CHAPTER I

I. LEGAL WISDOM AND COUNSEL

Summary of the Passage:

The passage discusses the public perception of lawyers and philosophers, noting that both are often
misunderstood. Lawyers are depicted in literature and media as morally dubious and manipulative of the
truth, while philosophers are seen as impractical thinkers. Despite these stereotypes, the text suggests
that lawyers and philosophers share common ground, with many individuals bridging the gap between
the two professions. The passage also touches on the idea that philosophy majors often become lawyers
and that lawyers develop their own philosophies. Both professions are seen as providing something
valuable—philosophers offer wisdom, while lawyers offer counsel.

Key Points Related to Philosophy:

Philosophers are often viewed as impractical and not financially driven, as exemplified by the character
Pilosopo Tasyo in Jose Rizal's work.

Philosophers wield significant influence through their ideas, which can sometimes lead to the creation of
laws.

The work of philosophers is not limited to abstract thought but can have practical implications, such as
interpreting court reports to find deeper meanings and contexts.

Application of These Principles to the Law:

The principles of philosophy can be applied to the law by using philosophical reasoning to interpret legal
texts and understand the motives and theories behind laws.

Philosophers can bring a deeper level of analysis to legal proceedings, as seen in the example of Hannah
Arendt's reporting on the Adolf Eichmann trial.

Philosophy of Law:

The philosophy of law involves looking beyond the literal text of legal documents to understand the
underlying ideas, motives, and societal contexts.

It suggests that legal practice can benefit from philosophical insights, potentially leading to a more
nuanced and ethical application of the law.

II. LAW’S LIKES AND UNLIKE

The passage reflects on various philosophical perspectives on the nature and necessity of law. It suggests
that while law is often seen as a means to organize society, it has also been criticized for stifling creativity
and perpetuating societal ills. The text cites various thinkers and their views on whether law is necessary
and whether it is inherently good or bad, depending on the nature of humanity itself.

Key Points Related to Philosophy:

Philosophers from Plato to Marx have criticized the law as institutionalizing society's ills.
Rules are seen as the enemy of creativity and free thinking.

The law is characterized by postmodernists as a self-perpetuating construct reliant on citations.

Application of These Principles to the Law:

The necessity of law is questioned based on the belief in humanity's true nature.

If humans are inherently good, they may not need law; if inherently bad, they require the restraint of
law.

The quality of laws (good or bad) is seen as a reflection of the intrinsic nature of humanity.

Philosophy of Law

The philosophy of law is engaged in a debate over the intrinsic nature of humanity and the
corresponding need for law.

The law is seen as either a necessary structure for society or an unnecessary constraint, depending on
one's view of human nature.

Prominent Philosophers or People Mentioned and Their Corresponding Principle:

Horace Mann: Suggests that without the idea of law, chaos would prevail.

Plato to Marx: Viewed law as institutionalizing society's ills.

Jesus Christ: Simplified the complex laws of the Pharisees into two fundamental commandments.

John Lennon: Implied that lawyers (and by extension, perhaps law) are dispensable in an ideal world.

Dennis Lloyd: Summarizes the philosophical debate on the necessity of law relative to views on human
nature.

Ovid and Seneca: Believed that if man is basically good, he can exist without law.

Chinese Legists: Argued that if man is naturally vicious, he needs the law's restraint.

Please note that these points are based on the excerpt provided. For a complete analysis, the full text
would be necessary. If there is more to the passage or if you have additional excerpts, please share them
for a more thorough examination.

III. SHOULD LAWYERS CAST THE PHILOSOPHER’S STONE?

The passages collectively address the intersection of law and philosophy, highlighting the often
misunderstood roles of lawyers and philosophers in society. Lawyers are depicted as morally dubious, yet
they, alongside philosophers, are essential in crafting the foundations and evolution of legal systems. The
texts argue that law is not just a set of rules but a complex system that reflects society's values and the
nature of humanity. Philosophers from Plato to Marx have critiqued the law for various reasons,
suggesting it can institutionalize societal ills or stifle creativity. However, the practice of law is also seen
as a practice of philosophy, where jurisprudence—the theory and study of law—plays a critical role in
understanding the wisdom behind legal systems. Prominent legal thinkers like John Austin and justices
like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Reynato S. Puno emphasize the importance of philosophical inquiry in
the development and application of law.
Key Points Related to Philosophy:

"Philosophers, from Plato to Marx, thought law institutionalizes the ills of society, an instrument for the
status quo, which complicates our rather simple life."

"The philosopher’s reason — or loss of reason — is his rule."

"Jurisprudence," often associated with "case law," in fact means the theory and study of law."

"Through jurisprudence, a law earns more credulity and force, as one understands not only the what of
the law, but the how and why of it."

Application of These Principles to the Law:

"It is no accident that many Philosophy majors eventually take up law and many lawyers craft their own
philosophies."

"When a philosopher looks into court reports, he or she is not supposed to see dead texts, but ideas,
motives, context, and theories."

"Jurisprudence is supposed to explain the nature, theory, development, and objective of a law."

Philosophy of Law:

"The practice of law can itself be a practice of philosophy."

"John Austin in The Uses and Studies of Jurisprudence called jurisprudence as 'the knowledge of law as a
science, combined with the art or practical habit or skill of applying it.'"

"Justice Holmes advised the study of great philosophers and jurisprudents to understand how
compelling ideas become a controlling force in the development of laws."

Prominent Philosophers or People Mentioned:

Horace Mann: "He who dethrones the idea of law, bids chaos welcome in its stead."

Plato to Marx: Believed that law institutionalizes society's ills.

Jesus Christ: "Summed up their thousand laws into two."

John Lennon: Viewed lawyers as potentially dispensable in an ideal world.

Dennis Lloyd: Discussed the necessity of law relative to the belief in man’s true nature.

John Austin: Defined jurisprudence as the combination of the knowledge of law and the skill of applying
it.

Oliver Wendell Holmes: Advocated for the integration of philosophical study to understand the
development of law.

Reynato S. Puno: Contributed to the understanding of the legitimacy of laws through the exploration of
legal rational discourses.
A PHILOSOPHER-JURIST ON THE STRUGGLE FOR LAW

PIO DURAN v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS

(G.R. No. L-99, November 16, 1945)

PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

Dissenting Opinion Analysis:

Justice Perfecto, in his dissent, references the work of the philosopher-jurist Rudolf von Jhering,
particularly his book "The Struggle for Law." He emphasizes the importance of the law in its objective
form and the individual's subjective struggle for legal rights. Justice Perfecto uses the example of Shylock
from Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" to illustrate the embodiment of the law in the individual's
quest for justice. He argues that when Shylock demands his pound of flesh, it is not just a personal
vendetta but a plea for the enforcement of Venetian law. The law and the individual's rights are
intertwined, standing or falling together. Justice Perfecto laments the outcome of Shylock's case as a
miscarriage of justice, not only for the character but for the law itself, which he sees as humbled and
diminished by the decision.

Significance:

The dissenting opinion serves as a reminder of the law's purpose to provide justice impartially and the
importance of jurisprudence in understanding the law's application. It also highlights the role of
philosophy in legal reasoning and the impact of legal decisions on the perception of the law's integrity.

