Philosophy and The Law
There is a natural partnership between philosophy and the law. Philosophy’s inquisitive nature
intertwined with the law’s penchant for order, makes for a veritable (true) combination: RIGIDITY
TEMPERED BY DYNAMISM.
Nature of Philosophy
Philosophy by its very nature is inquisitive. It constantly seeks answers to questions yet, more often
than not, the question is more important than the answer. Inquiry is the fuel that powers philosophy.
“You should eat five fruits and vegetables a day” – Mere advice thus if you choose not to follow said
advice, you’ll suffer its own consequences.
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
1. Legalism
- Law is simply power. What the law is what the person who holds power says.
- Example: Myanmar, Sadam Jose, Hitler (Dictators) – their acts were legal because it was done
pursuant to law.
2. Legal Positivism
- Law is what the law says even if it is against your religion or even if you disagree with it.
- Valid law must originate from valid source.
- Law must be created pursuant to the existing rules that allow the sovereign to create law.
Conventionality Thesis – Law provided that it was created pursuant to valid process of creating
law.
Social Fact Thesis – Provided that it must originate from a legitimate source.
Separability Thesis – Law and morality are conceptually distinct.
Critic : Prohibits individual from remaining true to their own conscience.
Rebuttal : There is separation between legality and morality.
3. Realism / Legal Realism
- Law is what the judge or law enforcer says.
CASE: PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. VS. VENERACIO
RULING: Judge are bound to abide the law regardless of their religious or political beliefs.
4. Naturalism
- Human possess certain inalienable rights that are not the products of human-made law.
- Natural Law: Human’s innate right.
CASE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
RULING: (During interregnum) Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the
Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights.
: Under Natural Law, private respondent Dimaano has a right against unreasonable search and
seizure. (Natural Law; there is a link or relationship between concepts of law and morality.)
5. Legal Interpretivism
- Interpret the law according to its spirit.
- Ratio legis est anima – Reason of the law is its soul. (not to the letter that killeth but to the spirit
that vivifieth)
CASE: SALVACION VS. BSP
RULING: If Section 113 of CB No. 960 be applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result.
CASE: LEAGUE OF CITIES V. COMELEC
RULING: Exemption given to 24 Municipalities is not an act of inequality. Because they were not
situated similarly situated since the application of the 24 municipalities was still during the 19 th
Congress. Moreover, said exemption was done in accord with the purpose of the Local Government
Code.
PATH OF LAW (Law is a prediction of what the court will do)
STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE – Stand by the decisions and disturbed not what is
settled.
Vertical Stare Decisis – Duty of the lower court to apply decisions of the higher courts to cases
involving same facts.
Horizontal Stare Decisis – High courts must follow its own precedents.
Constitution Stare Decisis – Involves judicial interpretations of the Constitution.
Statutory Stare Decisis – Interpretations of statute.
Flip-flopping Supreme Court
CASE: LEAGUE OF CITIES V. COMELEC
PRINCIPLE: The sudden change of votes of the Justices during voting.
Bad Man Theory
- Such a person would be concerned about the degree of punishments certain acts will incur by
the public force of law and not with acting morally.
Critical Legal Theory
- Questions the law’s assumptions
PURE THEORY OF LAW (Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law)
SHOOLS OF JURISPRUDENCE
1. Historical Approach – Law has a past and a progression.
CASE: BANGSAMORO
DOCTRINE: Indigenous cultural communities on their pre-Hispanic claim for ancestral domain and the
Bangsamoro struggle for more independence.
2. Sociological Approach – Provides stable equilibrium to conflicting parties.
CASE: SORIANO VS. LAGUARDIA
RULING: Public Interest is more important over the “freedom of speech” invoked by the petitioner.
DOCTRINE: Balancing of Interest
3. ECONOMIC APPROACH – Purpose of the law is to increase balance of happiness in society
through wealth maximization.
4. FORMALIST AND ORIGINALIST SCHOOL – Plain meaning approach. Opposite to legal
interpretivism.
