Philosophy of Law (Midterm Exam)- FDG_03.31.

23 (Cutie Patootieee )
_____________________________________________________________________________________

PART I. Explanation of Concepts with Jurisprudence

1. Police Power, the Common Good, and the General Welfare

Police power refers to the inherent authority of the state to regulate

behavior and enforce order within its territory to promote the general
welfare, health, safety, and morals of the public. It is vested primarily in the
legislative body and includes the authority to enact laws, ordinances, and
regulations for the common good.

In the case of Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, the Supreme Court
upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposed penalties on those issuing
bouncing checks, citing that it was enacted as an exercise of police power to
safeguard the public from the fraudulent practice of issuing checks without
sufficient funds.

2. Cyber Libel, Proof of Truth, and Restrictions to Freedom of

Speech

Cyber libel refers to defamatory statements published online, which harm

a person's reputation. While freedom of speech is guaranteed under the
Constitution, it is not absolute and can be restricted to prevent defamation,
uphold public order, and protect national security. Proof of truth is required
when the defendant claims that the defamatory statements are justified.

In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, the Supreme Court

upheld the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act's provisions on
cyber libel but emphasized the need for a clear definition of what constitutes
libel, following the requirements set forth under Article 353 of the Revised
Penal Code.

3. Public and Secular Morality as Prevailing Norm of Conduct

Public and secular morality refer to the ethical standards and norms that
govern public behavior and are generally accepted by society. These norms
are enforced by law to maintain order and protect societal values.

In Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, the Court grappled with the
clash between religious freedom and secular morality. While the Court
recognized the importance of upholding secular morality in the public
sphere, it also gave weight to religious beliefs, thus allowing some leeway in
cases involving personal moral conduct that does not harm public order.

4. Equal Protection Compatible with Reasonable Classification

Philosophy of Law (Midterm Exam)- FDG_03.31.23 (Cutie Patootieee )
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The equal protection clause ensures that all persons or things similarly
situated must be treated alike. However, reasonable classification is
permitted if it is based on substantial distinctions, is germane to the purpose
of the law, and applies equally to all members of the class.

In People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, the Supreme Court ruled that the
prohibition on native Igorots from drinking alcoholic beverages was a valid
exercise of police power and did not violate the equal protection clause, as
the classification was based on actual differences in culture and
circumstances.

5. On Negligence, Intent, Motive, and Malice

Negligence refers to the failure to exercise the standard of care that a

reasonably prudent person would exercise in a similar situation. Intent refers
to the purpose or design to commit an act. Motive is the reason that prompts
the act, while malice is the wrongful intention behind it.

In Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, the Supreme Court ruled on the
standard of negligence in determining liability. The Court held that
negligence must be assessed based on what a reasonable person would
have done under the circumstances, and malice or intent is not required to
establish negligence.

II- Case Digest

1. Sula v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 244587, January 10, 2023

Facts:
In this case, Sula filed a petition against the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), contesting the results of a local election in her district. She
claimed that massive electoral fraud, including vote-buying and tampering
with election returns, tainted the results. Sula argued that these irregularities
were so widespread that they affected the overall outcome of the election
and sought to annul the election results. COMELEC, however, dismissed her
petition, prompting her to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
The central issue was whether the alleged electoral fraud was significant
enough to warrant the annulment of the election results.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of COMELEC, ruling that although
Philosophy of Law (Midterm Exam)- FDG_03.31.23 (Cutie Patootieee )
_____________________________________________________________________________________

there were some irregularities in the conduct of the election, they were not
widespread enough to materially affect the overall results. The Court
emphasized that to annul an election, the irregularities must be of such
magnitude that they directly change the result of the vote. In this case, Sula
failed to provide convincing evidence of such fraud.

2. People v. Almayda, G.R. No. 227706, June 14, 2023

Facts:
Almayda was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the
trial court. He appealed his conviction, claiming that his confession to the
crime was coerced by law enforcement officers. Almayda alleged that he was
subjected to physical and psychological intimidation, and thus his confession
should not have been admitted as evidence against him. The prosecution,
however, argued that Almayda's confession was voluntary and that there
was other corroborating evidence that proved his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

Issue:
The main issue in this case was whether Almayda's confession was obtained
under duress and therefore inadmissible as evidence.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Almayda, reversing his conviction. The
Court found that the confession was indeed coerced, and any evidence
obtained under coercion cannot be admissible in court. The Court
emphasized the constitutional right of every individual to be free from
torture or coercion during custodial interrogation. Since the confession was
central to the prosecution's case, its exclusion from the evidence resulted in
the acquittal of Almayda due to insufficient evidence.

3. Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 263590, June 27, 2023

Facts:
Macalintal, a prominent election lawyer, filed a petition questioning the
constitutionality of the automated voting machines used by the COMELEC
during the 2023 national elections. He argued that the machines were
vulnerable to tampering and hacking, which could compromise the integrity
and transparency of the election results. Macalintal also claimed that the
lack of a verifiable paper audit trail violated the people's right to a free, fair,
and transparent election.
Philosophy of Law (Midterm Exam)- FDG_03.31.23 (Cutie Patootieee )
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Issue:
The issue was whether the use of automated voting machines violated
constitutional provisions on the transparency and fairness of elections.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed Macalintal's petition, ruling that the
automated voting machines used by COMELEC complied with constitutional
requirements. The Court noted that COMELEC had adopted sufficient
safeguards to prevent tampering and to ensure transparency. Additionally,
the absence of a paper audit trail did not, by itself, invalidate the election
process, as long as there were other measures in place to protect the
integrity of the results. The Court emphasized that the modernization of the
election process was within COMELEC’s mandate and was essential to ensure
a more efficient and accurate electoral system.

