VANYA KLARIKA NUQUE

2/13/20
CRITIQUE ON A.M. NO. 19-10-16-SC

I. Introduction

The Rules and Regulations in the Conduct of MCLE Online

(A.M. No. 19-10-16-SC) dated 26 November 2019 and published
on 05 February 2020 introduced the conduct of the Mandatory
Continuing Learning Education (MCLE) online which seeks to
adopt the current trends of computer technology. In many ways,
this is a beneficial step in updating how the MCLE is supervised. It
seeks to bridge the gap between lawyers in cities and far-flung
areas of the country. However, the drawbacks of such practice
must also be evaluated to further improve the system and
practice.

II. Summary

There are several good points of MCLE Online. It saves

valuable time, it can be conducted anytime and anywhere, it
maximizes the available technology, it can accommodate more
fields of law that the lawyer is interested in, it helps lawyers finish
on time, and it is easier to prove that one has complied.

In contrast, there are also bad points in conducting the

MCLE online. Practical problems must be solved like the
verification of the participation, how the notes are controlled and
whether they will be controlled, how expensive would the option
be, and the Data Privacy aspect of the practice.

III. Critical evaluation

A.M. No. 19-10-16-SC certainly has very strong points that

should be highlighted. It keeps up with the technology
developments to help make the lives of lawyers easier.

In the seventh whereas clause of the resolution, it

highlighted that this option offers a convenient alternative to the
traditional MCLE lecture series. This would also lessen the gap
among lawyers, older lawyers, and lawyers with disabilities where
pg. 1
 VANYA KLARIKA NUQUE
2/13/20
CRITIQUE ON A.M. NO. 19-10-16-SC

they are equally given the opportunity to update their knowledge

in a less tedious manner. This online option gives them the
chance to comply without the hassle of doing it in person. They
can comply within the bounds of their office or at home,
whichever is more convenient, as long as they have access to the
internet and watch the lectures.

The practice is also beneficial to practicing lawyers because

it saves time and effort on their part. Lawyers are usually busy
preparing and researching for their cases, attending meetings and
hearings, and other important matters. Also, with the heavy
traffic in the Philippines, attending and scheduling the traditional
MCLE lectures can be an added burden. The online option solves
this problem and burden.

In addition, the third whereas clause also mentions that the

introduction to such alternative, maximizes the technology the
lawyers have. If lawyers can watch movies using their cellphones
then they can also watch much needed lectures using the same
phone. As envisioned by the update, this can also solve the lack
of MCLE classes in far-flung areas of the country. It seeks to have
each lawyer compliant with wider and more accessible options no
matter where they are.

Moreover, under Rule 3, Section 2, there would continuous

updates on the course/modules. By doing so, it helps the Provider
determine what should be added to the catalog of lectures to
make it more appealing to the Participant. Also, there is a higher
percentage of offering more fields of law since the Provider would
only build upon the available lectures. This practice can help
polish and update the lectures in specific fields to the current
trends.

Another benefit is that each lawyer has enough time to

comply with the requirement. It seeks to eliminate any
inconvenience that a lawyer may encounter when traditional
lectures are scheduled. This approach also makes it easier to
pg. 2
 VANYA KLARIKA NUQUE
2/13/20
CRITIQUE ON A.M. NO. 19-10-16-SC

prove their compliance since it automatically records upon

finishing the sessions.

However, with every step forward there are other factors

that should be evaluated and polished. Every good intention
comes with a few consequences that are a natural by-product
that should also be solved.

One pressing question is how this new option would solve

the problem of participation beyond the honesty principle. The
lawyer can easily split his screen on a laptop to continue working
and play the lectures on the background. Arguing that the
approved prototype of the MCLE Online system can randomly
take pictures of the lawyer taking the course, it still does not
solve the problem of splitting the screen. The camera can still
take the necessary pictures of the lawyer without any other way
of making sure that he/she is not distracted.

Under Section 7(e) of the MCLE Implementing Regulations,

it mentions the fact that the activities must be scheduled that
should be free from interruptions and distractions. If the course
would be conducted online, how will this standard be upheld?
With the technology available, there is no sure way to determine
whether the lawyer is actively participating or merely playing the
lecture as a background. Implementing an interactive module still
leaves room for distractions and interruptions since the module
can easily be paused or resumed at the lawyer’s preference.

Also, under Rule 2, Section 2(2) of A.M. No. 19-10-16-SC

the Provider must incorporate interactive content within the
module. However, it is submitted that this is easier said than
done. The balance between updating the lawyer and making sure
that the interactive content is meaty enough is not easily
achieved. It also does not remove the fact that leakage of the
answers to these modules is a possibility.

pg. 3
 VANYA KLARIKA NUQUE
2/13/20
CRITIQUE ON A.M. NO. 19-10-16-SC

In a dream world, every person would be honest enough to

take these tests by themselves and fulfil the main goal of the
MCLE Online program. However, it must be acknowledged that
asking another lawyer to take note of the questions and answers
to the modules is still a possibility. This consequence is noted
under Rule 7, Section 2 by providing appropriate disciplinary
actions, however, it does not provide a solid method in avoiding
and catching the potential violators.

In addition, under Rule 3, Section 1(3) the resolution

provides that lecture materials will be provided. The necessary
question that needs to be asked and resolved is whether these
notes can be shared with other lawyers or are they strictly for
individual use. It is noted by observation that sharing notes with
others is a common practice in the field. If these lecture notes are
deemed to be for individual use, what measures can be placed to
ensure that this would not happen? Would that also merit the
same penalty as the one provided under Rule 7, Section 2?

Another point that should be evaluated is how much would

the MCLE Online program charge. Developing the course/module
would not be cheap especially since it should be available for
android and Apple consumers. These two technological
environments are different from each other that developing an
app or system might prove to be more complicated and
expensive than initially perceived.

Also, under Rule 1, Section 1(e) should also be emphasized

since the MCLE Online program would necessarily collect data
from the Participants. What is worrying is the fact that the data
that will be collected are not ordinary citizens but the legal minds
of the country. These are highly confidential data that should not
be exposed to hackers. Again, this type of security will make the
program expensive.

The development of the system and the security of the data

are important factors to consider when evaluating the potential
pg. 4
 VANYA KLARIKA NUQUE
2/13/20
CRITIQUE ON A.M. NO. 19-10-16-SC

MCLE Online charge. However, these two points are not cheap
and might make the fees more expensive. If the fees of the
online option would be more expensive than the traditional
lectures then the full potential of the program would not be
achieved.

It is submitted, however, that the charge should also make

sure that the potential improvements, updates, etc. can cover the
development of the system and make it sustainable.

IV. Conclusion

A.M. No. 19-10-16-SC is a step forward in updating the old

ways of conducting the MCLE lectures. It is a commendable effort
in bridging the gap between the numerous obstacles in fulfilling
the requirement. It seeks to make a necessary activity be more
accessible and convenient to the hectic lives of lawyers.

However, like any new ventures it has birth pains and much
room for improvement. It is not a perfect set-up but a step in the
right direction. It maximizes the opportunities on hand and finds
a novel approach to solving the immediate problems of always
organizing MCLE events.

pg. 5