Chapter II

, "Legal Issues and Theories," provides a philosophical and theoretical framework for understanding the
concept of law and its various classifications. Here's a comprehensive discussion of the points raised in
the passage:

Mohandas Gandhi's Ethical Concerns:

The chapter opens with a quote from Mohandas Gandhi, an Indian nationalist and barrister trained in
English law, who identifies seven blunders of human society that lead to violence. These blunders are
essentially moral and ethical lapses in various domains of human activity:

Wealth without work

Pleasure without conscience

Knowledge without character

Commerce without morality

Science without humanity

Worship without sacrifice

Politics without principles

Gandhi's perspective provides a moral critique of societal structures that can be seen as a call for a more
ethical approach to law and governance, where each of these domains should be guided by a strong
ethical framework to prevent societal harm and violence.
Classification of Laws:

The text distinguishes between two primary types of laws: jural and non-jural.

Jural Law: These are laws created by humans, such as statutes (laws enacted by legislatures), case laws
(laws established through court decisions), normative rules (standards that govern conduct within a
particular context), and precepts (general rules intended to regulate behavior or thought). Jural laws are
the primary concern of lawyers and the legal system.

Non-Jural Law: These laws are not based on human promulgation and include:

1. Divine Law: Derived from sacred texts and backed by religious faith.
2. Natural Law: Based on human nature and the intrinsic demands of humanity. Natural law is a
philosophical concept that suggests there are fundamental moral principles inherent in the
nature of humans that inform and constrain human-made law.
3. Physical Law: The immutable laws of the universe, such as gravity and relativity, which are the
concerns of scientists and physicists rather than lawyers.

Lawyers and Natural Law:

While lawyers primarily deal with jural law, the text suggests that they also engage with natural law to
the extent that it informs the origins and propriety of rights and duties. This intersection is where legal
practice meets philosophical inquiry, as natural law theories can influence the interpretation and
application of human-made laws.

Definition of Law:

The passage cites a Philippine case, "Lapitan v. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office," which provides a
definition of law that aligns with the Classical definition and echoes the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.
According to this definition, law is a just and obligatory rule of conduct formulated by legitimate power
for the common observance and benefit. This reflects a traditional view of law as a rational and
authoritative guide for human behavior, aimed at the common good.

Thomas Aquinas's Philosophy of Law:

Thomas Aquinas, a medieval philosopher and theologian, is noted for his comprehensive philosophical
system that includes a detailed theory of law. In his "Summa Theologica," Aquinas defines law as "an
ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and
promulgated." This definition emphasizes several key aspects of law:

4 Elements

Ordinance of Reason: Law is rational and logical, not arbitrary.

Common Good: The purpose of law is to serve the collective well-being of the community.

Authority: Law is made by a legitimate authority responsible for the community's welfare.

Promulgation: Law must be communicated to those to whom it applies.

Comprehensive Implications:

The comprehensive implications of this passage suggest that understanding law requires a multifaceted
approach that considers ethical principles (as highlighted by Gandhi), the nature of law (jural versus
non-jural), and the philosophical underpinnings of legal systems (as discussed by Aquinas). It invites a
reflection on how laws are created, interpreted, and applied in a way that should uphold the common
good, be informed by moral reasoning, and be consistent with both human nature and the broader
physical and divine order.

Aquinas's Four Types of Law:

Aquinas outlines four types of law: eternal law, natural law, human law, and divine law.

Eternal Law: This is the overarching order of the universe as established by God, which governs all
creation and to which all other laws are connected. It is the plan of divine wisdom as directing all acts
and movements.

Natural Law: This is the part of the eternal law that applies to human behavior. Aquinas believed that
natural law is inscribed in human nature by God and is discernible through reason. It is the rational
creature's participation in the eternal law. Natural law is based on the fundamental principle that good is
to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. From this principle, more specific moral rules can be
derived, such as the prohibitions against murder and theft, which are seen as universally binding and
immutable.

Human Law: These are the laws that human beings enact. Aquinas argued that human laws should be
derived from natural law. They are the specific applications of natural law's general precepts to the
particular circumstances of society. Human laws are not valid if they contradict natural law because they
would then be contrary to reason and the common good.

Divine Law: This is the law revealed by God, which is found in the scriptures. Divine law is necessary
because natural law, while universal in its principles, does not dictate all the moral rules needed for
human life. Divine law guides humans to their supernatural end, which cannot be known by reason
alone.

Classification of Jural Law

1. Substantive vs. Remedial Law:

Substantive Law: This type of law defines, regulates, and creates legal rights and obligations. It
establishes what people can and cannot do, their rights and duties, and the legal framework within
which society operates. Examples include laws on property, contracts, torts, and family law.

Remedial (Procedural or Adjective) Law: This refers to the set of rules that govern the mechanisms and
methods by which substantive law is enforced or followed. It includes the procedures for filing claims,
conducting trials, and appealing decisions. Remedial law ensures that substantive law is applied fairly
and consistently.

2. Scope of Law: Public vs. Private Law:

Public Law: Concerns the relationship between individuals and the state, as well as the structure and
operation of the government itself. It includes constitutional law, administrative law, tax law, and criminal
law. Public law is further categorized into:

Criminal Law: Governs crimes and punishments. It involves actions that are offenses against the public,
society, or the state—even if the immediate victim is an individual.

Private Law: Deals with the legal relationships between private individuals or organizations. It includes:

Civil Law: Covers the personal and property rights of individuals. It encompasses laws on contracts, torts
(civil wrongs), property, family, and inheritance.

Mercantile (Commercial) Law: Pertains to the laws concerning commerce and trade between businesses
and commercial entities. It regulates corporate contracts, hiring practices, and the manufacture and
sales of consumer goods.

Key Points for Review:

Understand the difference between substantive and remedial law: Substantive law is about the content
of rights and duties, while remedial law is about the procedures to enforce them.

Recognize the distinction between public and private law: Public law is oriented towards the state and
society, while private law focuses on individuals and private entities.

Differentiate between the subcategories of public law (e.g., criminal law) and private law (e.g., civil and
mercantile law): Know the areas they cover and how they apply to different scenarios.

Apply the concepts: Think of examples in daily life or reported cases that illustrate the application of
these types of law.

Application Tip:

When studying a legal issue, first determine whether it pertains to substantive or remedial law. Then,
identify if it falls under public or private law and which specific category it belongs to (criminal, civil, or
mercantile). This framework helps in understanding the legal principles and procedures applicable to the
issue at hand.

Law, Authority, and Force

1. Legal Authority:

Blaise Pascal's View: Justice requires force to be effective. Without the ability to enforce decisions,
justice remains theoretical and impotent.

Max Weber's Three Types of Authority:

Charismatic Authority: Based on the personal appeal and leadership qualities of an individual.
Charismatic leaders like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar inspire followers through passion and
determination.

Traditional Authority: Derives from established customs and lineage. Authority is passed down through
generations, often seen in monarchies and dynasties.
Legal-Rational Authority: Authority comes from a system of well-established laws and procedures.
Leadership is not based on personal attributes but on positions held within legal institutions.

