You are on page 1of 9

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW REVIEWER Hence, these inclinations are put into human nature by

God to help man achieve his final end of eternal


QUESTION 6: Lets talk about Aquinas. Why is he happiness.
so important? How does he define natural law and
where does he put in the big picture? The Human Law

3 Considerations of St. Thomas on Question 6: Human reason needs to proceed to the more particular
determination of certain matters.
From St. Augustine, who insisted that Theological-
Christian considerations not only permeate the whole Particular Determinations devised from Human
of law and legal theory, but in fact constitute the only Reasons = Human Law (Provided the other essential
sound foundation of true theory, but in fact constitute conditions of law be observed)
the only sound foundation of true law and true
jurisprudence. Other essential conditions of law = St. Thomas
definition of law, Law is an ordinance of reason for the
1. St. Thomas understood and affirmed the common good, made by him who has care of the
order in the universe. community, and promulgated
2. The world is not a product of chance.
3. It was created by loving God whose existence Human Law derived from Eternal Law.
and attributes we can demonstrate and who
has ordered his creation in accord with his The Divine Law
design. Divine Law = the natural law can be known by reason
without the aid of explicit supernatural revelation.
Law An ordinance of reason for the common good
made by him who has care of the community and 4 Reasons to have a Divine Law
promulgated. 1. Man is ordained to an end of eternal
happiness, therefore man should be directed
4 Kinds of Law, accdg to St. Thomas: to his end by a law given by God.
2. Man may know without any doubt what he
1. Eternal Law ought to do and what he ought to avoid, it was
2. The natural Law necessary for man to be directed in his proper
3. Human Law acts by a law given by God, for it is certain that
4. Divine Law such law cannot err.
3. Man is not competent to judge of interior
The Eternal Law movements, that are hidden, but only of
exterior acts necessary for man to conduct
The whole community of the universe is governed by himself aright in both kinds of acts.
Divine Reason. Wherefore the very idea of the 4. Human Law cannot punish or forbid all evil
government of things in God, the Ruler of the universe, deeds: Therefore, Divine law must
has the nature of a law. supervene, whereby all sins are forbidden.

The Divine Reasons conception of things = QUESTION 7: Is the natural law the same for
ETERNAL LAW everybody? Does everybody know what it
requires? Can it be changed?
The Natural Law
General Principles Truth or rectitude is the same for
MAN IS A RATIONAL CREATURE. (But not always all and is equally known by all.
haha jk, okay lang maging tanga minsan.)
Speculative Reason the truth is the same for all, but
A rule of reason, promulgated by God in mans nature, it is not equally known to all.
whereby man can DISCERN how he should act.
Proper Conclusions of the Practical Reason neither
Basic Inclinations of Man: is the truth or rectitude the same for all, nor, where it is
1. To seek good, including his highest good, the same, is it equally known by all. Thus it is right and
which is eternal happiness with God. true for all to act.
2. To preserve himself in existence.
3. To preserve the species that is, to unite Therefore, the natural law, as to general principles, is
sexually. the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to
4. To live in the community with other men. knowledge.
5. To use his intellect and will that is, to know
the truth and to make his own decisions.
Natural Moral Law
What is naturally and usually right, just as natural Hence, it involves the life of all. It demands prudence
physical law tells us how nature usually behaves but on the part of each one, and especially from those who
there are some exceptions: for example, do not give a exercise authority.
murderer his gun back
Essential Elements of Common Good
COMMON SENSE 1. Respect for the person.
A person can so dull his conscience with repeated sin 2. Social well-being and the progress of the
that he will no longer acknowledge that what he is group as a while.
doing is wrong. 3. Requires peace, the lasting security of a just
order.
THE NATURAL LAW CANNOT BE CHANGED IN ITS
ESSENTIALS. Common Good as St. Thomas Basis of Justification of
The natural law is changeless in the sense that its Capital Punishment (Basis din ni Sen. Manny Pacquaio
precepts cannot be upset or destroyed. It can change whaha joke)
by extension, by new applications, as experience
brings new situations and circumstances. Life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the
common good which is the concord of human society.
Such change is not natural law itself; it is extrinsic to Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from
the natural law. the society of men. (St. Thomas, approved the concept
of death penalty bwahahaha, patayen ka ni digong, no
QUESTION 8: How does the law enacted by the to drugs!)
state the human law relate to the natural law?
However, the execution of the wicked is forbidden is
Human law is an integral part of Gods plan, is wherever it cannot be done without danger to the good.
designed to promote the common good and help man
attain his highest end of happiness with God. If a man be dangerous and infectious to the
community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy
Why we need human law? and advantageous that he be killed in order to
Man has a natural aptitude for virtue; but the perfection safeguard the common good, since a little leaven
of virtue must be acquired by man by means of some corrupteth the whole lump (1 Cor. V. 6)
kind of training.
QUESTION 10: What about animals? Dont they
2 Functions of Human Law have rights?

