, Lame nt, Part III  III : Citat ion a n d th thee Little the JOURNAL'S JOURNAL'S citation manual (Osca citation (Oscarr Frank Franklin lin Tan, Forew Foreword, ord, S~hus  Bla ck Bo ok, 79 PHI i syphus'  La  Lam m en t,t, P ar ar t   v . . PHIL L L.J. 547, append. append. I (2004)). (2004)). Cite as Jua Juan n Pao Paolo lo Faj Fajard ardo o, Foreword, S isyphus'   Rei nvi go gorati rati ng the Ph Philip ilip pin e Law Jou rna l as the Cru cib le of L ega l Wr itin ~ 83 PHIL. PHIL. LJ LJ.. 5, (page (page cited) (200 (2008). 8). - Chair, PHILIPPINE LAwJOURNAL LAwJOURNAL (2009; Member, 2006). Violeta Calvo-Drilon-ACC (2009; Calvo-Drilon-ACCRALAW RALAW Sch Schola olarr for Legal Writin Writing g (2009 (2009)). Clerk , Off Office ice of Suprem Supremee Cou Coutt tt Ass Associ ociate ate Jus Justic ticee Car Carpio pio Mor Morale aless (2o (2oo8o8-pr preesen ent) t);; J.D., Univer Uni versit sity y of the Phi Philip lippin pines es Col Colleg legee of Law (20 (2009 09 exp expect ected) ed).. AB Eco Econom nomics ics,, C1im/aude, Atene Ateneo o de Ma Manila Universit Unive rsity y (2004 (2004)). The aut author hor wis wishes hes to tha thank  nk . the follo followin wing g pro profes fessor sorss who encourag encouraged ed me to pursue pursue the art art an and d cr craf aftt of  legal leg al writi writing: ng: Dea Dean n Rau Raull C. Pangalangan Pangalangan,, Dea Dean n Mar Marvic vic MVF MVF Leone Leonen,J n,Jesu esuss M. Disini Disini,, Associa Associate te Dean Patri Patricia cia

S. Daway Daway,, and Rafa Rafael el Moral Morales, es, Franc Francis is Jarde Jardeleza leza,, an and d th thee re rest st of the UP Co Coll lleg egee of Law Clas Classs of  1974 1974,, whose undyin und ying g sup suppor portt ens ensure uress tha thatt the JOUR JOURNAL NAL and legal legal writin writing g in the Col Colleg legee wil willl remain remain for foreve everr vibra bran nt. Franklin lin Tan, Foreword, Foreword, S~h S~hll llS' S' Lam Lament ent,, Par Partt I: The Nes Nestt Ni Ninet netll Yea Year  r .r and the Transcend ence of Legal 1 Oscar Frank Writin~ 79 PHI PHIL L L.J. 7, 12-13 (2004), citing Olive Oliverr Wende Wendell ll Holme Holmes, s, The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. HARV. L. REv REv.. 457, 475 (1897); ROSCOEPOUND, INTERPRETATIONS INTERPRETATIONSOF LEGALHISTORY 1 (1923). (1923). Oscar ar Fra Frankl nklin in Tan Tan,, For Forewo eword, rd, S ~h ~h llllS ' L amen ment, t, Par Partt IV : Sti Stile le and the Seduct Seduction ion of the the S upreme u preme Cou Court rt,, 79 2 Osc Reviews,, 23 VA. PHIL PH IL L.J. 876,8 876,876 76 (2004 (2004), ), quoting Fred Rode Rodell, ll, Goodbye to Law Reviews VA. L. REv. 38, 38 (1936 (1936)).

opened open ed th the e fir first st en enve velop lope e ad addte dtesse ssed d to hi him m, an and d re read ad the wo word rdss "JusticeVicen "Ju sticeVicente te V. Mend endoz oza" a" on the stati statione onery.3 ry.3

I be bega gan n my re rela lati tion onsh ship ip wit ith h my je jeal alou ouss mis istr tres esss as a fr fres eshm hman an inter in tern n un unde derr th the e no now w leg legen enda dary ry Cha hair ir Ta Tan. n.4 My loa load d on only ly we weigh ighss hea heavie vierr when wh en I real realize ize that that it is the sam same e once borne borne by a great great mentor mentor wh who o fini finishe shed d his issue issuess in fou fourr mo month nths, s, set the un unive iversity rsity reco record rd of eig eight ht Best Best Paper priz prizes es then th en de deli live vere red d th the e 2007 gr grad adua uati tion on sp spee eech ch at Har arva vard rd Law Sc Scho hool ol.. I pain pa inst stak akin ingl gly y ch chec ecke ked d th the e fo foot otno note tess of hu hund ndre redd-pa page ge ar arti ticl cles es,, ch chec ecke ked d indi in divi vidu dual al wo word rdss fo forr pr prec ecisi ision on be beyo yond nd ac accu curac racy, y, borde bordered red on ha haras rassin sing g autho aut hors rs via phon phone e and e-m e-mail, ail, and jealousl jealously y nu nursed rsed eac each h issue issue fro from m the tim time e the th e mate teri ria als are gath the ere red d unti till th the e is isssue is prin inte ted d and re rele lea ased fo forr distribution.5 I rem remain ain aw awestr estruck uck by how how a student student bo board ard can bear bear alm almost ost 95 years yea rs of trad traditio ition n and authors authors of peerless peerless cali caliber ber on on its largely largely ine inexp xperie erience nced d shoulders.6 Ne Never verthe theless less,, it is not eno enoug ugh h to sim simply ply rele release ase our our req require uired d fou fourr issues nor to implement implement the usual cosmetic improvem improvements. ents. The Journal must represent a more profound tradition excellence.7 I reca recall ll ho how w my ment mentor or artic articula ulated ted a threefold threefold vis vision ion::

of 

1) "hand "handma maide iden n of jurisprud jurisprudenc ence e ... the academe's academe's mo monito nitorr and crit critic ic regardin regarding g the evo evoluti lution on of the Su Supre preme me Co Court' urt'ss doctrine";8 2)

