Beate, -@ CHAPTER Il <> LEGAL & PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES There are seven blunders that human society commits and cause all the violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, and politics without principles. — Mohandas Gandhi, Indian nationalist and English barrister I. THE FOUR ELEMENTS What is law? “Law” connotes binding communal rules — the dos and the don ts of social order. a ttetial rule inbedsd fe gules bah ovis Law has been classified primarily into jural and non-jural. Jural or human law refers to sanctioned or enacted law such as statutes, case laws, - normative rules, and précepts. Meanwhile, non-jural or meta-legal law are tules not anchored or premised on human promulgation, such as divine law, natural law, and physical law. Divine law proceeds from sacred writings such as the Bible or the Qur'an, sustained by religious faith. Natural law, as will be discussed further, is the law of our human nature, based on the demands of our humanity. Finally, physical law refers to the mechanical laws of the universe. Examples are the laws of gravity by Galileo, or the Newtonian mechanics, or Einstein’s law of relativity. Non-jural laws are the concerns of theologians, scientists, and physicists. The concern of lawyers is jural law, and to the extent of pointing the source of a right or duty, non-jural natural law. It is in this practical sense that we ask, “What is law?” A Philippine case defines “law in its specific and concrete sense is a tule of conduct, just, obligatory, formulated by legitimate power for common Legal & Philosophical Issues | 11"i it ippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, 60 .d benefit” (Lapitan v. Philippine Cl " es peter 4CAR [2s] 704). This is the standard Classical definition of law, the Sanchez Roman definition that echoes Thomas Aquinas and jurists. is Summa Theologica (“S.T.”) 1-1, Q.90, A, Aquinas explained that aa is an ordinance of reason ordered towards = common good, promulgated by him who has charge of the community.” The four elements being: (1) reasonable ordinance (rationis ordinatio); (2) for the common good (bonus communis); (3) promulgated; and (4) by legitimate authority, In deciphering the validity of a law, one has to ask therefore: Does it make sense? Did it take into consideration everyone's interest? Was the public notified? Who made the law? If any of the elements is absent, a “law” is not really a law and need not be observed. Civilist Justice Edgardo Paras similarly defined positive law as “a reasonable rule of action expressly or directly promulgated by competent authority for the common good, and usually, but not necessarily, imposing a sanction in case of disobedience” (Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated I, 3). Another civilist, former Senator Arturo Tolentino, also defined law in its “specific sense” (Spanish term “Jey”) as “a rule of conduct, just obligatory, promulgated by legitimate authority, and of common observance and benefit” (Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines 1, 1). Max Weber’s definition in Law in Economy and Society identifies law as a legitimate order: “An order will be called law ifit is externally guaranteed by the probability that coercion (physical or psychological), to bring about conformity or avenge violation, and will be applied by a staff of people holding themselves especially ready for that purpose.” For Weber, the basic features of law that distinguish it from customs and conventions are: (1) the duty to comply; (2) due to external actions or threats; @) by individuals tasked to enforce the law. In contrast, there is no sense of duty in customary rules of conduct or “usages.” Conventions, meanwhile, are Sereements that Parties have a duty to follow in good faith, but without i lary punishment when disobeyed. These are often referred to as “soft For Jose Rizal, Article 8 of his Rights be “ini mt mc thi ig of Man states that law should promulgated, and correctly applied” that is “previously made and The classical el —- ces discussed below, | ® Of the Prevailing definition of law by jurists are 121 Phitawsophia: Philosophy and Th ef Philppine LawReason and the Common Good The Law... is perfection of reason, ~ Sir Edward Coke, Institutes: Commentary upon Littleton Law is a rule of human acts, commanding man to act of refrain from acting (Summa Theologica [S..], 1-1, 0.90, A.1). The measure of human acts is human reason, for itis by reason that we perceive and put order into things, A reasonable law is necessary, moral, useful, clear in expression, and adapted to place and time (S.T., /-i1, 0.95, A.3). The people are moved to follow the law when it is reasonable. If the law is unreasonable, it would only invite defiance and dissent. Principles of basic humanity transformed once purely ethical norms into legal claims. Tolentino described that law in its general sense (Spanish term “derecho”) as an abstract “science of moral rules, founded on the rational nature of man, which governs his free activity for the realization of individual and social ends, of a nature both demandable and reciprocal” (Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines 1,1). Laws that appeal to the conscience and moral sensibilities of ordinary men ate morally obliging and will facilitate enforcement. This does not mean that all ethical or reasonable norms should become laws, but only those rules concerning man in relation to his fellow men. After all, as Tolentino argued, the field of morals is more extensive than law. Aquinas, too, believed that law can only govern external moral conduct, not internal or private morality. The end is that the lay, should observe and Promote public morality that concems the common weal. There is a grey area on consensual acts between individuals (in private