4. Spouses Maliga v. Spouses Tingao, G.R. Nos. 211089 and 211135,

July 11, 2023

Facts:
This case involved a dispute over a piece of land claimed by both the Maliga
and Tingao spouses. Both parties presented conflicting deeds of sale that
purported to transfer ownership of the same parcel of land. The Maliga
spouses claimed that they had acquired the land from its previous owner
before the Tingao spouses, while the Tingao spouses argued that their deed
of sale was the valid one, as it was registered earlier with the Register of
Deeds. The trial court ruled in favor of the Maliga spouses, but the Court of
Appeals reversed the decision, prompting the Maliga spouses to appeal to
the Supreme Court.

Issue:
The key issue was who had the rightful ownership of the disputed land based
on the conflicting deeds of sale.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tingao spouses, holding that they
had the superior right to the land due to the earlier registration of their deed
with the Register of Deeds. The Court reiterated the principle that
registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds gives the buyer protection
under the Torrens system. As the Tingao spouses were the first to register
their deed, their right to the land was superior, even though the Maliga
spouses may have bought the land earlier.
Philosophy of Law (Midterm Exam)- FDG_03.31.23 (Cutie Patootieee )
_____________________________________________________________________________________

5. Valenzona v. People, G.R. No. 248554, August 30, 2023

Facts:
Valenzona, a government employee, was charged with falsifying official
documents related to several government contracts. The prosecution
presented evidence showing that Valenzona had altered certain figures in
the contracts, leading to financial discrepancies. Valenzona denied the
charges, claiming that the discrepancies were the result of clerical errors and
that there was no intent to deceive the government or to personally gain
from the alterations.

Issue:
The issue in this case was whether Valenzona could be held liable for
falsifying public documents, given his defense that the discrepancies were
merely clerical errors.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Valenzona guilty of falsification of public
documents. The Court ruled that the prosecution had presented sufficient
evidence to establish intent to deceive, which is a necessary element in
falsification cases. Valenzona’s defense of clerical error was unconvincing, as
the alterations were substantial and could not be reasonably explained as
mere mistakes. The Court emphasized that falsification of public documents
undermines the integrity of government operations and should be punished
accordingly.

PART III. Schools of Jurisprudence

1. The Historical School

The Historical School of jurisprudence emphasizes that law is not created

in isolation but is a product of the historical development of society. It
considers customs, traditions, and historical experiences as the primary
sources of law. This school believes that legal systems are shaped by the
unique cultural and social norms of a particular community.

2. The Functional or Sociological School

The Functional or Sociological School of jurisprudence views law as a tool

for social engineering. This school sees law not just as a set of rules but as
an instrument for achieving societal goals, addressing social issues, and
ensuring that institutions function effectively. It focuses on the effects and
practical impact of legal decisions on society.
Philosophy of Law (Midterm Exam)- FDG_03.31.23 (Cutie Patootieee )
_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. The Economic Approach

The Economic Approach to jurisprudence posits that law should be

evaluated based on its economic efficiency. It argues that laws should aim to
maximize wealth and minimize costs, viewing legal rules through the lens of
market outcomes and economic incentives.

4. Formalist and Originalist School

The Formalist School believes that law is a closed, logical system where
legal outcomes can be determined by applying set rules without reference to
social or political consequences. Meanwhile, the Originalist School argues
that legal interpretation should be based on the original understanding or
intent of the framers of the law or the Constitution.

5. Practice Theory

Practice Theory focuses on how law is applied in practice and how legal
actors (judges, lawyers, law enforcers) interpret and implement legal rules. It
emphasizes that the meaning of law comes from how it is used in everyday
legal proceedings and interactions.

PART IV. Explanation of Concepts

1. The Law on Persons (Children and Marriage) based on Roman

Law

Roman Law has significantly influenced the modern legal system,

particularly in the areas of family law. Under Roman Law, the paterfamilias
(head of the family) had legal authority over the children and the household.
Marriage was a civil contract with important legal implications, including the
transfer of property and legal rights. Roman Law also addressed issues
related to guardianship, inheritance, and legitimacy of children.

2. Aquinas on Crime and Punishment

St. Thomas Aquinas believed that human law must reflect natural law,
which is based on reason and morality. In his view, crime is an offense
against the moral and natural order. Punishment, according to Aquinas,
should serve the purpose of correcting the wrongdoer, protecting society,
and upholding justice. He supported proportionate punishment that aligns
with the gravity of the offense.

3. Hobbes on Sovereign Immunity

Philosophy of Law (Midterm Exam)- FDG_03.31.23 (Cutie Patootieee )
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work Leviathan, argued that the sovereign
holds absolute power and is immune from any legal challenge by the
subjects. This immunity is necessary to maintain order and prevent anarchy
in society. According to Hobbes, once people enter into a social contract,
they surrender their rights to the sovereign, who cannot be held legally
accountable by the people.

4. The Constitution as a Social Contract

The Social Contract theory posits that individuals consent, either explicitly
or implicitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority
of the state in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The
Constitution represents this social contract between the people and the
government, establishing the framework within which the government
operates and protects the rights of individuals.