5. PRACTICE THEORY -
RUDIMENTS OF A STATE
STATE – Community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of
territory, independent of external controls, and possessing a government to which a great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience.
Elements of State:
1. People – Inhabitants of the State, the number of which is capable of self-sufficiency and self-
defense.
2. Territory – Fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by people of the state.
3. Government – Aggregate of authorities which rule a society.
4. Sovereignty – Supreme and uncontrolled power inherent in a State by which that State is governed.
2.1 PEOPLE
Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 2)
Social Justice and Human Rights (Article XIII, Section 1)
Republican and Democratic (Article II, Section 1)
Prime Duty of the Government (Article II, Section 4)
2.2 TERRITORY
Article I (1987 Constitution)
CASE: Province of North Cotabato vs. Gov’t of the Republic of the Phi.
RULING: The provisions of the MOA indicate that the Parties aimed to vest in the BJE the status of
an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it. Thus, the MOA-AD is not
constitutional.
- No state within a state (Article I)
- BJE (Seeks independence) BARMM (Seeks autonomy but still dependent with the State)
- Associated State (Full Independence) (Not recognize under the present Constitution).
- Independence (free and not be influenced or dependent to others) v. Autonomy (State of
being self-governed)
- Manifestations of BOL > Given right to compose own hymn (nat’l anthem must be come first);
create own flag (Phil. Flag must be placed higher)
2.3 GOVERNMENT
CASE: US V. DORR
RULING: The article in question contains no attack upon the governmental system of the US. It is the
character of the men who are intrusted with administration of the gov’t that the writer is seeking to
bring into disrepute.
CASE: PEOPLE V. SANDIGANBAYAN
RULING: Character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest. Funds are in
the nature of public funds.
CASE: MIAA V. CA
RULING: MIAA is a government instrumentality. Exempt from tax. LGU cannot tax nat’l gov’t. As long
as airport lands and buildings are reserved for public use, their ownership remains with the State.
CASE: GONZALES V. MARCOS
RULING: Pres. Merely acted in accordance with the constitutional provision to promote arts and
letters.
DOCTRINE: Parens patriae, to implement the project for the benefit of the Filipino people.
CASE: CO KIM CHAN V. VALDEZ
RULING: De facto (Japanese Gov’t) De Jure (US); Civil Case (Continue cases unless changed by the
gov’t). Political Laws (abrogated).
2.4 SOVEREIGNTY
CASE: PEOPLE V. PERFECTO
RULING: Abrogated (Article 256 of the SPC)
CASE: BAYAN V. ZAMORA
RULING: VFA is Constitutional.
3 INHERENT POWER OF THE STATE
POLICE POWER – THIS IS THE POWER PROMOTING PUBLIC WELFARE BY RETRAINING AND
REGULATING THE USE OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY LAW OF OVERRULING NECESSITY.
CASE: MMDA V. GARIN
RULING: MMDA is not vested with police power. All its functions are administrative in nature.
CASE: BALAQUIT V. CFI
RULING: While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that such regulation must be within
the bounds of reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions cannot be
oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the business or calling subject of regulation. For being
unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade, it cannot, under the guise of exercising police power be upheld
as valid.
CASE: LOZANO V. MARTINEZ
RULING: BP 22 is a valid exercise of police power since the law punished the act not as an offense
against property but as an offense against public order. (issuance of worthless checks deemed a
public nuisance)
CASE: DEL ROSARIO V. BENGZON
RULING: Generic Act implements the constitutional mandate for the state “to protect and promote the
right to health of the people” and “to make essential goods, health and other social services available
to all the people at affordable cost.”
CASE: TABLARIN V. JUDGE GUTUERREZ
RULING: (NMAT) The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been
recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public.
CASE: CARLOS SUPERDRUG V. DSWD
RULING: (20% Discount to SC) Law has general welfare for its object. Discount may be claimed as
tax deduction hence, petitioner’s computation for the reimbursement of the discound by tax deduction
is flawed.
CASE: MAGTAJAS V. PRYCE PROPERTIES
RULING: Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. Substantive Requisite of a valid exercise of
police power; must not contravene the Constitution or any statute.
