Legal Philosophy

Answers to Midterm Exam

 I-a.
Law is rule of conduct, just and obligatory,
formulated by legitimate power, for common observance
and benefit.

I-b.
Legal philosophy is a systematic study that seeks
to understand the: nature and essence of law, its
definition and elements, the sources of its authority, its
various applications and development, and its role in
society.

I-c.
Naturalism is a school of thought that maintains
that law and morality are not separate, that an unjust law
is not true law and that law must reflect the eternal
verities of justice and fairness.
 I-d.
Positivism is a school of jurisprudence that
believes that law and morality should be separate, and
that law is valid if it is validly posited by lawful
government or authority.

I-e.
Formalism is a school of thought that posits that law
is a strict science governed by formal axioms and
principles which are used by judges, using the rules of
logic, in deciding and determining the outcome of a case.

I-f.
Rule of law is a legal principle which means that
whenever a legal issue presents itself, it must be decided
by applying the accepted principles of law.
 I-g.
Justice means giving a person what is due to him.

I-h.
Equity refers to the rectification of an unjust law.

I-i.
Intergeneration equity means that humans hold the
natural and cultural environment of the Earth both with
other members of the present generation and with other
generations, past and future.

I-j.
Morality is a set of rules or principles established
by society concerning the determination of right and
wrong.
 II.
In the Philippines, the application of equity vis--
vis law is inconsistent. Generally, the Supreme Court
established in various cases that equity will only apply to
supplement law; consequently, the Supreme Court
denied the application of equity when there is law. There
are, however, a few cases wherein the Supreme Court
applied equity despite the clear wordings of the law
when adherence to the latter would result in injustice, e.g.
Salvacion v. Central Bank and Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.

However, there are also cases where Supreme

Court denied the application of equity even if adherence
to the law would result in injustice, e.g. DPWH v. Sps.
Tecson and Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. v. Lidua.
 III.
Kuroda v. Jalandoni is a case involving the trial of a
Japanese war criminal. Jalandoni raised the argument that the
military commission had no jurisdiction because the
Philippines was not a signatory to the Hague Convention
governing laws and customs of war; essentially an invocation
of nullum crimen principle. The Supreme Court resolved by
declaring that the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention
and the Nuremberg principles are generally accepted
principles of law and are applicable in the Philippines. One of
the relevant Nuremberg principles is that the commission of a
crime against humanity is a violation of a jus cogens norm and
may be tried by any state and that official status is not a excuse
in the commission of crimes against humanity.

The relevance of all these cases to human rights is the

recognition that human rights are inherent and universal; that it
exists and is protected even in the absence of written law.
 III.
Thus, the role of law with respect to human
rights is not to provide for its existence, but to
recognized and protect the same.
 IV.
R.A. No. 10368 is a law that provides for a
system of recognition and reparation for victims of
human rights violations during the Marcos regime.
The philosophical basis for the said law is based on
the naturalism school of thought wherein law and
morality are not separate. With the enactment of the
said law, the Philippines recognized that it is morally
right to recognize the sufferings of the citizens who
became victims of human rights violations.
Correlatively, the Philippines declared that the right
to a remedy for human rights violations is a jus
cogens norm and should be recognized.
Consequently, the government declared that it is its
obligation to provide such remedy.
 V.
The difference between human rights and
ordinary rights are as follows:

1. The former are fundamental to life in civilized

society, while the latter are not;
2. The former are universal, while the latter may be
subject to conditions;
3. The former are inherent, while the latter are
merely acquired;
4. The former are imprescriptible, while the latter
may prescribe; and
5. The former are inalienable, while the latter may
be disposed of or transferred.
 VI.
No. Oscar is not correct. Equality as a principle
of justice is paradoxical, in a way that giving equal
treatment to all would result to injustice. Thus, justice
is achieved by recognizing that not all persons are
equal. R.A. No. 9262 follows this philosophical
reasoning. The Philippines recognized that in the
realities of our society, women are not treated
equally with men, and that the former are often the
subject of abuses, both physical and psychological,
from the latter. R.A. No. 9262 recognized the inherent
inequality in our society and sought to give women
protection from this inequality. As such, the said law
does not violate the principle of equality. Thus, Oscar
is not correct.
 VII.
The difference between an excellent legal system
and a poor legal system are as follows:
1. In the former, rules are clear; while in the latter rules
are ambiguous;
2. In the former, rules are made know to those affected;
while in the latter this is not observed;
3. Generally, there are no retroactive laws in the former;
but in the latter, retroactive laws are use in an abusive
manner;
4. Rules can be understood in the former; while in the
latter rules are vague;
5. In the former, rules are consistent; while in the latter,
rules contradict each other;
6. In the former, rules require only what can be
achieved; whereas in the latter, rules require difficult
or beyond normal compliance;
7. Rules generally remain constant in the former;
while in the latter, rules are changed often;
8. In the former, rules are uniformly observed by
public officers; while in the latter, there is a
difference between the general rule and the
implementing rule;
9. In the former, appellate and grievance procedure
are clear; but in the latter, these are unclear; and
10. In the former, penalties are commensurate to the
offense; while in the latter, penalties are
draconian and unreasonable.
 VIII.
The philosophical bases for Philippine penal laws
are both naturalism and positivism. The Philippines
recognizes the dichotomy between crimes mala en se
and mala prohibita. In mala en se, the concept of criminal
intent is closely related to the commission of a crime that
absence of such intent will negate responsibility for a
crime. This rule is based on the naturalism school of
thought as law and morality are not considered separate
from one another. Notable examples are found in the
Revised Penal Code, e.g. murder, estafa, robbery, etc.

In mala prohibita, intent is immaterial in the

determination of criminal responsibility. This rule is
based on positivism wherein law and morality are
separate. Notable examples are found in special penal
laws, e.g. B.P. Blg. 22, Anti-mendicancy law, etc.
 IX.
Stem cell research is bad because it involves
harvesting and exterminating a fetus.
Contemporarily, the world recognizes the respect for
and dignity of every person; consequently, each has
the right to life. Although, legal personality generally
commences at birth, contemporary consensus
provides that life begins at conception.
Consequently, it is morally wrong to terminate the
life of a fetus for the purpose of research and
medicine. Thus, stem cell research is bad.
 X.
The case of Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark
case recognizing same-sex couples the right to
marry. The U.S. Supreme Court based its decision on
the re-evaluation of contemporary understanding of
fundamental liberties and the changes in societys
approach to same-sex issues. The theme of the
decision is captured in the line that says that the
nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in
our own times. By examining the changes in society,
through previously decided cases, and the essence
of marriage as a fundamental liberty, the U.S.
Supreme Court used the natural law and sociological
or historical school of thought in its decision.