post midterm exam ramblings

Well, i still don't know if i survived my midterm exams this semester. I'm still feeling quite a bit numb from all that reading. My brain refuses to function; i wish my professors won't start recitations til next week. Would it be too much to pray that they won't attend their classes for a week or two? *sigh* I still have one more exam to take this Saturday. Oh well, at least i know i passed one subject -- according to a reliable source lol.

======

It's September once again and that only means one thing -- to the legal community here that is. Bar month! That's where law students bravely take the bar exams and once they pass, they're included in the Roll of Attorneys and can now practice law. Hopefully in a few years time i'll be one of those taking the bar.

======

I celebrated my 25th birthday a few days ago. I can't believe i'm now 25. The old adage is true -- tempus fugit. I evaluated my life and found that i'm quite satisfied where i am right now. Although i would have loved it if i already graduated from law school, i'm more or less where i envisioned myself when i was in college.

======

So i saw Rush Hour 3 with my father and brother last week. If you're looking for something thought-provoking, don't watch it. I mean, hey, it's a Jackie Chan movie. Nothing against the great Chan but his movies aren't really known for their depth. I watch it for it's fun factor; i usually end up LOL. The plot was highly predictable; good vs bad, good always wins. But the action was funny -- nothing awesome but it was good entertainment.

======

My father came home from East Timor for a visit. He's part of the UN Peacekeeping force in East Timor. Too bad he'll only be here until Friday. I'm happy though that he was here on my birthday. My mom wasn't, she is in Sweden for a conference. I'm hoping for something nice when she gets back. Haha.

======

I love my ipod. I just hate the fact that once the battery life shortens, i have to have the whole thing replaced. Sux.

======

I don't understand what's the big deal with the iphone. I'd choose my nokia over that any day of the week. And the price! My goodness.

======

The weather's been nice lately. It rains once in a while; I can't wait til it gets cooler. That means Christmas is just around the corner.

======

I want to say thank you to all who remembered my birthday and took the time to greet me. I really appreciate it you guys. You made my day brighter.

dabate on damages

Isang araw sa torts and damages class ko may interesanteng diskusyon na naganap. I would like to share these with everyone and anyone kasi gray area daw sya ng batas. And in the hopes na ma-share ninyo ang opinion ninyo.

======

We were discussing moral damages. Moral damages are damages for pain and suffering -- kasama dun ang physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, etc (Art 2217 New Civil Code). Under Art 2219, they may be recovered in several cases, one of which is when a person is a victim of seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts (SARA). Further, "the parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused xxx may also recover moral damages."

Rape, simply put, may only be committed by a man against a woman. That was the law's definition before. Since then, na-amend na ito by way of R.A. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 na i believe eh si Atty Kiko Pangilinan ang author, correct me if i'm wrong). One important feature of that law is the expansion of the definition from being "committed by a man" to "any person may commit". Ibig sabihin ang lalaki, sa ilalim ng kasulukuyang batas, ay pwede na raw maging biktima ng rape. No problem there. My classmate's contention is this: since na-amend na daw yung batas to include males as victims of rape, the phrase "the parents of the female" should now be deemed to be interpreted as to include parents of the male victims. Apparently, sabi yun ng author ng librong ginagamit nya (i think Pineda yun) and she subscribes to that opinion. My professor said there's no conflict between the laws. But she contends otherwise.

For my part, i believe that there is no conflict. RA 8353 contemplates the definition of a crime, the purpose of which is to punish those who commit it. Art 2219 contemplates a civil aspect of the crime, nagbibigay daan para maka-recover ang mga biktima ng damyos. It substantially provides that any victim of SARA may recover moral damages AND the "parents of the female". Hindi naman sinabi ng batas na yung female victims lang ang pwedeng maka-recover by way of moral damages; the male victim may also recover. However, since the law has specifically mentioned the rights of the parents of the female victims to recover, we must not include what has not been included. I am not insensitive to the plight of the male victims and their families. I believe that they too should be afforded the same right. BUT still, dura lex sed lex -- the law may be harsh but it is still the law. Yun ang nakasaad sa batas. Art 2219, i believe, is not in any way inconsistent nor contrary to RA 8353 so there is no need to amend, modify, or even repeal it. That is this person's humble opinion lang naman po.

Pinagdebatihan yan sa class. Some were confused, others had the same opinion as hers. I share the opinion of some of my classmates and my professor. But that does not mean we are automatically right -- remember she shares her opinion with the author who is also a lawyer. Well, ganyan talaga ang batas. Open to sound interpretation. Pagalingan na lang ng pagkumbinsi sa judge or justice na mas may sense yung sinasabi mo haha!

As for my classmate, well tumagal yung discussion until it was time for us to leave. Since almost 30 mins overtime na kami, in the interest of speeding things up, she told our professor, "Sir, i rest my case na po" and sat down.


__________________
started Jul 27, 9:07p
ended Jul 28, 6:40p

6 days of rest?

Yippie! No classes tomorrow -- again. Buti na lang, kasi start ng midterms namin bukas and i'm not as ready as i want to be. AND since sa Monday walang pasok (instead of Tues, Aug 21), extended ang bakasyon ko. Hmm weds to mon wala akong pasok? Coolness!

Clicky for new dates of holidays in the Pinas. Cheers!

emotional stress

Found the link to this on a friend's site. Original found here.

======

“The emotional distress of law students appears to significantly exceed that of medical students and at times approach that of psychiatric populations.” That’s the conclusion of a new study, suggesting that law school has a corrosive effect on the well-being, values and motivation of students.

Here’s the 16-page study, “Understanding the Negative Effects of Legal Education on Law Students: A Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination Theory,” by Kennon Sheldon, psychology professor at the University of Missouri, and Lawrence Krieger, a law professor at Florida State. We picked up the study from the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, via the Chronicle of Higher of Education.

In a three-year study of two similar, unidentified law schools, the authors used questionnaires to measure the “subjective well-being” of students, their “need satisfaction,” how motivated they were for a career in law, and their “perceived autonomy support.”

The problem with most law schools, the authors write, is that they place little emphasis on hiring faculty members with proven records of teaching excellence. Instead, they tend to “emphasize theoretical scholarship and the teaching of legal theory, and many hire and reward faculty primarily based on scholarly potential and production,” say the authors. Observers suggest, they add, “that such priorities and processes train students to ignore their own values and moral sense, undermine students’ sense of identity and self-confidence, and create cynicism.”