contracts, confidential agreements, or sexual relationships) as they involve another person, and may not be strictly “internal,” “personal,” and “private.” Thus, consensual acts like incest, prostitution, and adultery, may be subjected to regulation in favor of family harmony and healthy procreation that the public has interest. The common good need not be the utilitarian ethic of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Rather, itis the good of everyone towards achieving personal perfection. It bears the common aspirations of all, not just the majority or the authority, It is based on the principle of equal dignity of all to have a quality of life. The common good is realized through a democratic Participation or consideration of all members of society. It considers all stakeholders’ interests, special conditions, and integral development. Still, majoritarianism argues that although the majority opinion can be fallible, it is still the best way to arrive at the most reasonable terms as more heads are better than one; that there is more intelligence, experience, and wisdom in number. Further, as Aquinas suggested, the lawmaker should frame Legal & Philosophical Issues| 13the law according to how the subject matter commonly occurs in the majority of instances. It is not expected that the legislator should assume every single case possible, but should at least leave room for exceptions when the law neeq not be strictly applied (5.7, 0.96, 4.6). We should be careful, though, to distinguish popular morality or popular good from the common public good. A law can be a valid public order — reasonable and fair to all — although it may be unpopular to many. Populist or majoritarian morality is only as good or bad as the population forming it, Promulgation and Authority Some things are easier to legalize than to legitimate. — Nicolas Chamfort The final step in the law-making process is its notice to the public. The public should be able to take notice of the law by some kind of advertisement, whether by publication or, in some jurisdictions, by hear yeas (“oyez") of a public crier. Copies of the law must be accessible to the public to avoid misunderstanding its contents. In pre-Hispanic Philippines, Rizal’s annotations on Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas state that the enforcement of law by a confederation of chieftains were not based on printed or written law but customary law characterized by tradition, consistency and harmony: “The force of law is not that it is written on a piece of paper but if it is engraved in the memory of those for whom it is made, if they know it since their tender age, if it is in harmony with their customs and above all if it has stability.” Tafiada v. Tuvera, based on Article 2 of the Civil Code, ordains that Philippine laws should take effect 15 days after completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation unless otherwise Provided. Once decreed, it is the citizen’s duty to keep abreast of the law and his ignorance will not excuse him from non- ‘compliance. This requirement is Supposed to address the injustices under President Ferdinand Marcos, who used {0 jssue decrees with short notice, so that target subjects could be easily put to jail. In the ancient times, Suetonius also Wrote of the tyrant Roman emperor Caligula, who was known for proclaiming laws and taxes without posting, and if laws were ever posted, notices would be placed in isolated places, or would ea up high, or written in excessively small letters, so that no one could m, Due promulgation must come from a com; if ,_Due pro ipetent authority, not from some Private individual or public official unauthorized to w | p : st be issued by one who takes charg ‘who wields the powe € of the community, who wi Promote the common interest. ee 141 Phitawsophia: Philosophy and Theory of Philippine LawModern Standards for a Rule of Law In The Morality of Law, Harvard Law professor Lon Fuller enumerated the “Eight Routes of Failure” for any legal system. Avoiding these pitfalls will ensure the internal or procedural morality of law, so that there is “reason” in legal ordering. The eight things to check out are: 1. The lack of definitive rules or law, so that disputes have to be decided ad hoc; Failure to publicize or make known to the affected party the rules; Unclear or obscure legislation; Retroactive legislation; Contradictions in the law; Demands that are beyond the power of affected parties to observe; Unstable legislation or frequent changes in the law; and er anwe en Discrepancies between adjudication/administration and legislation. In the 2004 Report of the Secretary-General on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan defined what constitutes “rule of law” in the modern international arena: For the United Nations, the rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equallity before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency. II. BRANCHES OF LAW Law is made by the winner to preserve victory over the loser. — Toba Beta, Betelgeuse Incident The law can get very technical. An understanding of major terms and divisions of law is necessary to map out the different fields, concerns, and aspects of law. Legal & Philosophical Issues | 15re is given, jural law may be classified into substantive or remedial, Substantive law establishes rights, duties, and toreltary prohibitions. Remedial or procedural ot adjective law prescribes the manner of administering, enforcing, appealing, amending, and using legal rights and claims. [As to whether a right or a procedui be categorized into public and private laws, and further into criminal, civil, and mercantile laws. Public ot political law is concerned with the structures of government, the relationship between the individual and the State. Violation of public order