2. Enforcing Law:

Coercion in Law: There is a debate on whether law should be coercive. Anarchists argue against any form
of coercion, believing that law should be based on consensus and appeal to free will and conscience.

Confucian Approach: Emphasizes moral education, cultivation of virtue, and respect for authority over
strict punishments to maintain social order and prevent crime.

3. Justice and Morality:

Interplay Between Law and Morality: Law is often seen as a reflection of the moral values of a society,
but the relationship is complex. Some argue that not all moral values should be codified into law, while
others believe that law should always strive to embody moral justice.

Key Points for Review:

Understand the different bases of legal authority as described by Weber and how they manifest in
various societies.

Recognize the ongoing debate about the role of coercion in law enforcement and the differing
viewpoints on how laws should be upheld.

Reflect on the relationship between law and morality, and consider how this relationship shapes legal
systems and societal norms.

Discussion Points:

Consider how charismatic and traditional authorities can transition into legal-rational authority as
societies evolve and institutionalize.

Debate the effectiveness of coercive laws versus the Confucian approach of moral persuasion in
maintaining social order.

Explore the implications of enforcing moral behavior through law and the potential conflicts that arise
when legal and moral standards diverge.

Discussion on Law and Morality:

The relationship between law and morality is one of the most significant and complex topics in legal
philosophy. The excerpt from J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" humorously touches
on the perception that legal careers may not always align with doing 'good' in the world, reflecting the
tension between law and morality.

Legal vs. Moral Obligations:

Distinction: Legal obligations are enforceable by the state, whereas moral obligations are governed by
personal and societal ethical standards. The law can compel compliance through sanctions, while
morality relies on conscience and societal approval or disapproval.

Interrelation: Despite their differences, law and morality influence each other. Moral values often inform
the creation of laws, and laws can shape societal morals over time.

Sources of Law and Morality:

Common Ethical Basis: According to Tolentino, both law and morals originate from social conscience.
They share a common ethical foundation, even though they may diverge in application and enforcement.

Intersecting Circles Analogy: Law and morals are likened to two overlapping circles with shared principles
in the common zone, yet each has unique principles not shared by the other.

Civil Code Provisions (Philippines):

Articles 19, 20, and 21: These articles emphasize the need for actions to be just, honest, and not contrary
to morals (bonus mores). They aim to provide remedies for moral wrongs that are not specifically
enumerated in the law.

Moral Damages: The law recognizes the concept of moral damages to indemnify victims for wrongs that
cause non-material harm.

Contractual Obligations and Morality:

Illicit Cause: A contract is void if it is for an illicit cause, which includes being contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy.

Hierarchy of Principles: The order of principles (law, morals, good customs, public order, or policy)
suggests a prioritization where law is the starting point, but moral considerations are also crucial.

Ideal Creation and Implementation of Law:

Reflecting Morality: Ideally, laws should reflect the moral values of the society they govern. They should
promote justice, fairness, and the common good.

Dynamic Relationship: The law should evolve as societal morals change, ensuring that legal obligations
remain aligned with contemporary ethical standards.

Balancing Act: Lawmakers must balance the need for legal order with the recognition of moral diversity
within society. Laws should not enforce morality to the extent that they infringe on individual freedoms
unjustifiably.

Key Takeaway:

The law is not an isolated system; it is deeply intertwined with the moral fabric of society. Good laws
draw from moral principles, and while they must be enforceable, they should also aspire to uphold and
promote the ethical values of the community they serve.

Justice vs. Equality:

Justice: Justice is often about fairness and giving each individual what they deserve. It is not necessarily
about treating everyone the same, but rather about treating them appropriately according to their
circumstances, actions, and merits.

Equality: Equality, in a strict sense, means treating everyone the same. However, in the context of
justice, it is more nuanced. It's about ensuring that people in similar situations are treated similarly,
which is sometimes referred to as "equality under the law" or "legal equality."
The Last Sermon of Muhammad:

Universal Brotherhood: The quote from the Last Sermon of Muhammad emphasizes the idea of
universal equality among humans, where no one has inherent superiority over another except through
piety and good actions. This principle can be seen as a moral foundation for laws that aim to treat all
individuals with equal respect and dignity.

Lady Justice:

Symbolism: Lady Justice is a symbol of the moral force in judicial systems. Her blindfold represents
impartiality, the idea that justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power, or other status. The
scales symbolize the weighing of evidence and the balanced, proportionate approach to justice.

Proportional Justice:

Aristotelian Concept: The idea that justice is "equality in proportion" is rooted in Aristotelian philosophy.
It suggests that justice is achieved not by a crude equalization but by proportionality – giving each
person their due according to a common standard that takes into account relevant differences.

Reasonable Classification:

Legal Principle: Reasonable classification is a legal principle that allows for different treatment of
different categories of people if the classification is reasonable, based on relevant differences, and
pursues a legitimate objective. For example, different tax rates for different income levels can be justified
if they are based on the ability to pay.

Application in Law:

Equal Opportunity: The law should provide equal opportunity for everyone to achieve or earn what they
deserve. This means that while outcomes may not be equal, the process and standards applied should
be fair and consistent.

Non-Discrimination: The law must apply equally to all, without discrimination on irrelevant grounds.
This is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law and is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the
legal system.

In summary, the passage suggests that justice in law is about fairness and proportionality, ensuring that
like cases are treated alike while also recognizing and accounting for relevant differences among
individuals and circumstances. This approach aims to achieve a balance between the ideal of equality
and the practical need for a fair and just society.
The teleological or natural law theory is a philosophical approach that seeks to understand the purpose,
principles, and ultimate goals (telos) of the law. It is a form of normative jurisprudence that evaluates the
reasons and values behind legal rules and systems. Here's an expansion on the key aspects of this
theory:

Purpose and Meaning in Law:

Teleological theory posits that just like individuals seek purpose and meaning in life, law too must serve a
purpose and have an end goal.

The theory asks why laws exist and what they aim to achieve, looking beyond the mere text of legal
statutes to the broader objectives they are meant to fulfill.

Natural Law:

Natural law is a central concept in teleological theory. It suggests that there is a universal order,
discoverable through reason, which law should reflect.

This order is not created by humans but is inherent in the natural world and human nature, which is
fundamentally rational.

Normative Jurisprudence:

The theory falls under the category of normative jurisprudence because it involves evaluating laws
against certain norms or standards, such as reasonableness and justice.

It holds that laws should help individuals realize their basic natural goods, which, when shared,
contribute to the common good of society.

Reasonableness and Justice:

Laws are considered legitimate if they align with the precepts of reason, which include being reasonable,
just, equal, and fair.

A law may be challenged and struck down if it is found to be unreasonable or unjust, with the jurist
appealing to higher principles of rational or moral law.

Common Law Tradition:

The common-law tradition, which is prevalent in English-speaking countries, has been influenced by
natural law.

It is based on the idea that there are fundamental legal principles that precede written statutes and can
be discerned through judicial decisions (precedents).

Influence on Legal Systems:

The teleological approach has influenced various legal systems, including the Philippine legal system,
where it intersects with other legal methodologies.

It provides a framework for interpreting laws and making legal decisions that are not only based on
written codes but also on the underlying principles of human reason and morality.

