The Supreme Court’s requirement to release Bar applicants’ names ahead of the upcoming Philippine Bar Examination has drawn criticism from a handful of examinees who posted privacy concerns on X.
Legal community backs the transparency rule
Several attorneys reminded candidates that the disclosure is mandated by the Rules of Court and serves a public‑interest function. The official list, posted on the Supreme Court website, includes 13,441 individuals slated to sit for the tests next month.
One commentator on the platform argued that many were unaware of the 2025 amendment that now requires the roster to appear online at least 15 days before the first exam day. Earlier versions of the rule called for newspaper notices ten days in advance.
Related: Will My Debts Be Gone After Bankruptcy?
Paolo Tamase, associate dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, posted that the rule “allows the public to raise concerns re: character/fitness” and that “there is just no objective expectation of privacy.” His comment noted that the provision is not a new invention but a longstanding element of the admission process.
Law professor Galahad Pe Benito echoed the sentiment, noting that the legal profession is fundamentally tied to public trust. He urged hopeful attorneys to “chill out,” adding that not everybody would go over the names of the more than 13,000 applicants.
Galahad also reminded that every lawyer’s identity has historically been made public before taking the exam, and questioned whether anyone should “really” challenge a duly promulgated rule.
Related: The Best Tips for Maintaining Healthy Skin
Why the rule exists and how it changed
Under Rule 138, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, amended in 2025, the Office of the Bar Confidant must publish the qualified roster on the court’s site no later than fifteen calendar days before the scheduled first day of the examinations. The amendment replaced Section 8, which required clerks to place notices in newspapers for a minimum of ten days.
A netizen pointed out that the lack of awareness about the amendment could harm examinees, citing the Professional Regulation Commission’s practice of also revealing room assignments alongside names.