TAXATION – THIS IS THE POWER BY WHICH STATE RAISES REVENUE TO DEFRAY
NECESSARY EXPENSES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
CASE: YMCA V. CIR
RULING: Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings and improvements, ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY
AND EXCLUSIVELY, used for religious, charitable or educational purpose shall be exempt from
taxation.
CASE: BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA V. PROVINCIAL BOARD
RULING: Not subject to tax law. It must include not only the land actually occupied by the church, but
also the adjacent ground destined to the ordinary incidental uses of man.
CASE: LLADOC V. CIR
RULING: (Liable to pay donee’s gift tax) What collector assessed was a donee’s tax; the assessment
was not on the properties themselves. Gift tax is not within the exempting provisions prescribed by
law.
CASE: PROVINCE OF ABRA V. HERNANDO
RULING: NOT EXEMPT FROM TAX. Constitution provides that “charitable institutions, mosques, and
non-profit cemeteries” are required that for the exemption “land, buildings, and improvements”, they
should not only be “exclusively” but also “actually” and “directly” used for religious or charitable
purpose. There is no showing that the said properties are actually and directly used for religious or
charitable use.
CASE: ABRA VALLEY V. AQUINO
RULING: (Concept of Incidental use) Reasonable emphasis has always been made that exemptions
extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
main purposes. (However, Lease of first floor – cannot be considered incidental to the purpose of
education)
CASE: PUNZALAN V. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA
RULING: It is but fair that the professionals in Manila be made to pay a higher occupation tax than
their brethren in the provinces.
CASE: PHYSICAL THERAPY ORG. V. MUNICIPAL BOARD
RULING: General Welfare Clause – authorized to enact ordinances to provide for the health and
safety and promote the morality, peace and general welfare of its inhabitants. Practice of hygienic and
aesthetic massage NOT as a useful and beneficial occupation which will promote and is conducive to
public morals, and consequently, imposed the said permit fee for its regulation.
EMINENT DOMAIN – THE POWER OF THE STATE TO FORCIBLY TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY
FOR PUBLIC USE UPON PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION.
CASE: CITY OF MANILA V. CHINESE CEMETARY OF MANILA
RULING: The record contains no proof of the necessity of opening the same through the
cemetery. Moreover, adjoining lands have been offered to the city free of charge, which will
answer every purpose of the plaintiff. (Court have power of restricting the exercise of eminent
domain to the actual reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by law.)
CASE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PLDT
RULING: Private property is subjected to burden for public use and benefit. Republic may not
compel the PLDT to enter into a contract however, Republic may require the telephone company
to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs
of the government service may require, subject to payment of just compensation.
CASE: REPUBLIC V. CASTELVI
RULING: Circumstances must be present in the “taking” of property for purpose of eminent
domain:
1. The expropriator must enter a private property
2. The entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period
3. The entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority
4. The property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property
DECISION: Just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filling of the complaint.
CASE: NAPOCOR V. GUTIERREZ
RULING: FULL COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID. Nature and effect of the installation of the 230
KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines perpetually deprives the owner of their proprietary rights /
ordinary use.
CASE: PPI V. COMELEC
RULING: The taking of print space here sought to be effected may first be appraised u der the
rubric of expropriation of private personal property for public use. Element of necessity of taking
has been shown by respondent COMELEC. Sec.2 does not constitute a valid exercise of the
power of eminent domain.
CASE: HEIRS OF JUANCHO V. REYES
RULING: Expropriation for such tradition’s purposes is valid. The expropriation of private land for
slum clearance and urban development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is later
sold to private homeowners, commercial firms and other private concern.
CASE: DE KNETCH V. BAUTISTA
RULING: Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private property should be
taken. The choice has been boiled down between people and progress and development. With
the change of route, it would affect a great number of inhabitants than the original route.
CASE: ESTALBAN V. ONORIO
RULING: Exprobrating agency takes over the property prior to the expropriation suit, in whci case
just compensation shall be determined as of the time of taking.
