Ronnalyn S. Aranda.

BSED IV-SocSci

I. Write a 2 or 3-paragraph essay.  Choose 1 law that we have here in the

Philippines. This law may be in the Philippine constitution or in the civil
code. Evaluate whether or not the law promotes the common good,
whether or not the law is just and not discriminatory and practicable.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article 3, Section 4 of the Bill of

Rights provides, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances”, while Section 8 under the same
Article states that, “The right of the people, including those employed in the public
and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.” The Court likewise ruled that, “[f]reedom of
assembly connotes the right of the people to meet peaceably for consultation and
discussion of matters of public concern. It is entitled to be accorded the utmost
deference and respect. It is not to be limited, much less denied, except on a
showing, as is the case with freedom of expression, of a clear and present danger of
a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. These law gives freedom for
all the people to say and do what they want for their own common good. It gives us
freedom to complain about the misconduct of the government. It gives us freedom
to fight what is right and our right as the people of the nation.
The real question is, to whom it is really applicable? It is said that it is
applicable to all the people in the nation. Both rich and poor, professional and just
ordinary people, women and men or young and old are the scope of this law. But
why do many people suffers from injustice system of our law? Many poor families
are not legally biased. They cannot speak what is the truth because they are
intimidated by the rich people. In today, poor people have no power to express
their freedom. People with government affiliation have the right to law. The
system in our country is rotten. Yes we have these so called freedom but when the
officials are involved we are lost. Sometimes those law maker stole the law from
us.
 For example is the recent issue of the mother and son that shot dead by the
police in Tarlac. The chief of PNP said that they have to investigate more the case
because the video can’t use as the evidence. Many people reacted to this because
the said video is the proof of the cruelty of the police. It seems that they are on the
favor in the family that got shot. It is obvious that some of them are in favor in the
police. It is one proof that the law is not equal to the people. The family of the
victims have no freedom to achieve the justice that they deserve. The police did not
abide the human rights but sit seems that he is protected by other police.

II. In not less than 2 paragraphs, reflect on and explain the axiom “The end
does not justify the means.” Give an example where this moral axiom is
truly applicable.

“The end does not justify the means”, it means that it is not always ends in
what you want but it always depends on the process that you do. Sometimes you
are expecting a good ending but if the process of achieving it is not good it can
possibly have a bad ending. A positive outcome of an action is not justified if the
method used is dishonest or harmful.
For example, I have witnessed a person stealing money in the market. For I
am afraid that the stealer has deadly weapons I did not report it to the owner. I am
afraid that it can harm my life. I was too concerned about myself to be willing to
use the means that could have made the difference in the situation. I should report
it to the owner so that they will catch the robber. My means did not justify the end.
And if ever that they catch the robber, he can’t steal anymore and learned his
lesson. He should have received the punishment that he deserve.