"vehic "veh icle le fo forr ed edu uca cati tio on, one th that at st stim imu ula late tess both th the e academe and the profession";9 and

3) "[ "[ve venu nue e fo for] r] th the e [b [bro road ader er]] ed educ ucat atio ion n of th the e se sele lect ct fe few w

chosen cho sen as student student edi editor tors" s"..l0

Oscar Fra Oscar Frankl nklin in Tan Tan,, For Forewo eword, rd, Sis Sisyph yphus' us'Lame Lament, nt, Par Partt II: Editing, Editing, or the SlI SlIIde Ident' nt'ss Art Art of Not Bei Being ng One's One's 0 " " , Worst Enenry, 79 PHI (2004). PHIL. L. L . J . 233,235 That at fi first rst batc batch h of  PHlLIPPINE LAwJOURNAL int intern erns, s, in additi addition on to myself, myself, was compose composed d of Leandr Leandro o 4 Th Ang ngeelo Agu Aguirre irre (Ch (Chair air,, Vol. Vol. 81), B ryan Dennis Bryan Dennis Tio Tiojan janco co (Ed (Edito itor, r, Vol Vol.. 80,82), M ark Parcia Mark Parcia (Edi (Editor tor,, Vol Vol.. 81), Gera erard rd Jo Jose seph ph Ju Juma mami mill (Ed (Edit itor or,, Vo Voll . 82) Nesto Nestorr Mol Molina ina,, Jan Janice ice Lee Lee,, Mel Meliss issaa Tel Telan, an, Josh Tro Trocin cino, o, Wil Willia liam m Varia Va riass and Arthur Arthur Ali Alicer cer.. Cortes,, Legal EdNcation in the Philippines PillL. Philippines:: The Role of the the Phil Philippin ippinee Law Journa Journall in the 1990'  1990' s, s, 65 PillL. 5 Irene Cortes 3

L .J.

1,1(1990) 1990)..

• For dis discus cussio sions ns of why why the legal legal profe professi ssion on in partic particula ularr has studenr studenrss adm admini iniste sterr irs acad academi emicc jou journa rnals, ls, Sisyphus' '  Lament Lament,, Part  II, supra note 2; Richa Fulll,.. of SlII SlIIdentdent-Edite Editedd Law Review, 47 STAN. see Tan, Sisyphus see Richard rd Posner Posner,, The Fulll, L. REv REv.. 11 1131 31 (19 1995 95)). 7 Cortes, supra no note te 5, at 2. 2. 8 Tan, Sis note te 1, at at 7. Oscar Oscar Fra Frank nkli lin n Ta Tan n su surv rvey eyed ed th thee Sup Suprem remee Co Court urt''s Sisyph yphus' us'Lame Lament, nt, Part  Par t  I, supra no cita itatio tions ns of the PHlLIPPINE LAwJOURNAL from 1991 to 2003 to and count counted ed 23in this this per period iod,, alt althou hough gh the these se were mosd sdy y "a "app ppen ende ded d to a hist histor oric ical al or te tech chni nica call po poin intt in a preli prelimi mina nary ry di disc scus ussi sion on,, or su sugg gges este ted d fo forr fur furth ther er  Ha rvar d Law Reviw cit 10..In reference." Id. at 10 I n comparis comparison, on, the Cour Courtt mad madee 21 citati ations ons in the same period period.. 9 Id. at 12.

Thes Th esee

rem re mai ain n

cha hall llen enge gess

thaat th th thee pres preseent

hea ead d on. In th this is spi piri ritt , I hope hope to co cont ntin inue ue

My ment mento or, such

as mo more

eff ffic icie ient nt

forr al fo alll his his art rtfu full focused

article

admi ad min nis istr traati tio on

cente ten nnial, seeks

beyond

to revis isiit

being

emph em phaasi size ze

democracy.

Ideas

intellectual

biodiversity

rights, Reg Re gul ulaati tion on

the underlying

of th thee Ph Phil ilip ipp pin inees'

to

this

for educati tio on"14

thee sta th tate te uni niv ver ersi sity ty

in is isssue uess

property

action

and

Board and

to

of a de dev vel elo opi pin ng

the JOURNAL must

such su ch as in ind dig igeeno nou us

peo eop ple less

rig ri ght hts, s,

heal he alth th la laws ws and and ju judi dici cial al in inte tegr grit ity y.

law

to

social

protect justi ticce

Cod Co de an and d ma math theema mati ticcal

listt sea lis seats. ts.16 My co co-i -int nteern

10 

as "a vehic iclle

repr re prod oduc ucti tive ve

new ne w di dire rect ctio ions ns..

of jur juris isp prudence,"13

no further than my predecessors. on judicial review and human

harnessing Seccur Se urit itie iess

edit ito or-author tiees, more ti medi me diaa. 12 The present Board

and an d ex expl plor oree

meaning

activeely giv activ ivee voic voicee to ad advo voca cate tess soc ocia iall we welf lfar aree le legi gisl slat atio ion, n,

visu vi suaal

with wi thin in

init in itia iati tiv ves

closer

a "handmaiden

give

hig igh hly pra raccti tica call

yea earr and th thee Un Univ iveers rsit ity y

itss con it conte tex xt

must

I n neeed look extensively

outl tlin ineed

cont co ntri ribu buti tion onss

the JOURNAL's ro role

con co nst stan antl tly y

writing

pros pr osee,

solicitation,

In th thee JO JOUR URN NAL AL'S 'S 95t 5th h

Boaard mus Bo ustt me meet et

Si!JPhus'Lament .!' 

and an d har arn ness ssin ing g

seek se ekss to bu buil ild d on pas pastt bo boar ards ds''

Edit Ed ito ori rial al

Chaair Le Ch Lean andr dro o

Chair Tan, beyond rights ,15 wrote on developing

thrust

arg ar gume ment ntss

coun tries ries''

in int interpreting

the

forr fi fo fill llin ing g all par artt y-

Ange An gelo lo Ag Agu uir irre re wro rote te on lega legall ethi eth ics

!d.