Criticism and Challenges:

Critics of natural law argue that it can be too abstract and subjective, as notions of what is "natural" or
"reasonable" can vary widely.
There is also the challenge of applying universal principles to specific and complex legal issues, which
may require more concrete guidance than natural law can provide.

In summary, the teleological or natural law theory is a rich and influential perspective in legal philosophy
that emphasizes the importance of underlying principles and the ultimate purposes of law in society. It
seeks to ensure that laws are not just commands to be followed but are rooted in the deeper rational
and moral order of human existence.

The Positivist Theory of law is a legal concept that emphasizes the actual laws that are posited, or laid
down, by a legitimate authority, rather than any moral or natural law considerations. Here's an
expansion on the key aspects of this theory:

Rule-Based Approach:

Positivism focuses on the rules that are established by a legitimate authority, such as the state or a
recognized body within society.

It is concerned with the content and expression of the law as it is written and enacted, rather than with
any underlying moral or philosophical justifications.

Obedience to Law:

The central tenet of positivism is obedience to the law because it is the law, encapsulated by phrases like
"dura lex, sed lex" (the law is hard, but it is the law).

This approach emphasizes the importance of following the law as it is, without questioning its fairness or
origin.

Conventionalism:

Positivism is sometimes referred to as conventionalism, highlighting the idea that law is a product of
human agreements, conventions, or treaties.

Laws are not seen as deriving from any natural order or divine will but are based on social contracts or
explicit legislative acts.

Analytic Jurisprudence:

While natural law theory is concerned with what the law ought to be (lex ferenda), positivism is focused
on what the law is (lex lata).

Positivism is considered analytic jurisprudence because it analyzes the law as it exists without reference
to external moral standards or principles.

Validity of Law:

For a law to be valid in the positivist view, it need only be procedurally correct and enacted through the
proper channels.

The substance or content of the law is not judged against any moral criteria; the law's legitimacy comes
from its creation by a recognized authority.

Criticism and Challenges:

Positivism has been criticized for its potential to justify unjust laws, as it does not consider the moral
content of the law.

Critics argue that by focusing solely on the procedural aspects of law-making, positivism may ignore the
ethical implications of enforcing certain laws.

Influence on Legal Systems:

Positivism has had a significant impact on various legal systems, shaping the way laws are interpreted
and applied.
It provides a clear-cut approach to legal interpretation, focusing on the letter of the law rather than the
spirit, which can be important for maintaining consistency and predictability in legal proceedings.

Key Figures:

Prominent figures associated with legal positivism include John Austin, who viewed law as commands
from a sovereign backed by threats of sanctions, and H.L.A. Hart, who offered a more sophisticated
account that included the recognition of rules by the legal system itself as a criterion for legal validity.

The Interpretivist or Constructivist Theory, as developed by Ronald Dworkin, offers a nuanced

approach to understanding and applying the law. Here's an expansion on the key aspects of this
theory:

Beyond Explicit Rules:

Interpretivism posits that the law consists of more than just the explicit rules that are adopted; it
includes the principles and merits that underlie these rules.

Judges play a crucial role in interpreting these underlying principles, which are not always explicitly
stated in the statutory language.

Rights-Based Approach:

Dworkin's theory is rights-based, suggesting that laws should be interpreted in a way that respects and
enforces the rights of individuals.

This approach contrasts with positivism, which focuses on the literal application of the law without
considering the broader principles at play.

Formal and Substantive Dimensions:

Interpretivism distinguishes between the formal dimension (logical consistency with past decisions) and
the substantive dimension (principles that justify the law).

The integrity of the law is maintained when it is consistent both formally and substantively, aligning with
fundamental rights and principles.

Critique of Positivism:

Dworkin criticizes positivism for its failure to consider the merits of the law, arguing that laws should be
evaluated based on their reasonableness, justice, and relevance.

According to interpretivism, the law is not just a set of rules to be followed blindly but a system that
should be understood and applied in a principled manner.

Judicial Discretion and Duty:

While judges have discretion in deciding cases, Dworkin argues that this discretion is not absolute and
must be exercised in line with established rights.

In difficult cases, judges may need to create new principles or interpret existing ones, but they must do
so in a way that respects the integrity of the law.

Taking Rights Seriously:

Dworkin's work, particularly "Taking Rights Seriously," emphasizes that judges have a duty to reason
according to rights and cannot simply decide cases based on personal preferences.

The theory suggests that legal decisions should be grounded in a coherent set of principles that take
individual rights into account.

Impact on Legal Practice:

Interpretivism has influenced how judges and legal practitioners approach cases, encouraging them to
look beyond the letter of the law to its spirit and underlying principles.

This theory has contributed to a more dynamic and morally engaged practice of law, where the
application of legal rules is informed by a deeper understanding of the principles they represent.

The Get-Real Theory, also known as legal realism, is a perspective on law that emphasizes the practical
over the theoretical, the real-world outcomes over the abstract principles. Here's an expansion on the
key aspects of this theory:

Focus on Practical Experience:

Legal realism stresses the importance of how law operates in everyday life, considering the actual effects
of legal decisions and policies on society.

It critiques the notion that law is solely a system of abstract reasoning or ethical principles, advocating
for a more grounded approach that takes into account the complexities of human behavior and societal
needs.

Implementation and Enforcement:

Realists argue that laws should be administratively feasible and enforceable, meaning they must be
designed in a way that can be effectively implemented and followed in the real world.

The theory questions whether laws can be empirically verified through experience and whether they
produce the intended outcomes.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.:

Holmes, a key figure in legal realism, believed that the law should be understood not as a system of
reason but in terms of its practical effects, particularly on those who might be inclined to break it.

He proposed the "bad man model," suggesting that laws should be crafted and understood from the
perspective of someone who is indifferent to ethical considerations and only concerned with the
potential consequences of breaking the law.

Consequences Over Intentions:

The realist school is less concerned with the moral intentions behind the law and more with the actual
consequences and how these consequences influence behavior.

It posits that the true measure of a law's effectiveness is whether it can deter undesirable behavior and
encourage compliance.

Critique of Formalism:

Legal realism challenges the formalist idea that legal reasoning can be purely logical or deduced from
established principles without considering social contexts and human behavior.

Realists argue that judges and lawmakers must consider the practical implications of their decisions and
the reality of how laws function in society.

Influence on Legal Practice:

Legal realism has influenced the way lawyers prepare their cases, emphasizing the importance of how
laws will be applied and enforced rather than just how they are written.

It has also impacted judicial decision-making, encouraging judges to consider the real-world impact of
their rulings and the behavior of those affected by the law.
In essence, the Get-Real Theory or legal realism reminds us that the law is not just a set of rules to be
interpreted in a vacuum but a living, breathing system that must be responsive to the realities of human
society.

Legal Theories and Approaches:

Get-Real Theory

Concept: This theory suggests that the law is not just an abstract set of rules but is deeply intertwined
with the drama of real life, as depicted in various media.

Application: It implies that while there can be suspense in legal decisions, there should not be outright
surprises, as decisions must still conform to the standard of legal "integrity" and "best fit."

