You are on page 1of 3

REV UP The Freshmen Review Program

How to Answer Essay-Type Questions


(Note: This is not a one-size-fits-all format. This is just a general guide)
T!es of "ssa #uestions
1. $%je&tive T!e
2. 'ssue-Posing T!e
3. 'ssue-(!otting T!e
1. Objective Type
- )s* for definitions+ enumerations and distin&tions
- )nswer as %rief and &on&ise as !ossi%le Not more than , senten&es. -ite the legal %asis.
- What is the doctrine of renvoi? (.efinition)
o 'n the &ase of )znar vs. /ar&ia0
- Enumerate the grounds for the annulment of marriage ("numeration)
o )&&ording to )rti&le 12 of the Famil -ode0
- Distinguish psychological incapacity from insanity (.istin&tion)
o Ps&hologi&al in&a!a&it ma %e distinguished from insanit as follows:
)s to their effe&t on the marriage+ !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it nullified the marriage+ while insanit
is onl a ground for annulment of marriage.
(se!arate !aragra!hs)
)s to the time of their e3isten&e in order to %e a ground to terminate the marriage+ !s&hologi&al
in&a!a&it must %e &hara&terized % juridi&al ante&eden&e. $n the other hand+ insanit need
onl affe&t to mental dis!osition of the !art during the &ele%ration of their marriage.
2. ssue-Posin! Type
- Fa&t-%ased 4uestions
- Provide the issue and onl re4uire the e3aminee to address su&h issue
- 5!otheti&al e3am!le
". ssue-#pottin! Type
- Fa&t-%ased 4uestions
- #uestions whi&h do not e3!ressl !rovide the issue+ and re4uire the e3aminee to determine the issue
%efore addressing the issue
- 6ou need to s!ot the rea$ issue %efore ou are a%le to answer
- Justin Bieber was only trying to pull a joke by pointing a toy gun at Orlando Bloom Believing it was a
real gun! Orlando Bloom killed Justin Bieber as an act of self"defense #f you were the judge! will you
hold Orlando Bloom liable for the death of Justin Bieber?
o .isse&t the #uestion7
'mmediate #uestion: 's $rlando 8loom lia%le for the death of 9ustin 8ie%er:
Real #uestion: 's %ista&e o' 'act a valid defense on the !art of $rlando 8loom:
No+ ' will not hold $rland 8loom &riminall lia%le for the death of 9ustin 8ie%er %e&ause
$rland 8loom was a&ting %ased on mista*e of fa&t. 'n the &ase of ;( vs. )h -hong+ the
defendant had no reasona%le time and o!!ortunit to as&ertain the fa&ts. 'n the !resent
&ase+ $rlando 8loom %elieved that the to gun was real and he was a&ting in self-
defense had the fa&ts %een as he %elieved them to %e. <ith all the elements of mista*e
of fa&t !resent+ $rlando 8loom is not &riminall lia%le for the death of 9ustin 8ie%er.
Use t(e #)A* +et(o,
- #hort )nswer =
st
!aragra!h
- )egal 8asis ,
nd
!aragra!h
- A!!li&ation 1
rd
!aragra!h
- *on&lusion 1
rd
!aragra!h
$hort %nswer
- )ddressed the immediate 4uestion %eing as*ed
- ;se the e&ho method
- #s the petition correct? No+ the !etition is not &orre&t.
&egal Basis
- (tate the law or juris!ruden&e a!!li&a%le to the set of fa&ts
- ;se !ro!er &itation. -ote. /o not write t(e artic$e nu%ber or case tit$e i' you are not 1001 sure
t(at it is t(e correct citation
- 'ntrodu&tor terms
o /eneri&:
>;nder the New -ivil -ode0?
>;nder the law0?
>'t is a well-settled ruled that0?
>The (u!reme -ourt has held that0?
o (!e&ifi&:
>)rti&le =@ of the New -ivil -ode !rovides that0?
>'n the &ase of ;( vs. )h -hong+ the (u!reme -ourt held that...?
>The (u!reme -ourt has ruled in the &ase of -ui vs. )rellano ;niversit that...?
%pplication
- )!!l the law to the given set of fa&ts