The title The tlearosefrom arosefromaa private privatejokebetween jokebetweenDeanPacifico DeanPacificoAgabin Agabinand and ChairTan."Sisyphu sis the th e epitomeof epitome of hopelesslabor,condemnedto forever foreverrolla rolla boulder boulderup up a slopeonly slopeonlyto to seeit rush rushbackd backd owneach time.No one elsetrulyunderstood elsetrulyunderstoodwhyI whyI chosethis cryptic crypticmythological mythologicalreferenceto depictthe JOU OUR RNA NAL L Chair'slot hair'slot.."Tan, Sisyphus note2, 2, at 885. 885.Tan'sgreatest Tan'sgreatestfearwasthat fearwasthat a lessdedic lessdedicaated Sisyphus' '  Lam ent, Par t IV ; supra note Chairinterested hairinterestedprimarily primarilyin a resumeentry might mightsoon soon allowthe boulderto boulderto quicklyroll bac k  k d down wn,, a senti entiment mentthat that cast castaa migh mighty tyshad shadow owon the chai chairman rmanof Volu Volume me80. 12 Tan Tan,,Sisyphus' LAment, Part  1 , supra not note1,at e1,at 17 17.. n

13 14

Id . Id .. Id 

at at

7. 12.

OscarFran rFranklin klinTan, Art lAw w; E .g . , , Osca  Articul iculatin atin g the th e Complet Completee Philippine Philippine Right to Privaq Privaq in Consti Constil7lt l7ltional ional and C ivil ivi l lA 82(4)PHIL..L.J. 78 (2008) (2008)(Volume (Volume82 82 was erron eo eou usly  A Tribut e to Chief Justic Justicee Fernando and Justice Justice C a rpio, 82(4)PHIL paginated;this thisarticle articleappeared appearedin Issue4); Issue4);OscarFran OscarFranklin klinTan, The 2004 Canv Canvass ass:: It is Emphati Emphatical calfy fy th thee P ro rovi vinn ce 79PHIL.L . .J.38 (200 (2004) 4)(Jus (Justic ticeeIren IreneR eR.. CortesPrizeforB CortesPrizeforBest estP Paper a nd Duty of Congres Congresss to Say What Congres Congresss is , 79PHIL in Cons Constituti titutional onal Law,2005);;Osca Law,2005) OscarFran rFranklin klinTan,  Mar ririaage Through Anothe Anotherr Lens: Weighi Weighing ng th th e Va Validity lidity of Sam Sa m e81PHIL.L . .J. J. 789(2 789(2006) 006).. S ex M a rriage rriagess By Appfying Appfying Arg ,uments  ,uments to Bis Bise xua  xuals ls and Tra Transs nss exua ls, 81PHIL " OscarFranklinTan, The Mandotor Mandotoryy Dis DisC  C  /oSN ,. &q &qui"" ui"" ,ent as a Thi Third rd Wo World rld TR TRIPS IPS Rip Ripos oste: te: & r o g n iifng 79Phil..L.J.457 457(200 (2004) 4)(Es (Esteba teban nB. B.Baut Bautist istaaPri zef or or Best T raditional r aditional Knowledge , Knowledge , Pri Prior or Art Art,, and the Lo Loccha hann Id Idea eal, l, 79Phil Paper Pap er in IntellectualPropertyLaw,2005);Osc PropertyLaw, 2005);Oscar ar Franklin FranklinTan Tan,,  Man dot dotory ory Ten Tender der Offe rs as a T ool ool f tr tr th e IS

issue issu es in corp rpo ora rate te la law w al alo ongsid ide e Joe Concepci cio on, fo fou under of the ACCR AC CRAL ALAW AW litigation litigation departme department nt and him himself self a for forme merr JOURNAL Chair, who wh o disc discuss ussed ed the these se issu issues es in a large large firm contex contextt 17 Th These ese read readily ily illu illustra strate te how ho w per perceiv ceived ed com comme mercia rcial-o l-orien riented ted field fieldss are equ equally ally ven venues ues for intellectu intellectua al advocacy. The JOURNAL mu must st thu thuss con constan stantly tly remind remind the professi profession on that the notion no tion of serv service ice un under derlies lies the pra practic ctice e of law in its myria myriad d aspects aspects.. 18

Si!J !JjJ jJhus hus'' Lame Lament nt,, Par Parii I, to se The th thir ird d ro role le in Si serv rve e as a ven enu ue fo forr student stud ent edi editor tors' s' exp expand anded ed edu educati cation, on, is no less impo importan rtantt and is intertw intertwine ined d wit ith h th the e br broa oade derr go goal al of in insp spir irin ing g ex exce cell llen ence ce in le lega gall writ writin ing g am amon ong g th the e studentry. stude ntry. The JOURNAL mu must st step bey beyon ond d its alre already ady loft lofty y ped pedago agogica gicall du duty ty in cla classr ssroo oom m lea learn rnin ing g.l9 It re rem mai ain ns ra rare re to se see e th the e li lik kes of so sop phomore Marc arceli elino no Velo eloso so III III,, wh who o wr wrot ote e a legal legal pap paper er in hi hiss fre free e tim time e an and d be beste sted d seniors sen iors enrolled enrolled in Su Super pervise vised d Legal Legal Re Resear search ch classes classes to win the 20 2008 08 Ar Aracel acelii T. Baviera Baviera Prize Prize for Best in Ci Civil vilLa Law. w.2 o

The pr The prese esent nt Bo Board ard ha hass th thus us in insti stitu tutio tiona naliz lized ed th the e PHiliPPINE LAw JOURNAL Intem Int emship ship Pro Progra gram. m. Th This is has been been form formaliz alized ed in three ways: ways: first first,, it hass th ha the e Dea ean's n's fu full ll supp suppor ort; t; sec secon ond, d, it is open open to an any y UP UP La Law w studen student; t; an and d thir th ird, d, th the e fi fina nall li list st of vo volu lunt ntee eers rs ha hass th the e Boa oard rd's 's imprimatur . 2 1 This is an immensely imm ensely positiv positive e devel developm opment ent,, as Chair Chair Tan wa wass res restri tricte cted d by his fac facul ultty

