Aronne Dominic C. Jiz Atty.

Cristina Montes

JD1 Philosophy of

Law

Final Integration Paper

Upon first glance, there does not seem to be a connection between philosophy and law

since the former seems to focus mainly on abstract ideas such as rationality and the nature of

man whereas the latter focuses on written enactments that restrict or allow certain acts of man.

However, when one looks closer at the two, one begins to see a connection between the ideas in

philosophy and the different laws. Thus, this paper seeks to prove and defend the thesis

statement that “philosophy helps in understanding why and how the law regulates the actions of

society.

The three main terms in my thesis statement are philosophy, law, and society. Philosophy

is the study about knowledge, truth, man, and the nature and meaning of life. On the other hand,

law consists of provisions which regulate the conduct of society. Society, here, is an organized

community of men and women. Apart from these three main terms, which form a three-premise

syllogism, I will also introduce a middle term, which connects the three main terms. The middle

term I am introducing is “man”, which is defined as a rational animal who possesses an intellect

and a will. Man connects the three terms because he is studied by philosophy, his actions are

regulated by law, and he forms part of the society.

One argument in favor of my thesis statement is based on the idea of a human act. A

human act is a chosen, willed action that is voluntary, intentional, based on practical reason and

characterized by freedom. A human act also involves a goal and the determination of how the
goal may be achieved. However, the goal that is involved may be contrary to the common good

and there is a need to prevent acts aimed at such goals. Thus, philosophy how law ensures that

the voluntary and intentional actions of the men and women in society are directed towards an

end that is not contrary to the common good.

Furthermore, philosophy also reveals that the law punishes the men and women in society

for evil acts because, under the principle of intentionality, the evil intent that the person had

defines their acts. Under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the lack of intent may be a

reason for one to be exempt from criminal liability or the penalty for his act is lessened.

Examples of this are the exempting circumstance of accident where “person who, while

performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or

intention of causing” (RPC, Art. 12 [4]) and when a person, while committing a felony, “had no

intention of committing so grave a wrong as that committed” (RPC, Art. 13 [3]).

Related to the idea of intentionality is the idea of freedom. Freedom is the capacity of a

human person to act and there are two types of the power of freedom, the freedom to choose and

the freedom to act or not to act. The connection between the idea of freedom and the law can be

understood through most of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, where the offender uses

his freedom to commit a felony. Alternatively, the aforementioned connection can also be

realized in the instances where the law acknowledges that a person who does not have the

freedom needed to do a voluntary act cannot be held liable for such acts. This can be seen in

Article 12 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Revised Penal Code. Paragraph 5 exempts a person “who

acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force” while paragraph 6 exempts a person “who acts

under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury”.

 A person’s liability for felonies he freely committed can also be explained through the

ideas of moral responsibility and self-referentiality. Moral responsibility is the imputable quality

of an action done with freedom when such action can be attributed as meritorious or as a moral

fault while self-referentiality is the consequence of freedom where whatever we choose has a

consequence on us. Thus, these ideas reveal that Laws punish evil acts because such acts have an

imputable quality and, as such, have a consequence on us.

Another idea in philosophy that helps in understanding the reason behind the law is the

idea of practical and speculative reason. Practical reason is the reasoning that cognitively directs

intentional action and this deals with the doing of an action. On the other hand, speculative

reason is oriented towards the apprehension of what exists and deals with the knowing of

something. As a rational being, man is able to use his reason. However, not everyone is able to

exercise the same level of reasoning due to his or her circumstances. This disparity in each

person’s reasoning capability is recognized by law, such as the Revised Penal Code and the

Juvenile Justice Act which contain provisions that exempt a person from criminal liability

because he does not possess full reasoning capabilities. The Revised Penal Code exempts an

imbecile or insane person from criminal liability, unless the insane person acted during a lucid

interval, while the Juvenile Justice Act exempts a child fifteen years old or below from criminal

liability without any conditions and it conditionally exempts a child above fifteen but below

eighteen unless he has acted with discernment. Thus, philosophy shows why the law exempts

such people from criminal liability.

The idea of practical and speculative reason also helps in understanding the provision in

the Revised Penal Code regarding an imbecile or insane person. This provision states that when

an imbecile or insane person commits a felony, will be confined in “one of the hospitals or
asylums established for persons thus afflicted” and that he “shall not be permitted to leave

without first obtaining the permission of the same court” (RPC, Art. 12 [1]). This provision

ensures that a person who undergoes rehabilitation for his inability to exercise right reason and

that he must be able to do so in order for him to be free. Thus, in this case, philosophy shows

how law helps men and women in society exercise right reason so that his speculative reason

does not apprehend an evil act as good and his practical reason does not direct him to commit the

evil act.

