Coralde, Raul Jr.

Sallador, Louie John S.

G02

Philosophy of Law Final Paper

This paper will define and know the origin two legal terms in law which is
Supreme Court Dicta or Obiter Dictum and Stare Decisis. First to Define Supreme Court
Dicta or Obiter Dictum according to the United States case of Shalala v. Schaefer, 509
U.S. 292 (1993). An Obiter Dictum is the Latin term for “something said in passing."
When judges put comments in opinions that are extraneous to the line of reasoning that
leads to the decision in the case, the comments are said to be "obiter dictum" or "dicta".
Comments such as this are not binding authority.

While in Philippine Jurisprudence as stated in the case of PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HIGINIO MACADAEG, HON. POTENCIANO PECSON, HON.
RAMON SAN JOSE, as Chairman and Members, respectively; of the Seventh Guerrilla
Amnesty Commission, and ANTONIO GUILLERMO, alias, SLIVER, as an interested
party, (1952) Obiter Dictum is merely an s an opinion "uttered by the way, not upon the
point or question pending, as if turning aside from the main topic of the case to collateral
subjects", or the opinion of the court upon any point or principle which it is not required
to decide, or an opinion of the court which does not embody its determination and is
made without argument or full consideration of the point, and is not professed deliberate
determinations of the judge himself.

As stated in the previous paragraph an obiter dicta/ dictum is an opinion uttered

by the judges of the court which is not binding or creates authority upon the case it is
only a remark of the judge or justice on how the case must have been properly decided
on. They may be opinions of highly respected judges and justices but they have no
binding authority upon the court that will convince them to change or reverse the
decisions done in the cases in which they have given their opinion.

The Second Latin Term in Law is Stare Decisis. According to the case of
Benjamin G. Ting vs. Carmen M. Velez- Ting (2009), “The principle of stare decisis
enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final
decisions. It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined
and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. Basically, it is
a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issues, necessary for two simple reasons:
economy and stability. In our jurisdiction, the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the
Civil Code.”
 Also according to the case of Benjamin G. Ting vs. Carmen M. Velez- Ting
(2009), The Principle of Stare Decisis was adopted by the former Chief Justice Reynato
S. Puno’s from English courts in his discussion of the historical development of the legal
system here in the Philippines. In his discussion he said that courts follow the stare
decisis rule for an ensemble of reasons, viz.: (1) it legitimizes judicial institutions; (2) it
promotes judicial economy; and, (3) it allows for predictability.

The principle of Stare Decisis establishes the authority of the decisions

previously given by the courts in cases and which can be prospectively applied to future
cases in case the judges find the facts and situation of the case similar to the cases
decided on in the past. The Principle is also expressly stated in Art. 8 of the New Civil
Code which states that “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines” this is the main
principle of Stare Decisis.
References:

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).

Benjamin G. Ting vs. Carmen M. Velez- Ting G.R. No. 166562

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HIGINIO MACADAEG, HON.

POTENCIANO PECSON, HON. RAMON SAN JOSE, as Chairman and Members,
respectively; of the Seventh Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, and ANTONIO
GUILLERMO, alias, SLIVER, as an interested party G.R. No. L-4316