 D e mocral  De mocralizal izalion ion oj Wealth: Wealth: Arti Artial/ al/alin alingg the SEe' SEe'ss Broad Preceden Precedentt in Nat  Nat ' l L ifif t I n s. s. C o. o. v. Cemm Holdings, Inc., 80 PHIL PHIL.. L.J. 47 479 9 (2 (200 006) 6) (F (Fir irst st aw awar arde dee, e, Go Gonz nzal alo o T. Sa Sant ntos os Pr Priz izee fo forr Be Best st Pa Pape perr in Securi Securiti ties es La Law, w, 20 2005 05); ); Os Osccar Frankl ranklin in Tan, The PartyPHIL.. L.J. Party - Li  List st Sy st stem em Re v isi te ted: d: Un m ve nn g Hi dd en Pi tfa lls in Pr es en t & fo form rm Pr op os al s, 82(3) PHIL 181,, (page cited) 181 cited) (2008 (2008); ); Oscar Oscar Fran Franklin klin Tan Tan,, The Philippine Philippine Party-List Experiment : A Trage Tragetfy tfy ojFJ ojFJawed awed Mathemat ic icss PHIL. L.J. 735 (2004) (2004) (Fi (First rst Awardee Awardee,, Jus Justic ticee Vic Vicent entee V. Men Mendoz dozaa Pri Prize ze for Best Best Cr Criti itical cal Ana Analysi siss and PoJiq , PoJiq , 78 PHIL. of a Supre Supreme me Co Court urt Dec Decisi ision, on, 200 2005). 5). 17 Lea Leandr ndro o Ang Angelo elo Agu Aguirr irre, e, From Courl Courlroom room to Boardroo Boardroom: m: Evolving Conj Conjlic lictt oj Int Interes erestt &lie &liess 10 Govern the PHIL. L.J. 291 (2006); Jose c. Concepcion, Ethi C orporate o rporate Pra&ticeojUzw, 81 PHIL. Ethics cs and ExccelJen ExccelJencefor cefor Young Uz"! Uz"!Yers Yers in PHIL. LJ LJ.. 221 (2006 (2006)).  Inst  In stifl ifl lti on aJ Uz w Fi rm s, 81 PHIL. 18 Cue Cueto to v. Jime Jimenez, nez, A.C A.C.. No. 579 5798, 8, 449 SCRA 87, 92, Jan Jan.. 20, 2005. 2005. 1 9 Cortes, SlljJra  not notee 5, at at 2. ,., Mar Marcel celino ino Vdoso m, Virtll Phil. LJ LJ.. 37 (20 (2008 08)). Virtllal al PrujJtr!' PrujJtr!'JJ Rights Rights:: A Modif Modified ied Usll Uslljruc jructt oj Int Intangi angibles bles,, 82 Phil. 1bis 1b is fe feat at was prev previo ious usly ly ac acco comp mpli lish shed ed on only ly by Oscar Oscar Fr Fran ankl klin in Ta Tan n as a fre fresh shma man, n, as a sop sopho homo more re an and d as a  jun  j uniior or,, and by Mark Mark Dennis Dennis Jov Joven en as a sopho sophomor more. e. Osc Oscar ar Fra Frankl nklin in Tan, Touch Me Not : Expa Expandi nding ng Con Const  st it u tition on a l F ramtlPOries r amtlPOries 10 Chall Challenge enge LTO-Re LTO-Requir quired ed and Other Mandator Mandatoryy DfJl DfJlgg Testing, Testing, 76 PHIL. PHIL. L.J. 620 (2002) (First fres freshm hmaan awardee wardee,, Ju Just stic icee Ir Iren enee R Co Cort rtes es Pr Priz izee fo forr Be Best st Paper Paper in Cons Consti titu tuti tion onal al La Law, w, 20 2002 02); ); Mark Mark De Denn nnis is Jo Joven ven,, PHIL. L.J. 627 (2003); (2003); Oscar Fran Frank  k lin lin T ax ax a tio tionn ojBus ojBusines inesss Prof Profits its Under the the Phil Philippi ippine ne Tax Code and Tax Treat Treaties ies,, 78 PHIL. InternatWna tWnaii Sho Shoee St StiD iD Fits Fits tb tbee Vir Virtl tllai lai Foo Foot  t : A Due Pro Proces cesss Fram Framtl tlPOrk POrk fo forr Phi Phili lippi ppine ne In Inte terne rnett Pe rson rsonal al Tan,, The Interna Tan PHIL. L.J. 1029 (2005) (First award awardee ee,, Pro Profes fessor sor Bie Bienve nvenid nido o C. Amb Ambion ion Pri Prize ze for Best Best  J urisdiction u risdiction Problems, 79 PHIL. Paper Pap er in Priv Private Int Intern ernati ationa onall Law Law,, 2004) 2004).. Bo Both th wen wentt on to attend attend Har Harvar vard d Law Schoo Schooll. 21 Aft After er rig rigoro orous us sde sdecti ction on,, th thee fo foll llow owin ing g co comp mpri rise se th thee JOURNAL'S se seco cond nd ba batc tch h of inter interns ns:: Pa Pattric icia ia Hern ernand andez, ez, Ala Alain in Baguisi Baguisi,, Ma Mary ry Rhauli Rhauline ne La Lamb mbin ino, o, Ka Karl rl La Land ndoy oy,, Da Dani nid d Lu Luis is Convoc Convocar ar,, Jo Bl Blan anca ca La Lab bay, Michdl ichdlee Sabit Sabitsana sana,, Pat Patric rick k Gui Guidot dote, e, Don Donald ald Seg Segui ui,, Dar Darwin win Ang Angele eles, s, Jillian Jillianee de Dumo Dumo and Francis Francis Bad Baday ay..