Teleological or Natural Law Theory

Concept: This approach considers the law as serving a higher universal order, which is discoverable
through human reason and validated by experience.

Key Idea: Laws are seen as rules for humans to realize basic natural goods, which, when shared, become
society's common good.

Positivist Theory

Concept: Positivism focuses on the written rules of law as created by a legitimate authority, emphasizing
the importance of following these rules strictly.

Key Idea: The rules of law are paramount, and their strict application is essential, regardless of their
origin or the intentions behind them.

Historical Approach

Concept: This approach looks at the law through the lens of historical development, suggesting that legal
institutions must be studied historically to be fully understood.

Key Idea: The law is a product of national genius, evolving with the spirit of the people and influenced by
cultural beliefs, traditions, and common experiences.

Functional or Sociological Approach

Concept: The sociological school views the law as a means of social control and advancement,
recognizing the dynamic nature of society with its competing interests.

Key Idea: The law should reconcile and mediate different interests, with public policy accommodating
common convictions while respecting individual interests.

Economic Approach

Concept: Championed by Judge Richard Posner, this approach sees the law as a tool for increasing
societal happiness through wealth maximization.

Key Idea: The purpose of law is to create a balance of happiness in society, with legal decisions often
evaluated based on their economic consequences.

Review Notes:

Interplay of Theories: The document discusses how these theories interact within the Philippine legal
system, providing a rich tapestry of philosophical and practical considerations.
Case Readings: Illustrative cases are provided to demonstrate how these theories are applied in real-
world legal scenarios.

Critical Thinking: The text encourages readers to think critically about the nature of law, its purpose, and
its impact on society.

Philosophical Underpinnings: A deep understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of legal

principles is emphasized as crucial for students and legal professionals.

Conclusion:

The document provides a multifaceted view of legal theories and approaches, each with its own
rationale and application. Understanding these theories is essential for a comprehensive grasp of how
law functions in society and how it evolves to meet changing societal needs. The review notes
encapsulate the essence of each theory and approach, offering a concise reference for further study and
reflection on the nature and purpose of law.

Chapter 2 Case Reading

1. The concurring opinion of Justice Castro in the case of Felixberto C. Sta. Maria v. Salvador P.
Lopez, et al. (G.R. No. L-30773, February 18, 1970) provides a rich discussion on the balance
between individual integrity and societal interests, drawing on the insights of philosophers
Reinhold Niebuhr and Sidney Hook.

Philosophers on Law and Academic Freedom:

Reinhold Niebuhr's Perspective:

Individual and Society: Niebuhr argues that the individual's integrity and the interests of society are not
opposing forces but rather complementary. The individual's quest for meaning and fulfillment
contributes to the community's richness and justice.

Community and Liberty: He suggests that the community needs liberty as much as the individual does,
and the individual requires the community more than previously understood by bourgeois democracy.

Balance of Interests: Niebuhr warns against any community that tries to suppress individuality for the
sake of peace and order, as it would destroy the "pinnacle of individuality" that brings new possibilities
to the community.

Sidney Hook's Insights:

Due Process in Academia: Hook emphasizes that due process in the academic community is governed by
the educational goal of pursuing and disseminating truth, which is different from due process in the
political community.

Educational Authority: There is an authoritative aspect to teaching and learning that is based on the
knowledge and method of the teacher, not on their personal power.

Equality in Learning: While there may be differences in educational authority, there is equality in the
rational processes of learning, whether one is a teacher or a student.

Rule of Reason: In a liberal educational environment, everything is subject to the rule of reason, and all
participants are equal as questioners and learners.

Sanctions for Disruptions: Those who disrupt the academic due process with violence or threats place
themselves outside the academic community and should face appropriate sanctions.

Proactive Guidelines: Hook advocates for the faculty to establish clear guidelines for action in advance,
so students understand the consequences of their actions.
Review Notes on the Case:

Case Context: The case revolves around the tension between academic freedom and the enforcement of
order within the university setting.

Justice Castro's View: He concurs with the majority opinion but adds depth by referencing Niebuhr and
Hook, providing a philosophical backdrop to the legal decision.

Academic Freedom: The case underscores the importance of academic freedom and the need for due
process within educational institutions.

Balance of Rights: The decision reflects a nuanced understanding of balancing individual rights with the
collective rights of the academic community.

Conclusion:

Justice Castro's concurring opinion in the case of Felixberto C. Sta. Maria v. Salvador P. Lopez et al. is a
profound meditation on the intersection of law, philosophy, and education. It highlights the delicate
balance between individual rights and community interests, advocating for a reasoned approach to
academic freedom and due process within the educational sphere. The philosophical insights provided
by Niebuhr and Hook serve as a reminder of the complex interplay between individual integrity, societal
peace, and the pursuit of truth within the academic context.

2. Justice Perfecto's concurring opinion in the case of Jorge B. Vargas v. Emilio Rilloraza, et al.
(G.R. No. L-1612, February 26, 1948) is a rich tapestry of philosophical references that
underscore the timeless nature of justice and its paramount role in human virtue. Drawing
from classical and medieval philosophy, as well as contemporary scientific thought, Justice
Perfecto weaves an argument that highlights the enduring relevance of ancient wisdom in
modern times.

Philosophers on Law and Justice:

Cicero's View:

Virtue of Justice: Cicero regards justice as the brightest of virtues, the defining quality of just men.

Saint Thomas Aquinas's Insight:

Supremacy of Justice: Aquinas holds that justice is the most excellent of all moral virtues, surpassing
others in its excellence.

Aristotle's Teachings:

Excellence of Justice: Aristotle sees justice as the most admirable virtue, surpassing even celestial bodies
in its brilliance.

Beneficence of Virtue: He also posits that the greatest virtues are those most beneficial to others, as
virtue is inherently beneficent.

Contemporary Reflections:

Robert Maynard Hutchins: The President of the University of Chicago, involved in the development of
the atomic bomb, acknowledges the influence of Aristotle.

Pioneers of Atomic Energy: Great physicists like Einstein and Bohr admit that ancient ideas about matter
and energy laid the groundwork for modern scientific breakthroughs.

Review Notes on the Case:

Historical Wisdom: Justice Perfecto emphasizes the importance of historical philosophical insights in
understanding and applying the concept of justice.
Eternal Truths: He suggests that certain ideas possess a timeless vitality, much like the preserved
mammoth flesh, which remains relevant through the ages.

Intellectual Leadership: The geniuses who have blessed certain epochs with their thoughts are seen as
the intellectual leaders for all time.

Modern Application: Even in the era of groundbreaking scientific discoveries, the foundational ideas of
ancient philosophers remain pertinent.

Conclusion:

Justice Perfecto's opinion serves as a reminder that the principles of law and justice are deeply rooted in
a philosophical tradition that spans millennia. The wisdom of thinkers like Cicero, Aquinas, and Aristotle
continues to inform and guide the pursuit of justice in contemporary legal practice. The opinion also
illustrates how the pursuit of knowledge and truth, whether in law, philosophy, or science, is an eternal
endeavor that connects the past with the present and the future. Justice Perfecto's erudite references
serve not only to resolve the legal matter at hand but also to inspire a deeper contemplation of the
virtues that underpin the legal system.