through punishable acts ‘or omissions is under criminal law. Private law, on one hand, is concerned with the rules governing the relationship of individuals. If for private ends, it is governed by rules provided in civil law or the rules of civility in terms private wrongs. If of property, marriage, succession, contracts, and torts or dealing with artificial personalities such as corporations and the management of business, mercantile law or commercial law regulates commercial transactions. The civil code system refers to a legal system based on coded laws. Laws are codified through parliamentary statutes, following the tradition of compiling rules such as the Code of Hammurabi or the Babylonian Law Code (c. 1772 B.C.) and the Justinian Code or the Roman Law Code (6th century AD). French, Germanic, and Hispanic countries have legal codes based on Roman law and their national customs. As to scope, law can also Meanwhile, the common law system is based on case law or judge-made law that relies on precedents set by judges in a court case. It is characteristic of English-speaking countries such as Britain, United States, Canada, Ireland, ‘Australia, and India. The Philippines, which experienced both Hispanic and ‘American occupations, has a mixed system. Laws are enacted by legislation, which are interpreted, developed, and applied by the courts, whose decisions are considered part of the law of the land. Islamic law or Sharia law (“the way to follow”) is based on the moral precepts of Islam. Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are considered “Islamic States” as they base their law purely or mostly on Sharia, while moderate Muslim countries, such as in the South East and Turkey, follow a more liberal mixed system of Western and Islamic laws. Islamic law is derived from four sources: (1) the Quran, or the word of cea as siven i the prophet Muhammad; (2) the Suna, or the sayings and acts apes ° - ling to tradition or hadith; (3) the judicial consensus of Be ee (ga is), following the historical consensus, similar to common W rece nts, of religious scholars (wlama); and (4) Analogical reasoning. used in circumstances not provided in the other sources. An example would 16] PhiLawsophia: Philosophy and Theory of Philippine Lawbe the crime of sodomy which is punishable with death by stoning, as much as adultery is expressly punished in the Qur'an. Stones are first thrown by the witnesses, then by the judge, then by the community. Crimes are also punishable by multiple lashes, or by application of the principle of “an eye for an eye” (lex talionis), or by amputating the instrument of criminality, such as the hand in theft. Under a Sharia court, the rules of evidence prioritize oral testimony of at least two witnesses, preferably by Muslim males. There is no need for a lawyer or a jury. Plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves. There is no pre-trial, modes of discovery, or cross examination of witnesses. Forensic and circumstantial evidence are rejected in favor of eyewitnesses. Islamic law maintained much of Middle Eastern agricultural, rural, and pastoral laws and practices, akin to Judeo-Christian teligious legal systems during the Old Testament patristic times down to the Medieval Period. III. MAIN ISSUES IN LAW The 1987 Constitution starts with a Preamble that introduces the following endeared principles: We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Govern- ment that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the tule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. Based on these precepts, it is therefore indispensable to begin with a discourse on law in relation to truth, authentic freedom, justice, equality, Property/patrimony, the force/rule of law, and other moral aspirations that inspire, direct, and serve the spirit of our charter and the rest of our laws. Law and Truth Que est veritas? (What is truth?) — Pontius Pilate to Jesus Christ, trial hearing, John 18:38 ‘When witnesses stand before the court, they are asked to take an oath “to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.” If they deliberately state falsehood, they will be liable for perjury. In requiring witnesses to subscribe and swear on the truthfulness or veracity of their statements, the law is presuming that (1) there is a truth or actual state of things and (2) witnesses are obliged to tell Legal & Philosophical Issues | 17or abide by it. The law recognizes the value of truth-telling, or at least, truth. seeking to implement what is proper, just, and right. Yet we know that witnesses of a complainant and a respondent in a case belong to two opposing camps and tell contrary stories. Facts are in dispute. Although both swore to tell the truth, the court has to determine which narration is really true since both parties cannot be both true. Both Parties may State partially true statements but one version will have to be affirmed. By what method? By the rules of evidence. Relativists would often caution that “truth is relative,” subjective, perspectival, and limited by what the person (the witness) personally experienced or gained knowledge of. Truth is limited to one’s awareness. This is the reason why two opposing witnesses may, in earnest honesty, disclose what they thought to be the true version of facts. Faulty memory, the limits of our senses (hallucination, nighttime), lack of sanity or objectivity and framing of questions and answers may affect a person’s testimony. However limited our window to reality, objectivists state that there is an external reality or objective truth independent of what a person thinks, feels, or believes in and this can be discovered by the proper use of the senses and reason. Our senses and reason give us opportunity to test or verify claims of fact. If a supposed reason or explanation