1. Constructive natural law provides a guide The assertion of animal rights involves a rejection of
for the formulation of laws to promote the the reality that man essentially differs from the lower
common good. It includes the limitation that animals in that he has a spiritual and immortal soul.
the human law should not attempt to prohibit
every vice or enforce of every nature. It reflects also a loss of faith in the order of creation by
2. Protective Function provides a shield which God gave man domination over the lower
against laws that violate the natural law. This creatures.
role involves criticism of the human law. Its
primary effect is to protect the rights of the Singer maintains that we can longer base our ethics
people. on the idea that human beings a special form of
creation, made in the image of God, singled out from
QUESTION 9: What is the common good that the all other animals and alone possessing an immortal
human law is supposed to promote? Shouldnt the soul.
focus be on individuals and their rights?
Singer treats ethics as entirely independent of religion
Law is not merely whatever legislative product results
from the contentions of rival individuals and interests, Man, however, has a duty to God to make a right use
rather, there is a common good that is more than of animals without being cruel or inflicting needless
merely the total of individual goods. pain.

Laws are enacted for no private profit, but for the Conclusion (STEAK IS LIFE)
common benefit of the citizens (St. Isidore of Seville) It is lawful for man to kill animals. According to St.
Thomas, the order of things is such that the imperfect
Common Good the sum of those conditions of social are for the perfect Wherefore, it is not unlawful if man
life which allow social groups and their individual use plants for the good of animals and animals for the
members relatively thorough and ready access to their good of man.
own fulfillment.
**Animal-rights activits ignore the fact tha man is the ** If a human law deflects from the law of nature, it is
only creature on earth whom God has wished for unjust and is no longer a law but a perversion of law.
himself.
Two Ways that Law May be Unjust:
HOWEVER, those who reject any restraint on the use
of animals can do so only by rejecting their own 1. Being Contrary to human good, either in
accountability to God for their use of creation. respect of the end, as when an authority
imposes on his subjects burdensome laws,
Environment Philosophy of St. Thomas conducive not to the common good but rather
The virtue restraints overuse and forbids excessive to his own cupidity or vainglory.
interference with the environment, but does not require 2. Laws may be unjust through being opposed
the notion of rights of nonhuman creatures or of claims to the Divine Good; such are the laws of
owned by them. tyrants inducing to idolatry or anything else
contrary to the Divine Law.
QUESTION 11: Did Aquinas have an opinion as to
which form of government is best? Was he a INCOME TAX, contrary to Human Good?
conservative or a liberal? Yes, according to the author, income tax, which is
riddled with arbitrary and even oppressive features in
St. Thomas, favored MONARCHY, because the rule its substance and procedures. Yet the injustice of the
of one man is more useful than the rule of many for income tax does not provide a justification for refusing
achieving the unity of peace. (DEINS ST. THOMAS, to pay it because an unacceptable disruptions of the
*sad reacts only) common good would result from the affirmation of such
a right.
However, monarchy is only for the just but when it is
unjust, it is the WOOOOOORST. (Sabi niya: Just as St. Thomas notes that law does not have to be followed
the government of a king is the best, the government when noncompliance is required by the common good.
of a tyrant is the worst lowkey shade for Pres.
Marcos) If a case arises wherein the observance of that law
would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be
So ano yung solution dito? Sabi ni St. Thomas, the observed.
powers of the King should be limited. Also known as
CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. Principle of Necessity or Justification
Rightful action under necessity does not even involve
Constitutional Monarchy once the king is a violation of law. Rather the law itself implicitly
established, the government of the kingdom must be authorizes such action. (Think of Article 11 of the RPC
so arranged that opportunity to tyrannize be removed. Justifying Circumstance)
At the same time his power should be so tempered that
he cannot easily fall into tyranny QUESTION 13: Wait a minute. If people who follow
Aquinas are so sure they are right as to the
St. Thomas as Conservative meaning of natural law, wont they compel
In a nonpolitical sense, he was a conservative that he everyone to follow their rules? Wont they use the
was cautious about the role of the enacted law. For law to make people be good?
example, he believed that custom could have the force
of law. Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the
virtue. Openness and the relativism that makes it the
However, the natural and divine laws proceed from the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to
Divine will. Wherefore they cannot be changed by a truth and various ways of life and kinds of human
custom proceeding from the will of man, but only by beings is the great insight of our times.
divine authority. Hence, it is that no custom can prevail
over the Divine or Natural Law. Philosophical Relativism (Accdg, to Hans Kelsen)
Advocates the empirical doctrine that reality exists only
QUESTION 12: Am I bound in conscience to obey within human knowledge and that as the object of
the human law? What if that law is unjust/ knowledge, reality is relative to the knowing subject.