HEGEL AND THE SPIRIT OF STATUTES

WILLIAM F. PERALTA v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

(G.R. No. L-49, November 12, 1945)

In the case of William F. Peralta v. The Director of Prisons (G.R. No. L-49, November 12, 1945), the
opinion expressed is a vehement assertion of the right to freedom and a denunciation of unjust
imprisonment. The opinion draws upon the spirit of Hegel's philosophy to articulate a vision of justice
that is deeply rooted in the principles of democracy and human rights.

Hegel and the Spirit of Statutes:

Hegel's Philosophy:

Statues as Symbols: Hegel is referenced to describe the lifelessness of statues that have lost their
animating spirit, paralleling the loss of justice and humanity in the legal process that led to Peralta's
imprisonment.

Ethical Life: The opinion mourns the loss of the 'ethical life' that once animated society, akin to the spirit
that once gave life to art and culture in Hegel's view.

Right to Freedom:

Absolute Right: The petitioner is argued to have an absolute right to immediate release, having been
convicted through a null and void process.

Democratic Institutions: The opinion emphasizes the importance of erasing the vestiges of unjust
processes to protect democratic institutions and the well-being of future generations.

Critique of Injustice:

Inversion of Justice: The summary procedure under which Peralta was convicted is described as an
inversion, retroversion, subversion, or perversion of elemental human concepts.

Ideological Virus: The ideology that supports state supremacy over fundamental human rights is likened
to a virus that must be eliminated.

Historical and Cultural References:

Seneca and Nero: The hypocrisy of professing moral virtues while justifying immoral acts is compared to
Seneca's justification of Nero's matricide.

Torquemada: The inquisitorial spirit of Torquemada is invoked to illustrate the intolerance and bigotry of
the summary procedure.

Call for Action:

Restoration of Liberty: The opinion calls for the immediate restoration of Peralta's liberty and the
obliteration of the memory of the inquisitorial process.

Cultural Shame: There is a strong sentiment of shame associated with those who justified such
procedures, contrasting them with the noble ideals of Philippine heroes.

Review Notes on the Case:

Hegelian Spirit: The opinion draws from Hegel's philosophy to critique the lifelessness and injustice of
the legal process, advocating for a restoration of the spirit of justice.

Condemnation of Unjust Processes: The summary procedure is condemned for its inversion of justice
and its ideological underpinnings that prioritize state power over individual rights.

Historical and Philosophical Depth: The opinion is rich in historical and philosophical references, using
them to deepen the critique of the miscarriage of justice.

Urgency for Democratic Integrity: There is an urgent call to action to preserve the integrity of democratic
institutions and the fundamental rights of individuals.

Conclusion:

The opinion in Peralta v. The Director of Prisons is a passionate plea for justice, drawing on Hegelian
philosophy to argue against the dehumanization and injustice of the petitioner's imprisonment. It is a call
to uphold the principles of democracy and human rights, to restore the petitioner's freedom, and to
reject the ideologies that led to such a miscarriage of justice. The opinion serves as a reminder of the
importance of maintaining the spirit of the law in alignment with the spirit of justice, as envisioned by
philosophers like Hegel.

H.L.A. HART ON LAW AND MORALITY

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA v. SOLEDAD ESCRITOR

(A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003)

VITUG, J., separate opinion:

In the separate opinion of Justice Vitug in the case of Alejandro Estrada v. Soledad Escritor (A.M. No. P-
02-1651, August 4, 2003), the relationship between law and morality is explored with reference to the
views of H.L.A. Hart, among others. The opinion delves into the historical and philosophical
underpinnings of this relationship and the contemporary debates surrounding it.

H.L.A. Hart on Law and Morality:

Historical Context:

Integration of Law and Morality: Historically, law and morality were seen as intertwined, with the
Christian Church playing a significant role in governing both the spiritual and temporal affairs of men.

Secular State and Natural Law: With the rise of the secular state, thinkers like Pufendorf and Vattel began
to establish legal systems based on natural law, which were deduced from the nature of man and things.

Legal and Moral Authority:

Moral Authority of Law: As human law incorporated divine law and the law of nature, it began to carry
the moral authority of both, leading to jurisprudential complexities.

Legal Reforms:

Incorporation of Moral Concepts: In the 19th century, moral concepts such as fault and intent were
consciously incorporated into civil and criminal law, bringing law and morality closer together.

Academic Polemic:

Separation of Law and Morality: Liberals have attempted to separate law from morality, advocating for
the "harm" principle, which suggests that law should only be used to prevent harm to others.

Opposition to Morals Law: Liberals argue against laws based on morality, especially when it comes to
"victimless" immoralities, positing that such laws are unjust in principle.

Judicial Neutrality:

Neutral Stance on Moral Issues: Courts have tended to adopt a neutral stance on moral issues, which can
sometimes obscure the values society seeks to enforce through its moral laws.

The Case of Griswold v. Connecticut:

Invalidation of Anti-Contraceptive Law: The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Connecticut's anti-
contraceptive law not on the grounds of morality, but on the basis of marital privacy.

Moral Right vs. Moral Wrong: The decision raises the question of whether it sanctions a moral right to do
a moral wrong, without directly addressing the morality of contraception.

Review Notes on the Case:

Law vs. Morality Debate: The opinion reflects the ongoing debate between the inseparability and the
distinctness of law and morality.

Hart's Perspective: While not explicitly detailed in the summary, H.L.A. Hart's perspective is known for
distinguishing between law as a system of rules and morality as a set of social norms, suggesting that
laws can be valid regardless of their moral content.

Implications for Judicial Decisions: The case highlights the challenges judges face when legal provisions
conflict with moral considerations, and the strategies they might employ to resolve such conflicts.

Conclusion:

Justice Vitug's opinion in Estrada v. Escritor touches upon the complex interplay between law and
morality, reflecting on historical perspectives and liberal challenges to the integration of moral
judgments within legal frameworks. The reference to Griswold v. Connecticut illustrates the practical
implications of these debates, showing how courts can navigate the delicate balance between legal
reasoning and moral philosophy. The opinion underscores the enduring relevance of these discussions in
the adjudication of contemporary legal issues.

Into the Twentieth Century: the Devlin-Hart Debate

On September 1957 in England, the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution

The Devlin-Hart debate is a seminal discussion in legal philosophy regarding the relationship between
law and morality, particularly in the context of private consensual acts that some may view as immoral.
This debate was sparked by the Wolfenden Report's recommendation to the British Parliament that
private homosexual acts between consenting adults should not be criminalized, which raised
fundamental questions about the role of law in enforcing moral standards.

Patrick Devlin's View:

Legal Moralism: Devlin argued that society has the right to enforce moral standards through law to
preserve its moral fabric. He believed that the common good is a legitimate concern of the law and that
private behaviors can impact society's integrity.

Ethical Relativism: Devlin suggested that moral standards are relative to each culture and that society
must enforce its own moral standards for self-preservation.

Privacy and Society's Integrity: While recognizing the importance of privacy, Devlin contended that it
could be overridden if private actions harm society.

H.L.A. Hart's Counterarguments:

Diversity in Society: Hart countered that societies are diverse and that the idea of a single moral
foundation is overly simplistic.

