2026 BAR EXAMINATIONS: A POSTMORTEM
The consensus among the bar examinees, academics, and experts was that the 2026 bar examinations were quite tough and challenging. I agree. To me, the reason for the increased difficulty of the recent bar is the comeback of the issue-spotter question and the multi-issue question.
Comeback of the issue-spotter
In the 2024 and 2025 bar examinations, the great majority of the questions were issue-posers. An issue-poser is a question where the core or decisive issue is explicitly stated in the call of the question or in the one or two sentences preceding the call. An example of an issue-poser is question no. 8 of the 2026 Remedial Law bar exam:
Eliana, a resident of Quezon City, filed a Complaint for the collection of PHP 1.8 million against Ryan, a resident of Makati City, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, arising from an unpaid loan. Before Ryan filed an Answer or any motion for summary judgment, Eliana filed a notice of dismissal, without stating any reason.
Several months later, Eliana refiled a complaint against Ryan before the RTC of Makati City, this time seeking PHP 2.3 million, representing the same unpaid loan plus accrued interest and attorney’s fees. Again, before Ryan filed any responsive pleading, Eliana filed another notice of dismissal, stating that she wanted to give Ryan another chance to amicably settle the obligation.
When no payment was made, Eliana filed a third complaint against Ryan, based on the same loan. Ryan moved to dismiss the third complaint, invoking the two-dismissal rule. Rule on Ryan’s motion.
Here, the core or decisive issue, that is, the applicability of the two-dismissal rule, is explicitly stated in the call and the sentence preceding it.
Issue-posers are easier for an examinee to answer because he or she does not have to devote time to spotting the core issue and can concentrate on determining the applicable rule. Quite often, the issue stated gives a hint to the applicable law or principle.
However, in the 2026 bar examinations, issue-spotters made a comeback. In an issue-spotter, the core or decisive issue is not explicitly stated in the question. The issue is usually couched in factual terms (e.g., “may the plaintiff prove that his signature was forged?”) or couched in overbroad or sweeping terms, like, “is the contract valid?” or “is the evidence admissible?” Hence, the issue stated does not give a hint to the applicable law or principle.
In the Civil Law bar exam, the 14 issue-spotters greatly outnumbered the 6 issue-posers. In remedial law, while there were more issue-posers at 9, the number of issue-spotters at 5 was still quite significant.
An example of an issue-spotter is question no. 7 of the 2026 Remedial Law bar exam:
Ares leased a warehouse from Athena for a fixed term under a written rental agreement. After Athena’s death, Ares filed an action against Minerva, Athena’s daughter and successor-in-interest, to enforce an alleged extension of the lease. Ares attached the purported written extension as Annex “A” to the Complaint and quoted its contents therein. The document bore the alleged signature of Athena signifying her consent to the lease extension. Minerva filed an Answer but did not specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of Annex “A.” During trial, Minerva sought to present a forensic handwriting expert to prove that Athena’s signature on Annex “A” was forged. May Minerva present a handwriting expert? Explain.
Here, the question posed is whether Minerva may present a handwriting expert to prove that her signature on Annex “A” was forged. It is couched in factual rather than legal terms. It does not give a hint, or at least a strong one, about the applicable rule. The bar examinee must analyze and parse the facts of the problem to extract the core or decisive issue. This makes an issue-spotter more difficult for a bar examinee to answer.
Multi-Issue Questions
Although the bar bulletins for the past years provided that an examination shall consist of 20 questions with a single question per number, questions with two or more issues tend to crop up in the bar from time to time.
The number of multi-issue questions increased in the 2026 bar. In the Civil Law bar exam, there were 4 multi-issue questions and in Remedial Law there were 3 multi-issue questions. Question No. 14 in Civil Law even had 3 issues:
On January 1, 2026, Martha and Lazarus entered into a contract of sale, where Martha bound herself to deliver and transfer the ownership of a particular parcel of land to Lazarus on or before March 31, 2026, for PHP 4 million, payable on or before December 31, 2026. The following day, Martha and Lazarus executed a document denominated as a Deed of Absolute Sale and had it notarized by Atty. Lipas, whose notarial commission expired on December 31, 2024.