adviser'ss refusal to sup adviser' suppor portt the first batch batch of interns interns , for fear that they would hold themselves out as editors after graduation. "[A]rticle "[A]rticl e deliberatio deliberations ns actu actually ally con consum sume e a very sma small ll fract fraction ion of the tota to tall tim time e ex expe pend nded ed.. Fa Farr mo more re ti tim me is sp spen entt .. .... [o [on] n] sour source ce ch chec ecki kin ng and formattin form atting g .. .... .. [In [Inter terns ns]] de delo load ad th the e ed edito itors rs an and d giv give e the lat latter ter mo more re tim time e to review rev iew articles articles an and d do ba back ckgr grou ound nd res resear earch ch.."2 "22 2 Fu Furt rthe her, r, in inte tern rnss provide manpower manp ower for administrative administrative tasks and projects projects,, which I feel can be made made as sign si gnif ific ican antt as th the e fo four ur is issu sues es ea each ch ye year ar.. Fo Forr ex exam ampl ple, e, my fi firs rstt batc tch h of  inter nterns ns help helped ed org organiz anize e the JOURNAL'S 2004 Su Supre preme me Co Cour urtt Te Term rm Review, an un unpr prece ecede dente nted d we week eklo long ng sy symp mpos osiu ium m wh where ere I wi witn tness essed ed an im impro promptu mptu debate deb ate betw between een De Dean an Pac Pacifico ifico Agab Agabin in and Justice Justice Vicen icente te V. Mendo Mendoz za on Agab abon on v. Nat Natio iona nall La Labo borr Re Rela lati tion onss Co Comm mmis isis ison on,2 ,23 3 Pr the th e lan langu guag age e of  Ag Pro ofessor Arac Ar aceli eli Bavier Baviera a en enter terin ing g the cla classr ssroo oom m of Pr Prof ofess essor or Ed Edua uard rdo o La Labit bita a g and tellin tel ling g the the lat latter ter's 's stu stude dents nts to att atten end d he herr lec lectu ture re in the au audi ditor torium ium instead and an d Cour urtt of Tax Appea eals ls Pre resi sid din ing g Ju Just stic ice e an answ swer er hi hig ghly te tec c hnical questio qu estions ns of taxa taxation tion law in rapid suc successi cession on (inc (includ luding ing one one from an actual trial tri al judge judge hi hidi ding ng in th the e au audie dienc nce) e).. Mor ore e im impo porta rtant ntly, ly, ho howe weve ver, r, the un unpre preced ceden ented ted ha hand nds-o s-on n tr trauung auung prep pr epar ares es in inte tern rnss fo forr th the e an annu nual al JOURNAL ex exa am. I say this this as pre rec cis isel ely y a produc pro ductt of such training, training, along along with Ch Chair air Agui Aguirre. rre. Hopefull Hopefully, y, this ob obvious vious advanta adv antage ge attracts attracts the most pro promis mising ing lowerclass lowerclassmen men into into the pool a nd, in addi ad ditio tion, n, en enco cour urag ages es th them em to try earlie earlierr for a coveted coveted Pr Priz ize e fo forr Be Best st P aper. These Th ese pro promi misin sing g int intern ernss wi will ll ideal ideally ly serve serve as th the e JOURNAL'S bridge across time me,, ensuring continui continuity of the best Chairs' work culture and values.

Led by Intern Led Internss Rh Rhau aulin line e La Lamb mbin ino, o, Pa Patri tricia cia He Herna rnand ndez ez,, an and d Alain HILI LIPP PPIN INE E LAW JOURNAL JOURNAL Bagui Ba guisi, si, the JOURNAL ha hass fi fina nall lly y ex exec ecut uted ed th the e PHI Digitaliz Dig italizatio ation n Pro Project, ject, orig original inally ly con concep ceptual tualized ized by Ju Justice stice An Anton tonio io Ca Carpio rpio in January 2005 in collaboratio collaboration n wit with h then De Dean an Pan Pangala galang ngan an and then Chair Tan Ta n. Th This is pro project ject is cru crucial cial given given how adm admitted ittedly ly diff difficul icultt it is to research research JOU JO URNAL ar arti ticl cles es co comp mpar ared ed to fo fore reig ign n jo jour urna nals ls di digi giti tize zed d in th the e Westlaw database.. database

Sisyphus' '  L  Laam en t,t, Pa rt rt I ,  supra not Tan, Sisyphus notee 1, at 16. G.R. No No.. 158693 158693,, 442 SeRA 57 573, 3, Nov. Nov. 17 17,, 2004 2004 (re (rega gard rdin ing g vi viol olat atio ion n of st stat atut utor ory y du duee pr oc oces esss in dismis smisssal of worker workers, s, over verrul ruling ing a pre previou viouss decis decision ion penn penned ed by Justi Justice ce Mendo Mendoza). za). 22

23

Wit ith h th the e fu full ll supp support of Dea ean n Leo eon nen an and d th the e Su Sup pre rem me Cou ourt rt Library Lib rary staff under under Dir Directo ectorr Milag ilagros ros Santo Santos-O s-Ong, ng, the process of dig digitizi itizing ng almost almo st a hun hundred dred year years' s' wo worth rth of JOURN JOURNAL AL articles articl es has beg begun. un. The These se will eventuall even tually y be featu featured red in the Su Suprem preme e Co Court urt E-L E-Libra ibrary ry and mad made e acce accessib ssible le LAw JOURNAL in th the e UP Co Colle llege ge of La Law w thr throu ough gh an of offic ficial ial PHILI PHILIPP PPIN INE E Website, a project also initiated by this Board. It is a dream come true, and I recalll the frus recal frustratio tration n of gath gatherin ering g imp impossi ossible ble seve seven-fi n-figur gure e dig digitiza itization tion quotes quotes with wi th Ch Chair air Agu guirr irre e in 20 2004 04,, un until til Ch Chair air Tan Tan sp spok oke e to Ju Justi stice ce Ca Carp rpio io..