cannot be verified, then it is a mere rationalization or excuse. It is contradictory to state that “there is no truth” because such statement is itself claiming to be true. Rather, claims of truth can be partial or imprecise but this can be corrected or supplemented by independent observation, corroboration, or verification. For instance, a person may believe and think that the world is flat, but it can be verified that the world is round and this independent observation is what we refer to as “truth.” It is the “fact of the case.” If the “truth” of @ matter is based on subjectivities, then we are talking of “opinions.” Some things cannot be verified as facts, being non-facts relying on personal taste or views depending on personal aesthetic culture. These are indeed relative and it will be in point to say that “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” Such claims assume personal taste, perspective, or faith. It is therefore objectionable that a witness be asked about his opinion, presumption, or thought on a matter since the subject of his or her testimony is his or her experience or personal knowledge of what happened, not what his or her interpretation or perspective about it unless he or she is an expert. However relative personal taste can be, it is still not accurate to state that “one opinion is as good as another” or “one belief or philosophy is as right as the other.” Some opinions are expert opinions due to familiarity or specialty of @ person in a field of inquiry. Some opinions are more informed, well-analyzed, and consistent with reality. Some legal opinions of justices are more in keeping 18] Phitawsophia: Philosophy and Theory of Philippine Lawwith the law or jurisprudence than another opinion, hence it cannot be said that the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions are equally defensible. Some beliefs or faith systems are also just too bad, terroristic or harmful Legal Truth If science has its own method of determining the truth, that is, through clinical observation, law has established its rules of evidence. What is common. between clinical tests and rules of evidence is their verifiability and reliance on sense experience and reasoning, the latter through logical rules of “causality” (cause and effect) and “identity” (this is not that, this occurred not that). Scientists test evidence in the laboratory; lawyers in courts. Rule 128 of the Revised Rules of Evidence defines “evidence” as “the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.” For evidence to be admissible, it must be (1) relevant to the issue, such as elements to be proven, and (2) not excluded by law. Since the Rules of Evidence does not admit certain evidence (evidence not marked, authenticated, or identified, hearsay evidence, evidence obtained from illegal searches), raises presumptions (innocence of the accused, regularity of public acts), provides differing weight and sufficiency of evidence (beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases, preponderance of evidence for civil cases, substantial evidence for administrative cases, probable cause for preliminary investigation), and requires the conduct of a trial, what may declared as true is only the “legal truth” or “judicial truth,” or truth supported by legally admissible evidence in a judicial proceeding. By choosing certain procedures for establishing evidence, the law limited itself on what it may pronounce as true. Hence, legal judgments on facts are not necessarily the “substantive truth” or complete, actual truth of what occurred. The same happens in science or any study or research. A chosen methodology limits what may be admitted as relevant and true. For example, in choosing the scientific or clinical method, science rules out occurrences that cannot be controlled or placed into control groups. Hence, science cannot be expected to prove God and spirits because these are not observable in the laboratory. The effects of God or paranormal forces can be observed but it would be preposterous to say that these entities can be scientifically tested through experiment. Why does the Rules otherwise provide the compl of Evidence exclude certain evidence that will lete or actual facts the way we accumulate reports? The reason is because certain sources of evidence are unreliable, or is not the best evidence available (original copies), or unfair to the other party (not subjected to trial or cross-examination), or tainted with illegal methods to Legal & Philosophical Issues | 19procure (“fruit of the poisonous tree”) and therefore not foolproof sources to deprive someone of life, liberty or property. Law, Authority, and Force Justice, without force, is impotent. —Blaise Pascal, Pensees What does it take to let others tell us what to do or not to do? According to Max Weber, in Politics as a Vocation, there are three ways how authority establishes itself in society: charisma, tradition, and law. Weber referred to “charisma,” meaning “grace” in Greek, as the personal ascendancy that an individual gains in a society through his passion and determination for a cause or a mission, and his success gives him an aura of legitimacy. Through skills and persuasion, charismatics exude a mass hypnotic effect. For good or bad, the list includes the likes of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin. Ordinarily, charismatic or popular authorities may include experts in a field who are unquestionably believed at or followed the way fans react to their idols. The second form, by tradition, is where the authority from a leader, due to his magnanimity or extent of influence, is passed on to his successors or heirs. Society has made the leader its center and identity, and will want to keep him alive through his descendants who are supposed to bear his qualities. Founders are usually