On February 2, 2026, Martha died leaving Moses as her sole heir. On April 2, 2026, Lazarus demanded from Moses the delivery of the parcel of land. Moses refused to comply, arguing that the document purporting to contain the sale between Lazarus and his mother is null and void, as the same was notarized by a person not authorized to administer oaths. Likewise, Moses averred that he is not in any way bound by the contract as he is a complete stranger thereto. Finally, Moses claimed that the purchase price was not yet paid when the demand was made. Is Moses correct? Explain.
In the above question, Moses raised three arguments to support his refusal to deliver the land to Lazarus. Each argument represents an issue which must be traversed by the bar examinee. A multi-issue question effectively contains subquestions.
Implications on Bar Preparation and Review
The increasingly challenging nature of the past bar exams, notably the 2026 bar, underscore the importance of training with mock bar exams and undergoing bar exam coaching. Nowadays, a bar reviewee cannot just rely simply on passive study of the law and cases to get by.
Since 2005, Jurists Bar Review Center has been conducting, as an integral part of its review, a mock bar and coaching program whose aim is the scientific and rigorous training of the bar reviewee so that he or she can properly analyze a bar exam problem, identify or spot the issues, and write a logical, organized, and lawyerly answer under grinding time pressure. With the proliferation of issue-spotters, the need for training on issue-recognition and issue-spotting has become even more important.
AI and bar exam coaching
For the 2027 bar review season, Jurists has incorporated AI to its coaching program. The AI will provide instant feedback to practice-question and mock-bar answers submitted by reviewees based on rubrics and prompts provided by Jurists. AI will complement, not supplant, human coaching. To rely on AI-centric bar exam coaching or training without human oversight would be inadvisable.
Bar exam coaching is too subtle and nuanced an art to be left entirely to AI. Only a trained human eye can discern the fine points of a coachee’s answer and reasoning. While AI may provide instant feedback, true coaching requires a back-and-forth interaction between coach and coachee, as well as an assiduous analysis and parsing of the coachee’s answer, to enable the coach to tailor-fit the coaching session to the coachee’s unique and special needs. And of course, AI cannot provide the psychological and moral support that a human coach can. The proper approach is to combine both human coaching and AI tools to create a comprehensive coaching program that maximizes the coachee’s potential.
-oOo-
Read MoreREVISITING THE RULE ON AN INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT OFFERED TO PROVE “ONLY THE FACT OF ITS MAKING”
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement which is offered for the truth of the fact asserted therein (see Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court). Under the hearsay rule, hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.
Basically, there are two ways to overcome a hearsay objection. The first is to argue that the hearsay statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.
The second is to argue that the statement objected to is in fact not hearsay. This can be done by either showing that the statement is an admission or that it is an independently relevant statement. Both statements are excluded from the definition of hearsay and, consequently, from the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court has held that an admission is excluded from the hearsay rule (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, 3 April 2001; see also Federal Rules of Evidence 801[d][2]).
An independently relevant statement is an out-of-court statement which is relevant not for the truth of a fact asserted therein but for something else, e.g., the declarant’s state of mind, or the legal significance of the statement. Otherwise put, the statement is relevant for something else other than its truth. Not being hearsay, an independently relevant statement is admissible in evidence over hearsay objection.
Embraced in the concept of independently relevant statements are those which are offered not to prove the truth of the fact asserted in the statement but to prove only “the fact that the statement was made,” or “the tenor of the statement,” or “the mere fact of its utterance.”
This type of independently relevant statements deserves elucidation. The statement itself must have probative value regardless of its truth. If the statement has no probative value if it was untrue, then the hearsay objection cannot be overcome simply by arguing that the statement is offered to prove only “the fact that the statement was made,” or “the tenor of the statement,” or “the mere fact of utterance.”