Osc scar ar Fr Fran ank kli lin n Tan outl tlin ined ed one tr tran ansc scen ende dent ntal al VIS ISIo Ion n as th the e JOUR JO URNA NAL'S L'S90t 90th h An Anniv niversar ersary y Ch Chair: air: "to mak make e the JO JOUR URNA NAL Leve even n mo more re rele re leva vant nt an and d ef effe fect ctiv ive e in th the e ye year arss to co com me. e."2 "24 4 He ci cite ted d "t "the he ne need ed to ke keep ep ties wit with tra tradi ditio tion, n, an and d th the e ne need ed to in inno nova vate te fo forr th the e ins instit tituti ution on's 's gr grow owth. th."2 "25 5 Five Fi ve years years later, later, at its fi firs rstt di dinn nner er mee eetin ting, g, th this is Boa oard rd as aspi pire ress to ta take ke th the e same JOU JOURNA RNAL tLo ev to even en greater greater he heig ights hts an and d fu fulfi lfill ll each each of its th three ree rol roles. es. We We resolve reso lve not to be con content tent with merely merely releasin releasing g four four issues (though (though this is in itself its elf a for formi mida dable ble ch chall allen enge ge and the ba barr is to rel releas ease e issues issues sho showc wcasi asing ng the next ne xt Ire Irene ne Co Corte rtes, s, Jose Jose B. B.L L. Re Reyes yes or An Anton tonio io Ca Carpio rpio).26 ).26W We hop hope e to serv serve e as catalysts catalysts of chan change, ge, to be worthy worthy of answ answerin ering g the clari clarion on call to bec becom ome e nott on no only ly legal legal theo theoret retici ician anss bu butt als also o to torch rchbe beare arers rs of ju justi stice, ce, and and no nott on only ly legall tech lega technicia nicians ns but also trailb trailblaze lazers rs in every hum human an end endeavo eavorr .27 When

the th e en envi viro ron nment

to whi hich ch a sp spec ecie iess has bec ecom ome e

adap ad apte ted d

change cha nges, s, the spe specie ciess mu must st cha change nge,, or eventua eventually lly die out. out. Th The e stu studen denttedited edite d la law w review review ar aros ose e in and be beca came me ad adap apte ted d to on one e en envi viro ronm nmen entt , that th at of law conc concei eive ved d as an auto autono nom mou ouss di disc scip ipli line ne ce cent nter ered ed on th the e attain att ainme ment nt of logica logicall co consi nsiste stency ncy of legal legal doctr doctrine ine -- what what Ma Max x Weber Weber called formal rationality. The environment has changed. Preo Pr eocc ccup upat atio ion n wi with th th the e fo form rmal al ra ratio tiona nalit lity y of legal legal do doct ctrin rine e has has gi give ven n way, in the upper rea reaches of the le leg gal academy at any rate, to preo pr eocc ccup upat atio ion n wit ith h th the e re rela lati tion on be betw twee een n th thos ose e do doct ctri rine ness an and d th the e larger lar ger soc society iety that law is suppo supposed sed to ser serve. ve.28

24 25

26 

Tan,, Siryp Tan notee 1, at 17. Siryphlls hlls'' Umrent, Part I, I, srpra not

Id. Id .

at

12.

Conchi Con chita ta Car Carpio pio Mor Morale ales, s, The Phi 1:1 Philip lippin pinee Law JOl JOllrn lrnal al and and the Centenni Centennial al Yea Yearr of the Univer Universit sityy of the PHIL. L.J . 1, 4 (2008). Philippines, 83 PHIL. 28 Richa Richard rd Posner Posner,, The Film,. (1995). Film,. of the Smdent Smdent-edit -edited ed Law &view, 47 STAN. L. REv. 1131, 1138 (1995).

FOREWORD SISYPHUS’ L AMENT, P ART V.I: L AYING FOUNDATIONS AND R EINFORCING EINFORCING AN INSTITUTION  THROUGH AN EFFECTIVE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM ∗ 

 Johann Carlos S. Barcena 

Membership in the editorial board of a law review is a much-coveted much-coveted opportunity many students aspire for. Indeed, for law students, membership in a law review opens doors for prospects of further studies or lucrative employment. 1 But much lament has been made on the inexperience and incompetence of student editors of a law review. 2 According to Judge Richard Posner, student editors are “inexperienced not only as students of  the law but also as editors, writers, supervisors, and managers.” 3 Others have gone so far as to mock this predicament that befalls the institution. 4 Needless to say, this trouble of inexperience and incompetence of student editors on the workings of a law review in turn affects the stability of the institution. I.  The Workings of a Law Journal

∗

The internship program has been previously discussed by Chair Juan Paolo Fajardo in his Sisyphus’  Lament, Part V . Thus, considering the fact that the idea is not his own but is a mere continuation of a practice pioneered by Chair Oscar Tan and institutionalized by Chair Fajardo, the author opted to number his Lament  in this wise. Cite as  Johann Carlos Barcena, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part V. I : Laying Foundations and  Reinforcing an Institution through an Effective Internship Program, 84 PHIL. L.J. i, (page cited) (2010) . ∗

Chair, PHILIPPINE L AW  J  JOURNAL (2009; Member, 2006); J.D., University of the Philippines College of  Law (2010). 1 See  Conchita Carpio-Morales, Foreword, The Philippine Law Journal and the Centennial Year of the University  of the  Philippines, 83 P HIL. L. J. L. J. 1, 2 (2008); citing  Bernard Hibbitts, Last Writes: Reassessing the Law Review in an   Age of Cyberspace , 71 N EW  Y  ORK UNIV . L. R EV  EV . 615 (1996).  Y ORK  2 See  Oscar Franklin Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II: Editing, or the Student’s Art of Not Being One’s  Own Worst Enemy, 79 PHIL. L. J. L. J. 233 (2004); Carol Sanger, Sanger, Editing , 82 G EO. L. J. L. J. 513 (1993). 3 Richard Posner, The Future of Student-Edited Law Review, 47 S TAN. L. R EV  EV . 1131, 1132 (1995). 4 Professor Roger Cramton drew up a rather amusing fictional conversation on article deliberation by  student editors in ‘The Most Remarkable Institution’: The American Law Review, 36 J. Legal Educ. 1, 8 (1986); cited in   Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II, supra  note 2, at 236-37.