given this entitlement and their influences are institutionalized through forms of monarchies, dynasties, or petty kingdoms. Here, one becomes an authority by mere association and endorsement by the popular leader. The third form, through the legal dominion, is impersonal. The officers operate through institutions, under given terms, periods, and conditions. They have to be professional and not to personally favor or receive favor from anyone. Laws are legitimate if they are enacted according to rules of procedure and individual merit. nforcin: Should law be coercive to be enforceable? Should tough laws spare the rod? The force of law is said to be characteristic of a true law. Both naturalists and positivists agree that it must be some form of a rule or command on human conduct, something mandatory and not optional. When a standard of conduct is unenforceable, it is a merely prescriptive, recommendatory instruction. 20| Phitawsophia: Philosophy and Theory of Philippine LawExamples are rules of etiquette, customs, traditions, and the recommendations of international agencies and UN committees. Anarchists think that any form of violence or coercion is wrong and offends morality; that the only real law must be consensual, which appeals to the conscience and free-will of constituents, without the use of threats or fear of punishment. For followers of Confucius, the ingredients to prevent and arrest crimes are not stern punishments but a sense of shame for misbehavior, cultivation of virtue, education on right and wrong, respect for authority, and the elderly showing good examples. Social contract theorists, meanwhile, think that constraint is necessary and moral, since society is presumed to have given consent to follow the law in establishing a Constitution and a Big Brother — the State. Through election and suffrage, citizens are able to renew this consent and to amend the terms through the representatives they vote for. Anyone who does not wish to follow the law can opt to leave the State, be a fugitive, and live in a lawless society, if there is any. Shape up or ship out. The psychologist Sigmund Freud observed that reward and punishment are needed for discipline; the way a child needs to be trained, so does society, specially under-developed emerging society. The machinery of regular enforcement, police presence, and organized coercion are there to ensure that society can effectively pursue its policy and in the process, direct itself from irrational, unproductive, and anti-social impulses. Under International Law, states are tempered from using force against each other since every member of the international community is by principle given equal status and consideration on domestic policies. States are presumed to be civilized, matured, self-determining, and independent. Coercion of a whole nation will be problematic since this may entail large-scale oppression, including innocent citizens who do not have anything to do with their national policies. For example, the embargo of goods against a belligerent nation will have its primary impact on its citizens who need basic services. At the international level, global opinion, and social pressure may be the best means of dissuading a state from its acts, so that respect for its sovereignty is maintained. Ina developed society, law is followed simply because it is the law. The use of violence is hardly resorted to. Individuals in their own right are also considered sovereign and sui juris — as objects and not just subjects of law. Individuals can, under some instances, even sue against states. The emphasis has become consent, rehabilitation, probation, and settlement, instead of incarceration and punishment, for transgressing the law. Legal & Philosophical Issues | 21Law and Mores ‘Are you planning to follow a career in Magical Law, Miss Granger?" asked uur. “No, I'm not,” retorted Hermione. "I'm hoping to do some good in the — 1K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows What is legal is not necessarily moral and what is moral is Not necessarily legal. Indeed, a moral obligation does not establish a juridical or legally enforceable tie, Still, even when there is no absolute correspondence between law and morality, there is still a relation recognized by law itself between law and morals. In fact, moral customs are among the sources of law. According to Tolentino, “laws and morals have a common ethical basis and spring from the same source — the social conscience” (Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines I, 3). Citing Colin and Capitant, Tolentino described law and morals as. “two intersecting circles, with many principles in a common zone, and yet with some principles of one at variance with those of the other.” Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code provide that every person must act with justice (i.e., t ‘© give everyone his due), observe honesty, and indemnify acis contra bonus mores (through moral damages). The Code Commission acknowledged that Article 21 addresses victims of moral wrongs as it would be impossible to enumerate all wrongs that can cause damage. A contractual obligation is considered vo Itis illicit if, Contrary not just to law, but also to “morals, i y , » B0od customs, public order or public policy” (Art 1352). Notice the order — law, then aa oe 800d customs, then public order or Policy. Morals, “good” customs, and Public order remain unenforceable until i . i ’, and Volton en until recognized or taken notice by law, nervance of the law “shall not be excused by di Sisiom oF practices tothe contrary” (Art. 7). sees disse (oid when it has an illicit cause.Such is why Socrates would rather accept Athens’ verdict of death penalty even if he thought it was unreasonable, rather than skit the law and encourage lawlessness. He had to