- /o not assu%e 'acts. Aimit ourselves to the fa&ts given in the 4uestion.
- Transitional terms
o >5ere...? >'n this &ase...? >'n the &ase at %ar...? >'n the !ro%lem...?
>8ased on the fa&ts...? >)!!ling the laws...?
- 8e &onsistent. ;se the same &on&e!ts or terms that ou used in our legal %asis.
- (llogism:
o -orre&t:
)ll dogs are mammals
)ll mammals have mammar glands
Therefore+ all dogs have mammar glands
o <rong: Therefore+ all &anines have %reasts.
'onclusion
- Bust address the issue whi&h ma or ma not %e the same as the immediate 4uestion.
- 'n 'ssue-(!otting T!e+ there should %e , &on&lusion statements in one answer one addressing the
rea$ issue and the other addressing the i%%e,iate 2uestion !osed.
- Transitional terms
o >Therefore...? >Thus...? >5en&e...?
- (ame as the short answer
E3a%p$e 4 1. (' was not a%le to write the fa&ts of the &ase %ut here are the 4uestions and answers)
- 'mmediate #uestion:
o <hat is the status of the marriage %etween .aniel and 9ulia:
- "m%edded #uestion:
o 's the divor&e o%tained % a former Fili!ino national against the Fili!ino s!ouse valid:
)nswer: (a!!ling the (A)- Bethod)
The marriage %etween .aniel and 9ulia is valid.
;nder )rti&le =C of the Famil -ode+ the alien s!ouse ma validl o%tain divor&e against
his or her Fili!ino s!ouse and %e &a!a&itated to su%se4uentl remarr if allowed to do so under
the alien s!ouseDs national law. Further+ in the &ase of Re!u%li& vs. $r%e&ido+ the (u!reme
-ourt held that the national law of the alien s!ouse at the time he o%tained the divor&e de&ree
shall %e the determining !oint of the validit of su&h defense.
5ere+ .aniel was alread naturalized as an )meri&an &itizen at the time he o%tained the
divor&e de&ree. Provided that .aniel suffi&ientl !roves that )meri&an law allows divor&e+ .aniel
validl o%tained divor&e against Eathrn and their marriage has %een terminated. 5is marriage
with Eathrn having %een validl terminated+ .aniel %e&ame &a!a&itated to su%se4uentl
remarr. Therefore+ the marriage %etween .aniel and 9ulia is valid.
5or%
- $%serve !ro!er margins
- <rite legi%l
- $%serve !ro!er indention and s!a&ing
- Follow %asi& grammati&al rules+ !un&tuation+ and s!elling &ommon mista*es are
su%je&t-ver% agreement+ senten&e fragments+ voi&e and !ers!e&tive+
- 6our answer %ust be consu%%ate to t(e points !iven to t(at 2uestion.
- )nswer must not %e more than 2 senten&es if onl one law and there is no rule
dis&ussed
- ;se introdu&tor and transitional e3!ressions wisel.
- Refrain from using a%%reviations. ;se a&ronms s!aringl.
o "3am!les of a%%reviations whi&h are not allowa%le:
>wF&? for >whi&h?+ >%e&.? or >&oz? for >%e&ause?
o "3am!le of allowa%le a&ronms:
>N--? for the >New -ivil -ode?+ >F-? for >Famil -ode+ >RP-? for >Revised Penal -ode?+
>(-? for >(u!reme -ourt? 7UT %a&e sure t(at you (ave in,icate, t(e usa!e o' suc(
acrony% in an ear$ier part o' your e3a%.
- Goi&e and Pers!e&tive
o <rite in a&tive voi&e+ third !erson !ers!e&tive
'n&orre&t: 'n one &ase de&ided % the (-+ it was ruled that !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it is
&hara&terized % gravit+ in&ura%ilit and juridi&al ante&eden&e.
-orre&t: )&&ording to the (-+ !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it is &hara&terized % gravit+
in&ura%ilit and juridi&al ante&eden&e.
-orre&t: 'n the &ase of Re!u%li& vs. Bolina+ the (- held that !s&hologi&al in&a!a&it is
&hara&terized % gravit+ in&ura%ilit and juridi&al ante&eden&e.

You might also like