Man is bound to obey secular princes in so far as Philosophical Absolutism (Note: Kelsen rejected this
this is required by the order of justice. Wherefore if the view)
princes authority is not just but usurped, or if he The metaphysical view that there is an absolute reality,
commands what is unjust, his subjects are not bound example, a reality that exists independently of human
to obey him, except perhaps accidentally in order to knowledge.
avoid scandal or danger.
Kelsen believed that philosophical absolutism leads to
political absolutism, while philosophical relativism
leads to political relativism that is democracy. (For It is better that all things be regulated by law than left
short, against siya sa democracy haha) decided by judges

*** Tolerance, minority rights, freedom of speech and 1. Easier to find a few wise men to frame laws
freedom of thought, characteristics of democracy, than judges to decide on cases.
HAVE NO PLACE WITHIN A POLITICAL SYSTEM 2. Lawmakers consider common good and not
based on the belief in the absolute values. case to case basis.
3. Lawgivers judge in the abstract and future
However, Kelsen misread Aquinas. St. Thomas events as compared to judges who may be
rejected absolutist government and cautioned that the affected by other things in cases judgment
law should not try to prescribe every virtue or forbid is perverted.
every vice.
When the rule is clear of doubt, judge must find law &
The purpose of the human law is to promote the apply, not interpret.
common good and that law should lead men to virtue,
not suddenly but gradually. Otherwise, the law
enforceable and the law itself would be despised and QUESTION 16: Natural Law as Part of Constitution
greater evils would result.
Even if state punishes should treat citizens as human
QUESTION 14: Look. Isnt the bottom line the fact beings.
that the law should now legislate morality? Where
do you get the right to impose your morality on Interpretation may vary, may or may not be according
me? to natural law.

All human law enforces a morality. QUESTION 17: Natural law use to declare statute
Unconstitutional.
Hence, the real question is:
Highest duty of Supreme Court is to protect
Whether or not which morality it will and should constitutional structure.
enforce?
Human law cannot attempt to cover the entire field of Consti is the highest human law; it must be subject to
virtue and vice. Human Laws is framed for the common a higher law.
good of all the citizens. It operates through: (1)
command; (2) permission; and (3) punishment. Seldom could judges impose their own morality.