accept the verdict of law, having failed to convince society of its error. But it would be a different story ifa law is patently immoral and irrational, at the expense of human life and dignity, such as Nazi laws, Laws are made for man, not man for laws, In cases where the basic rights of man (right to life, liberty, and property) are violated, civil disobedience would be justified. Although moral norms and established customs are unenforceable without law, it would also be difficult to enforce a law that is morally unacceptable. For instance, the case of Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the US continues to face legal challenges for violating the basic right to life through all stages of human development. In criminal law, there are crimes that are considered mala in se, or those offenses that are prohibited because they are considered wrong in themselves, including crimes against persons, property, and security that are universally proscribed. Distinction must be made between prohibition and regulation of moral wrongs. Some moral offenses cannot be prohibited but can only be regulated or conditionally restricted. For instance, the Prohibition Amendment in the US Constitution banning the drinking of alcohol had to be repealed as it proved impractical to implement. Some jurisdictions have also moved previously prohibited acts such as prostitution and the use of certain drugs to a regime of regulation. Meanwhile, offenses that are mala prohibita are prohibited only because of a special law such as traffic offenses, but they are not themselves morally wrong. Harvard Law professor Lon Fuller, author of The Morality of Law, argued that the law has an “internal and external morality.” It cannot be a one-way imposition since the cooperation of the citizen is needed. The law has been the citizen’s refuge because it is supposed to protect them from the most perverted regimes, cruelties, and inhumanities. The people produce law because they have moral aspirations and duties they want to achieve. Laws “derive their efficacy from a general acceptance, which in turn rests ultimately on a perception that they are right and necessary,” Fuller wrote in Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart. A deterioration of the morality of society will result into deterioration of law, vice versa. Fuller argued that law practitioners are even subject to a code of ethics governing their conduct to clients, fellow lawyers, courts, and the public, proof that there are moral principles and standards to follow even in matters of procedure. Fuller also distinguishes the presence of the law’s “morality of duty” (law condemning wrongdoing) and “morality of aspiration” (law realizing our excellence, fullness, and the good life). Legal & Philosophical Issues | 73The stirrings of moral reasoning also play an important role in direction of legal reforms and in demanding obedience to a law Without resorting to punitive and onerous measures. Dennis Lloyd said that appealc 5 conscience and civilized morality will eschew the need for force. By “morality,” distinction should be made between secular and Teligious morality. In states where there is no separation between Church and State, such as Islamic states and the Vatican, the law must reflect what is considered moral by the established religion. For instance, as a concession to the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, the Code of Muslim Personal Laws is a form of legislation based on the religious morality of Islam. For states that follow the non-establishment clause, such as, ideally, the Philippines, a secular morality known as “public morals” are considerations of the law. It is a morality not based on religion but on popular ideals, sources of law, and common aspirations as expressed in policies, preambles and declaration of policies. Obedience to the law of the state is itself a Principle of secular morality. The term “ethics” is used to Tefer to secular standards of responsibility | and accountability specific to professional areas of practice, such as “the ethics of doing business,” and for law Practitioners, “legal ethics.” Defining ethics, Albert Schweitzer in Civilization and Ethics writes: “Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. That is what gives me the fundamental Principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, Promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil.” Another distinction between secular and religious morality is that the former, being public, concems itself with Public order and affairs, while the latter is also concerned with private mat ters and preferences, such as sexuality, the censorship of ideas and beliefs, Secular morality is associated with to common-held principles of Teason, justice, and equity, deemed as “natural” @spirations of men. The ancient Greek phil n losophers put their faith in a rational order of the universe knowable by any rational man, without need of mysticism or divine Tevelation. “natural law morality” according For naturalist Philosophers like Voltaire, a true morality is a universally acceptable morality. “All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the Same, because it comes from God,” Voltaire said. The interpretation of natural law, which was once a Province of religion, has eared more to the explanation of the Sciences and rational analysis, 241 Phitawsophia Philosophy and Theory of Philippine LawOn one hand, religious morality’s ultimate basis is the “Word of God” as expressed through a sacred medium, such as the Bible for Christians, the Qur'an for Muslims, the Papal teachings for Catholics, and of the Dalai Lama for Buddhists. Earlier societies thought of law as having a divine or celestial origin, the law-giver having a prophetic status like Moses or Muhammad, and rulers possessing a