i

ii

PHILIPPINE L AW  J  JOURNAL

[V OL OL 84

 A. Editing

It is indeed true that “law students who are ambitious enough to join a journal staff do not always have an editorial background or training.” 5  The same is most true for the PHILIPPINE L AW  JOURNAL considering that since the time of its organization up to the present, those qualified to become members of the editorial board are chosen on the basis of academic excellence. 6 This is especially troublesome for the J OURNAL considering that students from the College of Law have never been taught how to edit an article. As aptly noted by Professor Perea: In most cases, this is not a skill we are born with; it must be learned over a significant period of time. Unfortunately, the law review  process as we know it provides neither the training nor the time to both learn to be an effective editor and to perform good edits. 7

Notable as well is the fact that the closest encounter of an ordinary  law student to the workings of the J OURNAL is during their senior year when they are asked to write their supervised legal research papers as a required subject of the law curriculum. But certainly, to learn how to write an article is much different from learning how to edit one. 8 I too have once fallen victim to this quagmire of inexperience in editing (or perhaps more appropriately, it was the J OURNAL that fell victim to my inexperience). During my stint as member of the editorial board of   Volume 81, Chair Leandro Angelo Aguirre sent me an article on corporate takeovers to edit. I stared blankly at the computer screen utterly clueless on  what I was supposed to do. Being a sophomore then, I had not yet taken any course on commercial law; and worse, I did not have a clear idea on  what ‘edit’ entailed. For unlike him, him, I had not the privilege of undergoing an internship program under Chair Oscar Tan prior to my membership in the Editorial Board.  Thus, it seems that students vie for a position they haven’t the faintest clue of the duties and responsibilities that come with it. To put it more bluntly, students do not know what they are getting into. B.  Article Solicitation EV . 437, 437 (2000) Terri LeClercq, The Nuts and Bolts of Article Criteria and Selection, 30 S TETSON L. R EV  Amelia Custodio, History of the Philippine Law Journal , 35 P HIL. L.J. 1461 (1960). 7 Juan Perea, After Getting to Yes: A Survival Guide for Law Review Editors and Faculty Writers , 48 F LA L. R EV  EV . 867 (1996) 8 For a discussion on substantive and technical editing, see  Tan, Foreword, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part II, supra  note 2, at 241-45. 5 6

2010]

FOREWORD

iii

 Justice Irene Cortes9 noted that part of the problems in publishing  the JOURNAL is that the dearth of contributions can at times be acute. 10 Faculty contributions have not always been forthcoming, especially now   when the U.P. Law Center is coming out with two faculty-edited faculty-edited journals. Members on the editorial board also may not readily respond to the call for contribution, or seriously take the editorial task of putting out the J OURNAL.  This is the price of pooling together academically academically excellent students who constantly struggle to maintain their academic standing. Hence, the task of  making the JOURNAL relevant and up-to-date has long eluded its editors. 11  As Chair Tan aptly stated, to begin editing upon receiving the final draft of an article is already too late. One must oversee an article from its conception until it finds its way into the Journal. 12 The editorial board therefore, must be proactive and must seek not just articles already finished, but must also initiate and influence its creation. Indeed there is no better  way to answer that clarion call to come out with a relevant J OURNAL other than by identifying pressing and nascent legal issues and then seeking  experts in such field to fill the lacuna in the law. The J OURNAL has always been an instrument for legal education and guidance. Such a proactive role requires no less than a proactive process. However, new members of the editorial board are not always aware of the manner by which the J OURNAL acquires articles for publication. Some may actually think that they are to wait for articles to be submitted for publication. And for those who are aware that acquisition of articles entails proactive solicitation, not all possess the network or connections to experts in different fields of law, nor do all have the audacity to approach and engage them to write an article on what seems to be a gray area in the present state of law and practice. More importantly, the members of the editorial board themselves are expected to write notes or comments, if not full-blown articles, on nascent issues of law. As J OURNAL editors, they too have to contribute to the wealth of legal literature. II. Solutions and Problems to Solutions 9 Former Associate Justice; Faculty Adviser of the J OURNAL; member of the Editorial Board; and Dean of the College of Law. 10 Irene Cortes, Legal Education in the Philippines: The Role of the Philippine Law Journal in the 1990s  , Lecture delivered during the 75 th Anniversary Symposium of the P HILIPPINE L AW  J  JOURNAL. 11

Id.

12

Tan, supra note 2, at 247.

iv

PHILIPPINE L AW  J  JOURNAL

[V OL OL 84

 To remedy such problem of inexperience on the workings of a law  journal, it has been suggested that “law journal members should begin educating next year's staff the day the new staff is chosen” and that such education should “include both a formal exchange of information and an informal shadowing of the current editor.” 13 This remedy, however, is not  without its own own difficulties. difficulties. First, is the reality that members of the editorial board constantly  struggle to maintain their academic standing on top of the responsibilities responsibilities of  putting out the J OURNAL. Such is indeed the price of pooling together academically excellent students to work on an admittedly extra-curricular endeavor. Thus, once their term ends, members of the editorial board focus all their time and energies to studying and would not take too seriously  “shadowing” the new members of the editorial board (that is assuming they  even take up the task). Second, the editorial board normally has graduating seniors as members. Needless to say, after they graduate these people hole up in some undisclosed place in preparation for the dreaded bar examinations, and afterwards, go on that much deserved traditional long vacation. By the time they get back in circulation, the academic year would be nearing its end. Half  of Volume 84’s editorial board is in fact composed to graduating seniors. Finally, I do not think it has ever been prudent tactics to send soldiers off to war and then only teach them how to fire a gun when they  enter the combat zone. In the same vein, there is just something not right as  well about teaching incumbent members of the editorial board how to be members of the editorial board. Browsing through the almighty  Google , it appears that some law  reviews have surmounted this problem of inexperience inexperience through a promotion system in their selection of Editorial Board members. In the  Akron Law  Review  for example, students who have completed the first year program in the school of law may be candidates for membership as Assistant Editors –  subject to certain academic qualifications as well. Upon successful completion of the requirements of service to the law review as an Assistant Editor, they are automatically promoted to the position of Associate Editor Elect. And it is only these Associate Editors Elect that are eligible to serve as members of the Editorial Board. Moreover, none of these Associate Editors

13

LeClercq, supra note 5.