Despite the importance of virtue in the citizen, the role Ultimate Supreme Law = Law of God / Natural Law
of the human law in enforcing virtue is limited.
Matters of fortitude may be achieved either for the All forms of human law are subject to higher law of
safety of the state or for upholding the rights of a friend God.
and in like manner with the other law.
Precepts of Natural Law
But law is ordained to the common good. Wherefore 1. Maintains and Promote bodily life
there is no virtue whose acts cannot be prescribed by 2. Maintains and promote social coexistence
the law. 3. Lawful authority is to be obeyed.
4. Do not do unto others what you do not want
Human law does not forbid all vicious acts, by the done to you.
obligation of a precept as neither does it prescribe all 5. Leave and give everyone what is due.
acts of virtue. But it forbids certain acts of each vice, 6. Contracts must be honored.
just as it prescribe some acts. 7. Duties and State of life.

QUESTION 15: Job of a Judge? Properties of Human Law


1. Enforceable
To construe constitution according to the intent of the 2. Concerned with external conducts only.
testator, contracting parties, legislature and/or 3. Human law is limited to particular groups of
origination. people.
4. Human law is historically conditioned.
Interpretivists 5. Human Law has a presumptive obligatory
Interpret by judges according to intent, spirit of the law, force.
core principles and squeeze the meaning out of the
text.
upon the States interest in promoting the health of the
mother.
CASES
For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may
Roe v. Wade regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where
Facts. Texas statutes made it a crime to procure or necessary for the preservation of the mothers life,
attempt an abortion except when medically advised for based upon the States interest in the potential of the
the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Appellant potential life of the unborn child.
Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the
statutes were unconstitutional on their face and an Discussion. The Court finds that an abortion statute
injunction to prevent defendant Dallas County District that forbids all abortions except in the case of a
Attorney from enforcing the statutes. Appellant alleged lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother is
that she was unmarried and pregnant, and that she unconstitutional based upon the right to privacy.
was unable to receive a legal abortion by a licensed However, it does allow for regulation and proscription
physician because her life was not threatened by the of abortion when the statute is narrowly tailored to
continuation of her pregnancy and that she was unable uphold a compelling state interest, such as the health
to afford to travel to another jurisdiction to obtain a legal of the mother or the viable fetus. The court declined to
abortion. Appellant sued on behalf of herself and all address the question of when life begins.
other women similarly situated, claiming that the
statutes were unconstitutionally vague and abridged ESTRADA V ESCRITOR
her right of personal privacy, protected by the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. FACTS. Escritor, a memberofthe Jehovahs
Witness, waschargedfor immoral conduct for co
Held. The right to personal privacy includes the habiting withamanwithout the benefit of a
abortion decision, but the right is not unqualified and marriage,their relationship bearinga child. She
must be considered against important state interests in secureda Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness,
regulation.
indicatingtheir churchs approval oftheirunionin
The abortion laws in effect in the majority of the States accordancewith thebeliefsofthe Jehovahs
are of relatively recent vintage, deriving from statutory Witness.
changes generally enacted in the latter half of the 19th
century. At common law abortion performed before HELD. The State could not penalize respondent for
quickening (the first recognizable movement of the she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. The
fetus in utero) was not an indictable offense, and it is free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as
doubtful that abortion was ever a firmly established one of the fundamental rights in our Constitution. As
common law crime even when it destroyed a quick Jefferson put it, it is the most inalienable and sacred of
fetus. human rights. The States interest in enforcing its
prohibition cannot be merely abstract or symbolic in
Three reasons have been advanced for the historical order to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh a free
enactment of criminal abortion laws. The first is that the exercise claim. In the case at bar, the State has not
laws are the product of a Victorian social concern to evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the
discourage illicit sexual conduct, but this argument has concubinage or bigamy charges against respondent or
been taken seriously by neither courts nor her partner. Thus the States interest only amounts to
commentators. The second reason is that the abortion the symbolic preservation of an unenforced prohibition.
procedure is hazardous, therefore the States concern
is to protect pregnant women. However, modern Furthermore, a distinction between public and secular
medical techniques have altered the situation, with morality and religious morality should be kept in mind.
abortions being relatively safe particularly in the first The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and
trimester. The third reason is the States interest is in secular morality.
protecting the prenatal life. However, this is somewhat
negated by the fact that the pregnant woman cannot The Court further states that our Constitution adheres
be prosecuted for the act of abortion. the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises as required by
For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent neutrality
trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the could allow for accommodation of morality based on
medical judgment of the pregnant womans attending religion, provided it does not offend compelling state