divine right to be kings. An example of religious morality is the Ten Commandments, such as the commandment to acknowledge only one God. However, majority of these commandments are also prohibited by secular morality, such as the prohibition against murder, false testimony, adultery, and theft. Secular law also recognizes parental authority over minors (“You shall honor your father and mother”) and requires the observance of rest days (‘“You shall keep the Sabbath day holy”). Religious morality as basis of law can work in theocratic tight-knit societies. But it can discriminate against other religions and may lead to fundamentalism. On one hand, religious morality has the guarantees of stability, consistency, and internal appeal to the will or conscience of a person, so that even with the lack of law enforcement, the citizens will still refrain from doing an act that they believe will invite divine wrath or karmic return. With the lost sense of the divine in some secularized societies, there comes the need for an alternative panoptic government, an all-seeing Big Brother through the installation of surveillance cameras, satellites, CCTVs, patrol implements, and ubiquitous technologies to keep everyone conscious that there is still “someone watching.” Some activities prohibited by religious morality, such as artificial contraception for the Catholic Church, may be approved by secular morality. The reverse can also happen, when an activity permitted by religious law, such as marrying up to four wives (polygyny) for Muslims, may be banned by secular morality, like in Muslim Turkey, Tunisia, and Azerbaijan. Public morality can also create new offenses such as anti-mendicancy not imposed by religious morality. Since the sources of law include customs, law can be influenced by the majority religion, When a religious morality is no longer customary though, it will cease to have a bearing on law. Altematively, religion may convince the public of the wrongfulness of an act, which must pass the test of public argumentation and expression so that it can become public secular morality first and eventually law. An example of this is the law on human cloning, which started as a religious conundrum on human individuality and was eventually banned by the international community as a violation of the right to self-determination and ownership of personal identity. In areas that are both prohibited by secular and religious morality, standards of conduct are doubly reinforced, and Church and State can find cooperation and common ground. Legal & Philosophical Issues | 25Law, Justice, and Equality ‘mankind Adam and Eve, an Arab has no Superiority over amo es nor a non-Arab ee ri ran Arab, white has no superiority All mankind is fr superiority over an Arab; also a hte has ip ; it a rab has any salah as sper e Are tack orabh ui s any superiority over white except by piety and good ok has a r black nor a blac ” — The Last Sermon of Muhammad (Khutabul Wada) -d by Lady Justice, the blindfolded I system has been symbolized by I dy a pe in all majesty. The embodiment of pes) a Justice me But pia is justice? Is justice the same as equality? Must La ly Justice always balance her scales? When we use the term “just,” giving to the other “what is ri ight and just,” we think of the propriety and sufficiency of the act, more than its equalizing effect if the situation is not equal in the first place. For example, we give a laborer who works for longer hours more wages than one who works half-day. It will be unjust to treat them equally by giving them equal pay. But the basis for the computation of wages for both full and then, is “equality in proportion,” to render to each whot (ST, ILI, 0.58, 4.11). Justice is to give what one dese Tves according to the same standard, measure, or formula, On the basis of the same standard, circumstances are not equal, but must b same. In any case, everyone must be sometimes referred to as to all persons without fe: the rich and poor becaus, » Provisions will not be equal if the © equal if the circumstances are the given equal Opportunity to measure up, “Tegal or formal equality.” The law is applied equally ‘ar or favor. Thus, the same punishment is imposed on © Wealth is nota valid differing Standard under the law. This is where the doctrine of “reasonable classification” comes in. Everyone classified as belonging to the same Category is to be treated the same way. Like shall be treated alike. Unlike shall be ‘reated unlike. Things that be Bing ently different cannot be treated the Same. Lady Justice cannot of distinctions. Equali does “proportionan, fceea fe ty not have to mean Same treatment, but Ifby a reasonable stand one has to treat them different’ then ‘al i eee hee from ore reasonable standacn f % then this will be Just. Again, there must be * Issue of “marriage luality” Tuninatory.” Pop instance, Whether there is rearey, 1 uity fein Same-Sex marriage ig g question of argument that it i * Classification for family ri, hi e is interest of the child” Tghts, such as the ' Ha" to be raised by a mother 261 Phitawsoph hi “Pha: Philosophy ang Theory °f Philippine Lenyand a father and experience both male and female parenting as designed by nature in contrast to same-sex/gender parenthood. Egalitarianism The statement “all men are created equal” refers to one’s humanity, meaning, we are all equal in terms of being human, and the rights and duties arising from the fact of being human, regardless of status. We belong to the same human species and the way we treat another human being reflects the value we give to ourselves if we would step into similar circumstances, The way we want to treat ourselves should be the way we should treat others. This is what is meant by “equality” based on the principle of the Golden Rule. If you trample another's humanity, you