Right to Privacy: He emphasized the importance of the right to privacy and freedom of action, which
should only be interfered with when private behavior becomes a public menace.

Against Majority Morality: Hart criticized the imposition of the majority's morality on the minority,
especially when it comes to sexual morality, which he viewed as oppressive and a source of acute
suffering.

Harm Principle: Echoing John Stuart Mill, Hart argued that the only justification for exercising power over
an individual against their will is to prevent harm to others.

Robert P. George's Perspective:

Moral Ecology: George acknowledged that while laws cannot compel internal morality, they can support
moral behavior by preventing self-corruption, providing bad examples, preserving moral ecology, and
educating about right and wrong.

Role of Law in Moral Development: He contended that laws can contribute to moral development by
shaping societal notions of what is morally acceptable, forbidden, and required.

Application to Legal Judgments:

Justification for Moral Laws: Moral laws may be justified when they preserve societal values and when
the morality enforced is true and correct.

Protecting Societal Interests: Moral laws are justified to the extent that they protect the interests of
society.

Value and Purpose of Laws: The rigid application of moral laws should be avoided if it undermines the
values society seeks to uphold or defeats the purpose for which the laws were enacted.

Conclusion:

The Devlin-Hart debate, along with the contributions of Robert P. George, highlights the tension between
enforcing societal morality through law and respecting individual freedom and privacy. This debate
continues to influence legal and moral philosophy, as well as judicial decisions regarding the
criminalization of private behavior. The key takeaway is that the law's role in enforcing morality is not
absolute and must be balanced against the principles of diversity, privacy, and the harm principle.

HOLMES ON LAW AND EXPERIENCE

JOEL G. MIRANDA v. ANTONIO M. ABAYA and the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

(G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999)

PANGANIBAN, J., dissenting:

The main points of this opinion are:

Statutory Interpretation: The majority opinion is based on a strict interpretation of the Omnibus Election
Code, which allows candidate substitution only in cases of death, withdrawal, or disqualification. Since
"cancellation" of a certificate is not listed, the majority concludes it does not allow for substitution.

Legal Logic vs. Experience: The author of this opinion acknowledges the logical basis of the majority's
conclusion but invokes the famous quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to argue that the law is
based on experience rather than mere logic.

Election Results and Popular Will: The author emphasizes that the court's adherence to a strict logical
interpretation would undermine the will of the people, as it would disregard the election results where
the petitioner received the highest number of votes for the mayoral position.

Practical Consequences: The opinion suggests that following the majority's logic would lead to the
installation of the elected vice mayor as mayor, a result that goes against the electorate's choice.

Appeal to Common Sense: The author argues that common sense and experience should guide the
interpretation of the law, especially when the literal application of legal logic would lead to an outcome
that contradicts the evident will of the people as expressed through their votes.

This opinion is advocating for a more pragmatic approach to legal interpretation, one that considers the
consequences of a decision and respects the democratic choice of the electorate. It reflects a broader
debate in legal philosophy about the role of judges in interpreting statutes—whether they should adhere
strictly to the letter of the law (legal formalism) or consider broader societal implications and the spirit of
the law (legal realism).

CHAPTER III

Aristotle's Philosophy of Law

Rational Nature and Law: Aristotle believed that human beings possess a rational nature that should be
the basis of law. This rationality is what distinguishes humans from other animals and should be the
guiding principle in creating and interpreting laws.

Universal and Particular Laws: While acknowledging the existence of particular laws that may vary
according to culture and time, Aristotle emphasized a universal "common law" or "natural law" that
transcends these variations. This universal law is rooted in general justice and human rationality.

Natural Law vs. Animalistic Biologism: The passage clarifies that natural law should not be conflated with
a mere survival instinct found in animals. Instead, it is tied to the moral and rational capacities that
elevate humans above mere biological impulses.

Political Systems and Human Nature: Aristotle argued that the best political systems are those that
nurture and cultivate human nature, presumably by encouraging the practice of virtue and the use of
reason.
Aristotle's Ethical Framework

The Pursuit of Happiness: In his "Nicomachean Ethics," Aristotle posits that happiness (eudaimonia) is
the ultimate goal of human life. This happiness is not merely subjective well-being but is tied to the
actualization of one's virtues and rational capacities.

Function and Reason: Despite the diversity of human interests and functions, Aristotle identifies a
common function in reasoning. This shared capacity is what enables humans to seek a balanced life and
to discern what is just and virtuous.

The Golden Mean: Aristotle's ethical doctrine revolves around the concept of the "golden mean," which
is the virtuous balance between extremes of excess and deficiency. Virtue, then, is about finding this
balance in our actions and emotions.

Virtue as Disposition: The passage ends with the notion that a happy person is one who has the
disposition (hexis) to virtue (arete). This suggests that happiness involves a stable character trait of
seeking the mean and practicing reason, rather than a fleeting state of mind.

Stoic Philosophy and Natural Law

Jus Naturale and Jus Gentium: The Stoics played a crucial role in the development of natural law theory
(jus naturale) during the Roman Empire. They influenced the creation of laws that were universal,
applicable to Roman citizens (jus civile) and non-citizens (jus gentium) alike. This universality was
grounded in the Stoic belief in a "true law" accessible through right reason.

Equality and Universal Law: A significant Stoic contribution to natural law philosophy was the emphasis
on the equality of all people under a universal law. This idea was revolutionary in a society with a strict
hierarchy and class system.

Divine Spark and Happiness: The Stoics introduced the concept that every person possesses a "divine
spark," reflecting the presence of God in everyone. This inner divinity meant that happiness and virtue
were accessible to all, regardless of one's social status.

Stoic Ethics and Apathy

Apathy and Emotion: The term "stoic" has become synonymous with a lack of emotion, but in the Stoic
philosophical context, it refers to the discipline of not allowing emotions to cloud one's judgment of
what is good. The Stoics did not seek to eliminate emotions but to prevent them from dominating
reason.

Goodness Amidst Suffering: The Stoics believed that one could still lead a life of goodness regardless of
external circumstances, including suffering. This perspective encouraged resilience and moral integrity
even in adversity.
Nature and Necessity: Seneca, a Stoic philosopher, emphasized that nature provides sufficiently for
human needs. The Stoics advocated for a life of simplicity and argued that societal wants are often a
result of desires for luxury rather than necessities.

Cicero's Influence

Cicero's Legacy: Marcus Tullius Cicero, though not a Stoic himself, was heavily influenced by Stoic
philosophy. His writings contributed to the dissemination of natural law theory throughout Roman
culture and beyond.

Justice and Nature: In his work "De Legibus," Cicero argued that justice is an innate human attribute,
rooted in nature rather than the subjective opinions of men. This aligns with the Stoic view that right
reason can discern true law.

Law as Moral Guide: Cicero believed that law should serve as a moral guide, aiming to correct vice and
promote virtue. This reflects the Stoic belief in the moral dimension of law and its role in fostering
ethical behavior.

