The 2025 Bar Examinations, chaired by Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, released its results on 7 January, where 5,594 passed out of 11,425 takers, translating to a relatively high 48.98 percent passing rate. The figures marked a modest rebound from last year, yet they belie a far deeper challenge confronting this generation of lawyers.

Bar success is applauded and deserves celebration, but the true crucible of our profession is not found in hallowed auditoriums on oath-taking day. Rather, it is discovered in the courts, agencies, and streets where the law meets life, and where the law is too often strangled by inefficiency.

Consider the incident involving vlogger James Deakin’s son, who openly admitted to a traffic violation and presented himself to authorities to answer for it. The reaction should have been swift, straightforward and procedural. 

Instead, the Land Transportation Office (LTO) reportedly demanded documentary requirements without clear legal basis, then compounded the ordeal with procedural delay, even pointing to public holidays for the snail-paced process. Citizens willing to comply with the law were met not with access to justice, but with administrative obstruction. That is a test no bar reviewer could prepare for.

This dysfunction matters to lawyers because it becomes a marketplace of disadvantage. Where the system is slow and opaque, a perverse economy arises: Delay becomes leverage and ambiguity becomes bargaining power. Powerful clients, including some public officials, may be encouraged to exploit these gaps to evade accountability.

The ethical question becomes unavoidable when we examine how lawyers often profit from this dysfunction. High-stakes controversies, like investigations into the recent flood control projects, spawn lawyers whose fees are paid, directly or indirectly, by taxpayers’ money. One may argue that everyone deserves justice and a fair trial, yet should the principle of justice be so unexamined when the lawyers’ fees originate from misappropriated public funds?

Thousands of new lawyers now enter the profession, most eager to earn a decent living. It takes only a conscientious few lawyers to tilt the balance toward integrity. Meaningful reform will not come solely from grand legal pronouncements or strategic litigation, but from countless daily decisions, such as resisting opportunistic exploitation of procedural inefficiencies, rejecting engagements that aim only to delay justice, and advising clients with ethical clarity rather than transactional convenience.

Passing the Bar proves a lawyer’s knowledge, but rising above the inefficiencies, the controversies, and the incentives that allow corruption to thrive is the test this generation must confront. The judiciary’s reforms, including digitalization and strategic plans, are welcome. However, they will only matter if the lawyers who practice before these courts choose to elevate justice above convenience, and public trust above profit.

In our time, the real bar to pass is not written on paper. It is written in the conscience of every lawyer who chooses how to practice the profession.