Last Friday, I did something unprecedented. I said “pass” in the recitation for Taxation Law 2. Good enough, the professor allows one pass for a student who is not yet prepared to earn his class standing. This policy of my tax professor is a fair one, as it does not distinguish students even if one of them has a peculiarly unique name.
……………………….
As I recall, there was not an occasion – whenever my name is called in the class – which I refused to recite. Even if I am not quite prepared to take the professor’s blow in a series of Socratic Method of inquiry; I always braved whatever temper the professor has while shuffling the class cards and tipping off his or her head for a mindboggling question.
My classmates can attest to the courage I manage to show during recitation. And many times, I survive the struggle of being on the deck.
My first recitation was in my Statutory Construction class. Being a freshman at that and about to take the initiation of law school rigors, I was asked to discuss the Latin maxim “Reddendo singula singulis” and “Expressio unius est exclusion alteriu”. When I could no longer say anything about the phrases, I sought permission from the professor if I could open a book and cite any provision to illustrate my discussion. The professor was kind enough to allow me to open my Family Code. I remember in that instance I opened the pages of the book on Article 141 without any idea how to associate the legal provision with that rule on construction.
I took the courage to stand my ground even if I was running out of reasoning. In the end, the professor allowed me to take my seat, with a gesture which seemed to me a pat on my shoulder. Before I knew, it was fifteen minutes before the time.
By the way, in that situation, I was called to recite not because of my peculiarly unique name. The professor might have wanted to test my ability as he found out that I topped his quiz in the previous meeting.
……………………….
Someday, when we shall have all made it to the bar and gathered once again for some chitchat, much of our conversations will be on those unforgettable class recitations and unquenchable laughter. Because recitation is one of the many classroom experiences that sticks to the memory of the students. It is where bloopers and wits would always come out. It is one of the few encounters in life that will measure one’s ability to show grace under pressure. It is a form of rite which all students have to deal with, especially those whose names are peculiarly unique.
……………………….
Which makes me wonder – is a student really reciting in class or simply re-citing jurisprudence and statutes?
Class interaction in law school is different from ordinary classroom setup. I guess everyone will agree with me in this observation. But the irony ofit lies in the term itself. To answer the question, I would like to define recitation and re-citation in their bare essentials.
Recitation according to my e-dictionary is the act of giving a detailed account of a topic. Prescinding from this definition, if a student is asked to recite, he is in effect discussing – in the most exhaustive way he can – a topic or point of law asked of him. Ideally, this should not be anchored on the professor’s line of questioning. The student must have the floor and the time to discuss the topic at hand, in whatever manner he wants to carry it out.
Re-citation, on the other hand is a play of words. I first encountered it in a legal article written by Professor Florin T. Hilbay of the UP College of Law. True enough, what takes place in a typical oral recitation of class interplay is a re-citation; that is, repeating the ponencia’s expounded reasoning of the law or the verbatim articulation of codal provisions. A student who dares to say whatever is on his mind is running the risk of getting the professor’s ire or the demeaning grade of 65 for simply stating his piece of thought. He cannot freely say his humble appreciation of the law even if he has a peculiarly unique name.
……………………….
In all these matters, the student is at the mercy of the professor. For all their wisdom and acumen, the professors holding classes have the control on how the discussion will be conducted. But in fairness, there are professors who can carry out a discussion very well enough to infuse in the minds of the student the necessary legal principles one has to learn. These professors have the spontaneous way of cracking a joke premised on a bland legal concept. This is true especially for a professor who has the penchant of citing as example the student with a peculiarly unique name.
………………………
There are evils sought to be avoided during recitation; and the evils are many, albeit necessary. In the psy-war between the professor and the student, the rules of engagement are not followed, as these are not applicable. What prevails varies; depending on the professor’s mood or the student’s readiness to be tormented. In this entire scenario, the student with a peculiarly unique name oftentimes emerges as a classroom hero.
……………………….
A person is only as strong as his memory will allow him to be. This is very much true especially during recitations. A student with a retentive memory coupled with the ability to retrieve whatever he has committed to the mind is a superior recitor. But even then, the listening classmate has more prowess over him. The entire class which has witnessed a laughable discussion will always remember more the anecdote of the moment than the complex facts of the case or the ratio of the decision.
As for me, I have had a fair share of my unforgettable class recitations. The cases of Tanada vs. Tuvera, David vs. Arroyo, El Hogar vs. Republic, People vs. Simon, and Canet vs. Decena among others have left an indelible mark in my law school experiences. Added to these are the judicial and administrative remedies of a taxpayer (with blackboard illustrations), successional rights of illegitimate children, doctrine of qualified political agency, doctrine of secondary meaning, habeas data, rights of the accused, damnum absque injuria, theory of devolution, liquidation of conjugal property, rescissible (rescindable) contracts, rigor mortis, rubor, calor and tete de nigri, settlement of estate, doctrine of self-help, right of pre-emption, requisites of a valid classification, commercial arbitration clauses, distinctions between an interlocking director and a self-dealing one (also with blackboard illustration), and many more.
The doctrines behind these cases and legal terms have been in my working memory, not for any material use they may offer, but for the experiences I had undergone during the times I recited them in class.
Sometimes, I get to be called during class recitations because of the slight probability of random class card shuffling and picking. But most of the time, I get the professor’s attention, not for any reason, other than my peculiarly unique name.