2010]

FOREWORD

v 

Elect can serve as a member of the Editorial Board unless they have completed the second year program of the school of law.  This is in stark contrast to the system of the P HILIPPINE L AW   JOURNAL wherein a student, at the beginning of his/her sophomore year, can actually become the Chair of the J OURNAL – without prior experience or exposure to its workings. 14 Other law reviews such as the University of Toronto Faculty of Law  Review  have opted to invest in freshman students and to train them on the  workings of the law review. These freshmen may choose to volunteer with the law review as Assistant Editors – for substantive evaluation of papers in a particular topic area – or as Production Editors – for technical editing and polishing of accepted papers. Hence, at the end of their freshman year, certain students have already been exposed to substantive and technical editing and are equipped to take on the greater task of being a Senior Editor. III.  The Philippine Law Journal Internship Internship Program (PLJIP)

It appears that the present system of selection of the Editorial Board of the J OURNAL places a high premium on talent and knowledge of the law. However, such talent and knowledge cannot be a complete substitute for skill and experience in running a law review. To remedy this predicament, the JOURNAL turns to its internship program.  When Chair Tan pioneered the internship program, he “was restricted by his faculty adviser’s refusal to support the first batch of interns, for fear that they would hold themselves out as editors after graduation.” 15 Ironically, Volume 84 opted to continue this internship program revived under Chair Fajardo’s term out of a greater fear that relatively inexperienced members of the editorial board would indeed hold themselves out as editors after graduation. For while there is no misrepresentation in doing so, there may however, what can very well be considered a breach of warranty if they   were not able to acquire the level of skill and experience expected of a member of the Editorial Board.  While the Chair practically practically has unbridled power to lay down the rules and policy for his/her Volume, this power does not include the appointment of members of the Editorial Board, as such members are In the recent history of the J OURNAL, however, only Chair Maximo Paulino Sison III was able to accomplish this feat, chairing Vol. 82 during his sophomore year. 15 Juan Paolo Fajardo, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part V: Reinvigorating the Philippine Law Journal as the Crucible of Legal  Writing, 83 Phil. L. J. 5, 8-9 (2008). 14

 vi

PHILIPPINE L AW  J  JOURNAL

[V OL OL 84

chosen solely on the basis of the qualifying examinations. 16 Thus, the system of promotion of law reviews such as the  Akron Law Review  cannot be adopted by the Editorial Board. 17 What the JOURNAL is able to adopt is a system akin to that of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review  with the difference that (a) the interns of the J OURNAL are not part of the Editorial Board; (b) the internship program is open to all year levels; and (c) they  undergo a screening process as determined by the Editorial Board. 18 It is assumed that those who undertake to take part in the internship program aspire to become members of the Editorial Board. Thus, apart from teaching interns the unappreciated skill of citation, they are taught methods of research and advanced legal theories as well. But more importantly, the program aims to impart to the interns a philosophy of  scholarship and a tradition of excellence. For while law students take courses on legal bibliography and legal theory during their freshman year, only true scholars fully appreciate the value of such knowledge. All this in the hope that eventually, these interns will find their way into the Editorial Board, and it is in this way that we lay down the foundations of the succeeding editorial boards so that they will stand firm against the bludgeoning of inexperience. Fortunate is Volume 84 that majority of its members have prior experience with the workings of the J OURNAL.  As earlier mentioned, I myself was a member of the Editorial Board of Volume 81, while Vice-Chair Mary Rhauline Lambino was an intern under Chair Fajardo’s Volume 83, along with Michelle Sabitsana. Among the other members, Maximo Paulino Sison III was himself Chair of Volume 82, while Gerard Joseph Jumamil  was an intern under Chair Oscar Tan and also member of the Editorial Board of Volume 82. Through the internship program and a bit of luck, succeeding Boards will hopefully have experienced members among them as  well. But the envisioned reach of the internship program far extends beyond membership in the Editorial Board. It has been remarked that articles and comments found in prominent law reviews in the United States  – such as the Harvard Law Review , Yale Law Journal , and the Columbia Law  New Rules Governing Membership in the Student Editorial Board of the Philippine Law Journal, III(E) [Last amended, Jun. 27, 2009]. 17 On the basis of the New Rules, it would seem that the power to amend the Rules Governing  Membership in the Student Editorial Board rests with the PLJ Board of Judges – which changes every year –  and subject to the approval of the Dean of the College of Law. 18 In the internship programs of Chairs Tan and Fajardo, however, students were accepted into the internship program by simply volunteering for the task. But the number of those who wish to volunteer have significantly increased, thus necessitating a screening process to cut them down to a more manageable number. 16

2010]

FOREWORD

vii

Review –  find their way into the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court “partly 

because of the influence of their law clerks who had been with these law  reviews during their law studies.” 19 Of the eight-member editorial board of  the JOURNAL, it is indeed rare that even just one of them goes on to clerk in the Philippine Supreme Court. But by extending training to students other than those in that eight-member board, the probability that a student schooled in the philosophy of the J OURNAL will find his/her way to the highest court of the land and influence Philippine jurisprudence, not just in form, but also in substance. Who knows, perhaps even the problem of lack  of uniformity of citation in Philippine Supreme Court decisions will be solved as well. 20 Indeed, the road towards the institution of the internship program has been long, but the journey that lies ahead, is even longer. And for the following individuals, individuals, that journey has just begun:  JOURNAL INTERNS (V OL OL. 84)

 TINA ANDREA AMADOR  MICHELLE ARIAS P AOLO CELERIDAD  J AYSON LOPEZ M ARK CHRISTIAN LUCIANO N ATHAN M ARASIGAN  ALEXANDRIA IXARA M AROTO GOLDA MINOZA OSELLE JEAN NONATO R OSELLE M A. ANGELICA P AGLICAWAN ICHMUND S TA. LUCIA R ICHMUND -o0o-

Jovito Salonga, On the Philippine Law Journal, 79 PHIL. L.J. 541, 543 (2004). See  Oscar Franklin Tan, Sisyphus’ Lament, Part III: Citation and the Little Black Book , 79 PHIL. L.J. 547, 555 (2004). 19 20