In your own words, but not more than five (5) sentences, explain your understanding of sociological

jurisprudence.

Sociological Jurisprudence is a philosophical approach to law which takes into consideration the effects
of legal institutions, doctrines and other legal practices to the society at large. It involves the examination
of the actual effects of the law within the society, as well as the influence of social phenomena on the
substantive and procedural aspects of law.

If the case of KMP v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169838, 25 April 2006), the Supreme Court sustained the
constitutionality of B.P. 880. Based on your understanding of the existing political climate, what
were the social factors and potential legal consequences that persuaded the Supreme Court in
ruling in favor of the constitutionality of BP880.

In KMP vs. Ermita, the political climate at that time was no less than turbulent as the trust of people to the
sitting president was already questionable. This is evidenced in the statement of the Executive Secretary
Ermita, to wit; “In view of intelligence reports pointing to credible plans of anti-government groups to
inflame the political situation, sow disorder and incite people against the duly constituted authorities
xxx”. With this, it is clear that there was already a sense of political unrest which the government is trying
to address. Social factors during that time include the rising unemployment rate and poor performance of
the economy, among others. The potential legal consequences in this case which led the SC to decide in
favor of the constitutionality of BP 880 was the possibility of leniency as to the conduct of mass
gatherings in future legislation. This, coupled with the fact that the people’s trust with the president is no
longer strong, may cause abuse by the people of the conduct of mass gathering and if left unchecked may
eventually lead to anarchy.

In KMU v. Lomibao, the petitioners were concerned against the right to privacy and vehemently
opposed EO420, providing for a unified identification system. In your opinion, and considering
then existing political climate, what could have been the underlying reason for opposing a unified
ID system.

Considering the existing political climate during that time, the underlying reason for opposing a unified
ID system is probably the fear of those people involved in staging rallies and demonstrations that the
persons in authority may use their personal information which are consolidated in the unified ID system
to their detriment. The petitioners may have reasonably assumed that in case the police abuse its authority
in dealing against them, they might use the personal and otherwise private information of the petitioners
contained in the proposed unified ID with ease since it already encompasses their information from
various government agencies. However, as held in the case, the petitioners’ assertion as to the
infringement of the right to privacy is clearly unfounded.