physician, and may not be criminalized by statute. interests. Assuming arguendo that the OSG has
proved a compelling state interest, it has to further
For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of demonstrate that the state has used the least intrusive
the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in means possible so that the free exercise is not
ways reasonably related to maternal health based infringed any more than necessary to achieve the
legitimate goal of the state. Thus the conjugal
arrangement cannot be penalized for it constitutes an the scope of his assigned task or that it exercised the
exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
religion. damage are no longer available to the registered
owner of the motor vehicle, because the motor vehicle
MENDOZA AND LIM V SPS GOMEZ registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article
2180.
FACTS. As a result of a vehicular collision resulting
from the drivers negligence, respondents suffered (Basically, as long as youre the registered owner of the
physical injuries and the Isuzu truck sustained vehicle, you along with the driver are liable.)
extensive damages. Hence, this case for damages.
Respondents argued that although the registered LEUS V ST. SCHOLASTICAS COLLEGE
owner of the bus was Lim, the actual owner of the bus
was Cirilo Enriquez (Enriquez), who had the bus 1) Public and secular morality should determine the
attached with Mayamy Transportation Company prevailing norms of conduct, not religious morality.
(Mayamy Transport) under the so-called "kabit
system." Respondents then impleaded both Lim and The morality referred to in the law is public and
Enriquez. necessarily secular, not religious x x x. Religious
teachings as expressed in public debate may influence
HELD. The registered owner is deemed the employer the civil public order but public moral disputes may be
of the negligent driver, and is thus vicariously liable resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms.
under Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs
Civil Code. The registered owner of the motor vehicle in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting
is the employer of the negligent driver, and the actual policies and morals would require conformity to what
employer is considered merely as an agent of such some might regard as religious programs or agenda.
owner. Thus, whether there is an employer-employee The non-believers would therefore be compelled to
relationship between the registered owner and the conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a
driver is irrelevant in determining the liability of the religious belief, i.e., to a compelled religion,
registered owner who the law holds primarily and anathema to religious freedom. Likewise, if
directly responsible for any accident, injury or death government based its actions upon religious beliefs, it
caused by the operation of the vehicle in the streets would tacitly approve or endorse that belief and
and highways thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious or
non-religious views that would not support the policy.
As such, there can be no other conclusion but to hold As a result, government will not provide full religious
Lim vicariously liable with Mendoza. freedom for all its citizens, or even make it appear that
those whose beliefs are disapproved are second-class
This does not mean, however, that Lim is left without citizens. Expansive religious freedom therefore
any recourse against Enriquez and Mendoza. Under requires that government be neutral in matters of
the civil law principle of unjust enrichment, the religion; governmental reliance upon religious
registered owner of the motor vehicle has a right to be justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.
indemnified by the actual employer of the driver; and
under Article 2181 of the Civil Code, whoever pays for In other words, government action, including its
the damage caused by his dependents or employees proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law
may recover from the latter what he has paid or like concubinage, must have a secular purpose. That
delivered in satisfaction of the claim. is, the government proscribes this conduct because it
[Supplementary Notes:] is detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon
Generally, when an injury is caused by the negligence which depend the existence and progress of human
of a servant or employee, there instantly arises a society and not because the conduct is proscribed by
presumption of law that there was negligence on the the beliefs of one religion or the other. Although
part of the master or employer either in the selection of admittedly, moral judgments based on religion might
the servant or employee (culpa in eligiendo) or in the have a compelling influence on those engaged in
supervision over him after the selection (culpa public deliberations over what actions would be
vigilando), or both. considered a moral disapprobation punishable by law.
The presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure; After all, they might also be adherents of a religion and
consequently, it may be rebutted. Accordingly, the thus have religious opinions and moral codes with a
general rule is that if the employer shows to the compelling influence on them; the human mind
satisfaction of the court that in the selection and endeavors to regulate the temporal and spiritual
supervision of his employee he has exercised the care institutions of society in a uniform manner, harmonizing
and diligence of a good father of a family, the earth with heaven. Succinctly put, a law could be
presumption is overcome and he is relieved of liability. religious or Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its
However, with the enactment of the motor vehicle deepest roots, but it must have an articulable and
registration law, the defenses available under Article discernible secular purpose and justification to pass
2180 of the Civil Code - that the employee acts beyond scrutiny of the religion clauses. x x x.
(2) The petitioners pregnancy out of wedlock is not a
disgraceful or immoral conduct since she and the
father of her child have no impediment to marry each
other.