The ideas of moral responsibility and self-referentiality also help in understanding the

reason why law punishes certain acts. As previously stated, man possesses freedom, which is his

capacity to act and consists of the freedom to choose and the freedom to act or not to act. Both

moral responsibility and self-referentiality explain the consequences of man’s exercise of his

freedom. Moral responsibility means that an action done with freedom can be attributed to the

person who acted while self-referentiality means that whatever we choose has a consequence on

us. Thus, these ideas show that the law punishes us for our free actions because our free actions

can be attributed to us and they have a consequence on us.

All these ideas of philosophy are connected not only to law, as shown in the cases I

discussed, but also to each because they can form part of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is

the part of philosophy that studies the moral life of man, that is, his free behavior from a total

perspective with the purpose of understanding its deeper and universal aspects. It is from this

total perspective, which moral philosophy enables law to take, that the law is able to take into

consideration the different aspects on society and their effect on the men and women who are

part of that society. Once the law takes these into consideration, then it can be applied fairly.

This can be seen in how the Revised Penal Code takes into consideration the different
circumstances of the offender before a judgement is made. As a result of that, there are justifying

and exempting circumstances which free a person from criminal liability and there are

aggravating and mitigating circumstances which may increase or decrease the harshness of the

punishment that will be enforced against the offender.

In relation to the arguments I have presented in support of the thesis statement, there are

three possible counter-arguments. One counter-argument is that: “Even though there are laws

that prohibit evil acts, some people still commit these acts. That’s why crimes exist”. This is

primarily due to two reasons: freedom and an underdeveloped practical and speculative reason.

Man has the capacity to choose to do an evil act because he has freedom and his choice to

commit such an act is due to his speculative reason incorrectly apprehending an evil act as

something good. Due to man’s freedom, there are laws which attempt to guide their acts and

there are laws that punish man when he strays from the path laid down by the law and provide

for the rehabilitation of the person so that they don’t do these acts again.

Another counter argument is that: Even though the laws are reasonable, by virtue of the

fact that they were made by people who possessed right reason, people still try to go around

them. This behavior can be explained by the idea that human beings tend to avoid things that

give them pain or cause difficulties. This involves the speculative reason apprehending a

reasonable law as being an evil to be avoided because it would cause the person to experience

difficulties. Public authorities allow these people to go around the laws through the practice of

tolerance. However, the practice of tolerance is limited as it must be the allowance of a legal and

moral right. So, the manner in which people go around the law must not only be allowed under

the law, but it must also be allowed by morality. Furthermore, the principle of epikeia provides
that a law may be broken if it is done to achieve a greater good. The application of this principle

is valid when the breaking of a law is to reach the purpose and meaning of the law being broken.

One more counter argument could be that: if freedom has to do with me making a choice

or doing an act and if it’s because of these that my acts can be attributed to me and have a

consequence to me, then it stands to reason that if I did not personally do the crime but I asked

another person to do the crime for me, then I am not morally-responsible for the crime. This

argument, however, does not hold water. Moral responsibility and self-referentiality does not

only apply to acts which one does directly but also to acts which are done indirectly. So, even a

person who asked someone to commit an unlawful act would still face the consequences of there

actions. In a chain of connected acts, where one act leads to another and where each act is done

by different persons, every person is moral responsible not only for the act that he personally did

but also the acts that came after the act he did. The reason for this is that the succeeding acts

would not have happened if the first act had never happened. Thus, a person who suggested that

another person commit a certain act is also liable for the act that the other person committed.

The Revised Penal Code provides penalties for conspiracy and proposal as well as for

principals, accomplices and accessories. Here, there are different people who do different things

and are liable for them. In the case of a person who asked another to commit a felony, the RPC

assigns that person as a principal by inducement because it was through his act of asking that the

other person committed the felony. Furthermore, there is the legal maxim “he who is the cause of

the cause is the cause of the evil caused”. This maxim talks about the proximate cause of an act

and the cause that sets into motion other causes. The law holds this person criminally liable for

all the consequences of his act. Thus, it can be seen here that moral responsibility and self-

referentiality still apply to a person who did not directly commit a felony.
(wrap up arguments and conclusion)