The following hypothetical, based on question no. 17(c) from the 1999 remedial law bar examination, illustrates the proper application of the rule regarding independently relevant statements offered to prove only the fact of their making:
W overheard B call X a thief. B later died. X filed an action for damages for defamation against the estate of B. X offers the testimony of W to prove the fact of utterance, i.e., that B called X a thief. Is the testimony of W hearsay?
The answer would be in the negative. Here, B’s statement calling X a thief is an independently relevant statement because its probative value for X lies in the fact that it is not true. The mere fact of utterance, even if untrue, produces the legal effect of defaming X and is thus relevant for the purpose of recovering damages against the estate of B.
Unfortunately, this subset of independently relevant statements has morphed into an outsized form which has become unhinged from its theoretical moorings and has taken a life of its own. The rubric has not infrequently been invoked to justify the admission of out-of-court statements even if their probative value depends solely on the truth of the statement. Sometimes, even courts and experts fail to grasp the nuance that a statement offered to prove only the fact of its making must still be independently relevant.
The second question in the 2024 remedial law bar examination reads as follows:
In a criminal case for homicide, the prosecution offered Austin as witness to prove
that Titus admitted to him the killing of the victim. At the trial, Austin answered
these questions from the public prosecutor:
Q: Did you witness the killing of the victim?
A: No, ma’am.
Q: What were you doing when the victim was killed?
A: I was sleeping, ma’am.
Q: Why are you testifying against Titus?
A: Because Titus admitted to me that he killed the victim.
Q: What did Titus tell you?
Immediately, Titus’ counsel objected to the question on the ground that the answer
of Austin would be hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. If you are the judge, how
will you rule on the objection? Explain.
A suggested answer by a panel of remedial law experts is that the hearsay objection should be sustained. This overlooks the rule that an admission is excluded from the hearsay rule and is thus admissible over hearsay objection. The statement of the accused Titus which is being offered in evidence against him is an admission (Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court).
The panel hedged its position by stating that it may be argued that Titus’ statement is an independently relevant statement which is admissible not to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to prove that such statement was made. Titus’ statement however cannot be characterized as an independently relevant statement. His statement that he killed the victim would have no probative value at all for the prosecution if it was untrue.
In short, Titus’ statement is admissible not because it is independently relevant but because it is an admission.
In People v. Catacutan, G.R. No. 260731, 13 February 2023, the accused was prosecuted for robbery with homicide. The prosecution witness Mark testified that the accused narrated to him how he (the accused) killed the victim and got the victim’s belongings. The Court of Appeals held that Mark’s testimony on the accused’s statement is admissible as an independently relevant statement.
The Court stated that it was wrong to characterize the accused’s statement as an independently relevant statement. The Court emphasized that a statement may be considered an independently relevant statement only when what is sought to be proven by its presentation is the fact that it was made, regardless of whether what was stated is in fact true. In this case, however, Mark’s testimony regarding the accused’s admission was offered precisely to establish the events of the victim’s death and the accused’s involvement therein. In short, it was offered as an assertion of the truth of the matters alleged therein. The Court held that the accused’s statement is admissible in evidence not as an independently relevant statement but as an admission.
Let us tweak the facts of the 2024 remedial law bar exam question. Let us say that Austin’s testimony would be to the effect that Deco told him that it was Titus who killed the victim. In this case, Deco’s statement would be hearsay. It would not be an admission because it was not made by the accused but by a third person. Again, the statement is not independently relevant because it would have no probative value if untrue. It should be denied admission even if offered to prove only the fact that the statement was made.
In fine, an out-of-court statement which has no independent relevance if untrue should not be admitted on the mere argument that it is offered only to prove the fact that the statement was made. To admit such a statement would be to run roughshod over the hearsay rule.
Read More