Impact on Western Thought

The Stoic conception of natural law has had a profound impact on Western legal and moral philosophy.
Their ideas about universal law, equality, and the moral purpose of law have influenced thinkers from the
Renaissance to the Enlightenment and into the modern era. The Stoic legacy is evident in the emphasis
on individual rights and the inherent dignity of all humans that is central to many modern legal systems.
Figures like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were instrumental in shaping the political
philosophy of the United States, also recognized Cicero's significant influence on their thinking and the
foundations of democratic governance.

Aquinas' Integration of Christian Doctrine with Aristotelian Philosophy

Aquinas and Aristotle: Aquinas is often credited with Christianizing Aristotle's philosophy. He reconciled
Aristotle's natural philosophy with Christian doctrine, particularly in his seminal work, "Summa
Theologica." This synthesis allowed for a rational understanding of God's creation and the moral law
within a Christian framework.

Eternal Law and Natural Law: Aquinas believed that the universe is governed by Divine Reason through
an eternal law. Humans, as part of the universe, participate in this eternal law, which, when applied to
human nature, is termed "natural law." According to Aquinas, natural law is the rational creature's
participation in the eternal law.

The Necessity of Divine Law

Natural Ends and Supernatural Ends: While natural law guides humans to their natural ends, Aquinas
posited that divine law is necessary for achieving supernatural ends—those that transcend human
nature and reason, such as salvation and eternal life.

Uncertainty of Human Reason: Aquinas acknowledged the fallibility of human reason and the diversity of
human philosophies. He argued that divine revelation is necessary to clarify and guide humans toward
the ultimate truth and the realization of their supernatural destiny.
Divine Law as the Ultimate Standard: In cases where human law and justice fail or are incorrect, divine
law serves as the ultimate standard and source of appeal. This divine law is understood to be revealed by
God through sacred texts and historical interventions.

Natural Equality and Conscience

Natural Equality Under God: Aquinas emphasized the natural equality of all humans under God. This
equality is rooted in the shared ability to reason and to discern moral truths through natural law.

Interior Conscience: He also spoke of the interior conscience, an innate judge of our moral actions, which
operates even when no external authority is present. This conscience is an aspect of natural law that
allows individuals to discern right from wrong.

Aquinas' Influence

Aquinas' Legacy: Aquinas' integration of Christian theology with Aristotelian philosophy has had a
profound influence on Western thought, particularly in the realms of ethics, metaphysics, and legal
theory. His ideas on natural law have been foundational for subsequent discussions on human rights and
the moral basis of law.

In summary, Aquinas' view on natural law is that it is a manifestation of divine reason within human
nature, allowing humans to know and do what is good by their very nature. However, he also believed
that to achieve the ultimate ends prescribed by God, humans need guidance from divine law, which
supplements natural law and addresses the limitations of human reason.
Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et al.

(G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003)

Puno, J., Separate Opinion on the History of Natural Law and Natural Rights

The case of Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et al. presents a significant discourse
on the legal and philosophical underpinnings of natural law and natural rights, as articulated in
the separate opinion by Justice Puno. This discussion aims to delve into the historical and
theoretical contexts of these concepts and their implications in the adjudication of the case.

Historical Context

The concept of natural law has its roots in ancient philosophy, with thinkers like Aristotle
positing that there is a certain order to the universe which can be understood through reason.
This order includes moral principles that are inherent in human nature and can guide human
conduct. The Roman Stoic philosophers further developed this idea, asserting that natural law is
universal and applies to all human beings.

During the medieval period, theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas integrated natural law with
Christian doctrine, arguing that it is part of God's divine providence. Aquinas believed that
natural law is an aspect of eternal law, which reflects God's grand design for the universe and is
accessible to human reason.

The Enlightenment era saw the concept of natural rights emerge, with philosophers such as John
Locke arguing that individuals are born with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and
property. These rights are not granted by governments but are inherent to human beings and must
be respected and protected by the state.

Theoretical Implications

In his separate opinion, Justice Puno explores the historical evolution of natural law and natural
rights and their relevance to contemporary legal systems. He emphasizes the enduring nature of
these principles and their capacity to inform and shape legal norms and institutions.

Justice Puno's analysis suggests that natural law and natural rights serve as a moral compass for
the law, providing a standard against which the justice of man-made laws can be measured. He
posits that when positive law, or the law enacted by human authorities, conflicts with natural
law, it is the latter that should prevail as it is grounded in the fundamental aspects of human
dignity and freedom.

Application to the Case

In the case at hand, Justice Puno applies the principles of natural law and natural rights to assess
the actions of the government and the individuals involved. He scrutinizes the alignment of the
state's actions with the inherent moral order and the protection of natural rights.

Justice Puno's separate opinion serves as a reminder of the philosophical foundations of legal
systems and the importance of aligning positive law with the higher principles of justice and
morality as articulated by natural law and natural rights.

Conclusion
The separate opinion of Justice Puno in the case of Republic of the Philippines v.
Sandiganbayan, et al. provides a profound reflection on the historical and philosophical
dimensions of natural law and natural rights. It underscores the significance of these concepts in
ensuring that the law serves not only as a tool for governance but also as an embodiment of the
moral values that are essential to human flourishing and societal well-being.

Chapter 4

The Role of Civil and Penal Law:

Aquinas sees civil law as necessary for regulating interactions in society, such as commerce. Penal law, on
the other hand, is for those who are not amenable to moral admonition and need to be restrained from
vice through fear and force.

2. Habituation to Virtue:

According to Aquinas, penal law can habituate individuals to virtue by compelling them to act virtuously
out of fear of punishment until such behavior becomes second nature.

3. General vs. Particular Justice:

Aquinas differentiates between general justice, which pertains to the community and is distributive in
nature, and particular justice, which relates to individuals and their unique circumstances. This
distinction is reflected in the principle of equitable treatment under the law.

4. Restitution and Retribution:

Restitution involves restoring what was taken, aligning with the concept of commutative justice.
Retribution, meanwhile, is about restoring civil order through punishment, which is seen as a necessary
"evil" for the common good.

5. Conditions of Criminal Liability:

Aquinas emphasizes the importance of voluntariness in actions for assigning liability. He discusses
various factors that can affect voluntariness, such as violence, fear, and ignorance.

6. Ignorance and Liability:

Aquinas distinguishes between different types of ignorance: antecedent, concomitant, and consequent.
Each type has different implications for criminal liability, with antecedent ignorance being akin to a
mistake of fact, which may excuse one from legal consequences.

7. Circumstances Affecting Liability:

Circumstances such as time, place, and manner of action can affect the degree of liability and the
severity of punishment. This is reflected in the legal consideration of aggravating circumstances.

8. Major Crimes:

Aquinas also addresses major crimes against persons, property, and morality, often referencing the Ten
Commandments as a moral foundation.
In the context of the Philippine legal system, Aquinas' principles find resonance in various provisions of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which similarly addresses issues of voluntariness, ignorance, and
circumstances affecting criminal liability. The RPC also provides for restitution, reparation, and
indemnification, reflecting Aquinas' views on justice and the restoration of order.

Aquinas' philosophy serves as a bridge between theology and law, providing a moral and ethical
foundation for legal principles that aim to regulate human behavior and maintain social order. His views
on justice, particularly the emphasis on equitable treatment and the common good, continue to
influence contemporary legal thought and practice.