Almost all professors have very good and brilliant outlines in Constitutional Law. One of the exceptions is one professor who does not wish to discuss the traditional concepts of Constitutional Law. A thread in an online forum mentions this particular professor. Although we do not challenge the wisdom of the choice of cases and readings by this professor, nor the teaching strategies employed, the fact of the matter is that passing the bar requires a more than passing knowledge of the present constitution and prevailing jurisprudence.
If you are one of his students, don’t panic. The first tip for all freshmen students is to supplement your outline with the outline of other professors. This is true not only for Consti I but in all your other subjects as well. Don’t be overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases: most professors have the same cases assigned for the same topic in their outlines. It would help if you would check the cases which was recently decided by the Supreme Court, since most professors assign cases with outdated or overruled doctrines just to show you the difference between our present Constitution and the previous ones.
A very important tip is to read these three cases: David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo (PP 1017 case), Bayan vs. Exec. Secretary (CPR case), and Senate vs. Ermita (the EO 464 case). The David case summarizes several prevailing doctrines including the doctrine on locus standi and on the separation of powers, and provides several clarifications of issues relating to constitutional law. EO 464 case summarizes the rule on privileged information, who can invoke such privilege and up to what extent it may be invoked. Bayan upholds BP 880 in relation to Sec. 4, Art. III of the Constitution, which qualifies the right of the people to peaceably assemble in public places. Make sure that you have a copy of these decisions, for you’ll refer to it more than once in your stay in UP. Even if you have these cases in your outline, don’t just give them a quick glance. You could have them ring-bound together for quick reference. And even if your professor doesn’t require you to read the separate opinions, it would be wise to include them in your collection of cases.
Other notable cases which you might want to read are La Bugal-B’laan vs Ramos and Javellana vs. Exec Secretary. Although these two cases are notable for their length, there are compelling reasons why professors include them in your outline. Read them.
As an end note: UP Law may not be that keen on memorization, but in a few instances, you do need to memorize some important provisions, requisites, and elements. In Consti I, here are some things that you need to memorize:
- Par. 2, Sec. 1, Art VIII of the 1987 Constitution
- Requisites for Judicial Review
- Requisites for locus standi
- The 3 inherent powers of the State and its limits
- The powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief and when he can invoke them
Next: Tips on Persons and Family Relations