In stark contrast to Santos, the Court does not find any


circumstance in this case which would lead the Court
to conclude that the petitioner committed a disgraceful
or immoral conduct. It bears stressing that the
petitioner and her boyfriend, at the time they conceived
a child, had no legal impediment to marry. Indeed,
even prior to her dismissal, the petitioner married her
boyfriend, the father of her child. As the Court held in
Radam, there is no law which penalizes an unmarried
mother by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes
the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried
persons; that neither does such situation contravene
any fundamental state policy enshrined in the
Constitution.

Admittedly, the petitioner is employed in an educational


institution where the teachings and doctrines of the
Catholic Church, including that on pre-marital sexual
relations, is strictly upheld and taught to the students.
That her indiscretion, which resulted in her pregnancy
out of wedlock, is anathema to the doctrines of the
Catholic Church. However, viewed against the
prevailing norms of conduct, the petitioners conduct
cannot be considered as disgraceful or immoral; such
conduct is not denounced by public and secular
morality. It may be an unusual arrangement, but it
certainly is not disgraceful or immoral within the
contemplation of the law.

To stress, pre-marital sexual relations between two


consenting adults who have no impediment to marry
each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out
of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular
view of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or
immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992
MRPS.

Accordingly, the labor tribunals erred in upholding the


validity of the petitioners dismissal. The labor tribunals
arbitrarily relied solely on the circumstances
surrounding the petitioners pregnancy and its
supposed effect on SSCW and its students without
evaluating whether the petitioners conduct is indeed
considered disgraceful or immoral in view of the
prevailing norms of conduct. In this regard, the labor
tribunals respective haphazard evaluation of the
evidence amounts to grave abuse of discretion, which
the Court will rectify.

The labor tribunals finding that the petitioners


pregnancy out of wedlock despite the absence of
substantial evidence is not only arbitrary, but a grave
abuse of discretion, which should have been set right
by the CA.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS be determined by two functions with respect to human
(DISCLAIMER: Not 100% sure with the answers law; constructive and protective functions.
especially numbers 7 and 8 dont just rely with
my answers AND please notify me nalang if may Construction provides a guide for the formulation of
corrections) laws to promote the common good.

1. What is the basis or consideration of St. Thomas Protective provides a shield against laws that violate
on Question 6 on the philosophy of Law? the natural law.

From St. Augustine, who insisted that Theological- 3, What is the first thing a judge must do to
Christian considerations not only permeate the whole interpret constitution?
of law and legal theory, but in fact constitute the only
sound foundation of true theory, but in fact constitute In the interpretation of any legal document, whether a
the only sound foundation of true law and true will, contract, statute or Constitution, the object should
jurisprudence. be construed, according to the intent of its framers.
That is, to follow its original intent or to discern it.
a) St. Thomas understood and affirmed the
order in the universe. And where its words are clear and plain and theres no
b) The world is not a product of chance. need for interpretation, the first rule is to construe
c) It was created by loving God whose existence according to the sense of its terms and the intention of
and attributes we can demonstrate and who the parties.
has ordered his creation in accord with his
design.
4. What is an ex-post facto law?

2. What is the ultimate purpose of humans? An act committed was not a crime, cannot be made so
by statute without violating the constitutional inhibition
Suggested Answer: as to ex post facto laws. An ex post facto law is one
a) To seek good, including his highest good, which:
which is eternal happiness with God. a) Makes criminal an act done before the
b) To preserve himself in existence. passage of the law and which was innocent
c) To preserve the species that is, to unite when was done;
sexually. b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than
d) To live in the community with other men. it was, when committed;
e) To use his intellect and will that is, to know c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
the truth and to make his own decisions. punishment than the law required at the time
of the commission of the offense.
3. (a) Is it part of the natural law to punish? (b) What d) Alters the legal rules of evidence and
punishment should be imposed? authorizes conviction upon a less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of
Suggested Answer: the commission of the offense;
a. Yes, man has a natural aptitude for virtue; but the e) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
perfection of virtue must be acquired by man by means only, in effect imposing a penalty or
of some kind of training. It is necessary for such to be deprivation of a right for something which
restrained from evil by force and fear, in order that, they when done was lawful; and
might desist from evil-doing and leave others in peace f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of
and that themselves by being habituated in this way, some lawful protection to which he has
might be brought to do willingly what they did from fear, become entitled such as the protection of a
and thus become virtuous. former conviction or acquittal or a
proclamation of amnesty.
Therefore, in order that man might have peace and
virtue, it was necessary for laws to punish. 5. Birth control and abortion, is it in accordance
with Natural Law? (Roe v Wade)
Because human law is derived from natural law
hence, that one must not kill may be derived as a Suggested Answer
conclusion from the basic principle that one should do It depends. According to Roe v Wade, the Court finds
harm to no man. that an abortion statute that forbids all abortions except
in the case of a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the
b. The law of nature has it that the evil doer should be mother is unconstitutional. However, it does allow for
punished, but the human law decrees whether the regulation and proscription of abortion when the statute
punishment should be in this or that way by fine, is narrowly tailored to uphold a compelling state
imprisonment or other penalty. Hence, punishment can interest, such as the health of the mother or the viable
fetus. The court declined to address the question of question of how we ought to live necessarily considers
when life begins. that man does not live in isolation, but in society. That.
Devlin posits that a society is held together by a
6. Death penalty, does it violate Natural Law? community of ideas, made up not only of political ideas
but also of ideas about the manner its members should
Suggested Answer behave and govern their lives. The latter are their
It depends. According to St. Thomas, Common Good morals; they constitute the public morality. Each
can be basis of justification of Capital Punishment member of society has ideas about what is good and
what is evil. If people try to create a society wherein
Life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the there is no fundamental agreement about good and
common good which is the concord of human society. evil, they will fail; if having established the society on
Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from common agreement, the agreement collapses, the
the society of men. society will disintegrate.

However, the execution of the wicked is forbidden is


wherever it cannot be done without danger to the good.

If a man be dangerous and infectious to the


community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy
and advantageous that he be killed in order to
safeguard the common good, since a little leaven
corrupteth the whole lump (1 Cor. V. 6)

7. Two theories of Natural Law.

Suggested Answer
a) Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is
to be avoided.
b) That men are rational beings.

8. Lawful authority of parents to discipline their


children, should they be obeyed?

Suggested Answer
It depends. According to St. Thomas, Human law is an
integral part of Gods plan, is designed to promote the
common good and help man attain his highest end of
happiness with God. Hence, law is not merely
whatever legislative product results from the
contentions of rival individuals and interests, rather,
there is a common good that is more than merely the
total of individual goods.

The function and authority of the human law and state


are limited. The state is part of Gods plan, which is
oriented toward the salvation of human persons. It is
fair to say that the ultimate purpose of the state is not
the good or seeming good of body politic but that of the
individual members that compose it.

(Note: May naalala lang ako na the State cannot make


a law authorizing or mangialam on how the parents
discipline their chilren, because it is inherent to the
parents to discipline their children and parang
obligation na nila yun Family Code yata or naalala ko
lang to sa lecture ni atty. Sta Maria. Unless yung pag
discipline nila is contrary to law)

9. What is morality according to Justice Puno.


In the case of Estrada v Escitor, Justice Puno said the
morality refers to how we ought to live and why. The