step into yours. If you uplift others, you raise your dignity too. Equality does not mean that all men are born with equal conditions and will live equally. Honors, incentives, and privileges in life will grace the deserving. Special arrangements, however, may be made to eliminate or minimize historical or cultural disadvantages resulting from conditions that we do not have choices or control, such as gender, being born to poverty, handicaps, race, religion, or color. Equality before the law is a universal enfranchisement so that everyone will at least have the “equal chance” to develop as any other human will do. Life is not fair indeed, but since man, despite the inequities of life, aspires for fairness and a more just society, he must make equality a goal (“egalitarianism”). In egalitarianism, not only are we equal as human beings, our human conditions should also be fairly equal, hence, its popularity among libertarian socialists. Communists stretch this further into “equal” needs, “equal” labor and returns, “equal” living standards, unfortunately resulting in everyone becoming “equally poor” for being hostile to capital and wealth. In his Speech at Springfiled, Abraham Lincoln explained that the Declaration of Independence was “intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. That “men are created equal means “equal with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” An African-American slave may at that time not be equal to the white man in many respects, Lincoln continued, but “in ie right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have eared, he is the equal of every man.” Thus, “if God gave him little, that little let him ey Similarly, Rizal argued for equality of rights despite our inevitable difference in aptitudes in his F Pi y Margall: The Struggles of Our Time: each individual a supreme right and accept nize in ee nnditions among citizens seem to be absurd. All inequality of co perpetual nea ot same aptitude or the same strength, but gre Legal & Philosophical Issues. | 27with your father and your children that neither authorizes nor legalize, inequality of rights. The difference in strength and aptitudes, you maa it well, correspond to the diversity of functions that are indispensable j the fulfillment of the multiple purposes of our life. a The Blindfold of In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls proposed that we should do a “reflective equilibrium” whenever we make laws or decisions. We must imagine ourselves, he said, under a “veil of ignorance” unaware of our place in society. It is Rawl’s version of the blindfold of justice. Imagine that you are about to be thrown into a life that you do not have a choice. Before the die is cast, you would of course wish that chances be maximized for everybody so that in whatever position or kind of life you might end up to, the worst would still be livable. This is the “original position.” In making choices, think that you would randomly fit into anyone’s shoes. This way, you would make it a point that everyone would get a fair chance in life. Since you could end up being anyone, you would wish a little of something for everyone. Because of the original position, you would favor substantial wages, human rights, social security, and general welfare so that if you become anyone, you could still experience a dignified life. This way, one can expect humane treatment anywhere, regardless of one’s status or circumstances. Rawl’s proposition is not entirely theoretical as reverses of fortune do happen as in the case of the rich to rags, and the hottie turned ugly. Rawls’ paradigm is unlike the belief in karmic reincarnation which teaches that what we get in life is what we deserve from a previous life. For Rawls, we are starting from point zero who may happen to end up in different and disparate lots in life. For him, those who are naturally talented and advantaged must treat their inborn conditions as common assets of society. As much as those who are biologically handicapped do not necessarily deserve their disadvantages, in reverse, those who are talented and wealthy do not necessarily deserve their advantages and must make efforts to share their luck. Social cooperation increases standards of living and everyone, including the giver, will be benefitted by a distribution of happiness. Inequalities are justified only where the less fortunate will be improved. Institutions should exist to correct the inequalities and injustices in the world. A fair society must be a just social contract between the state and individuals that redistribute goods as necessaty- Meanwhile, Ronald Dworkin proposed that society must meet the “envY test,” where no person will envy another based on mere circumstances or lot it 28| PhiLawsophia: Philosophy and Theory of Philippine Lawlife. We will be the sum of our choices. Whatever differences in life we have are the result of our own Preferences, attitudes, behaviors, temperaments, or choices like the way auctions are conducted. You can raise the stakes or refuse to bet at all, but you will be given a chance nevertheless. Each person pays the costs of his choices and will have his preferred bundle of goods. This is a just distributive scheme, but allows inequality based on personal determination and dream. For Robert Nozick, who developed the “entitlement theory,” people are entitled to the things they earned, worked for, or produced. They are also entitled to bequeath the same to others, such as to their families. It is a fact of life that “things do come into the world already attached to people having entitlements over them,” Nozick argued in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. These entitlements may not be seized upon even if it is to provide equal opportunity to others. Just distribution is already met whenever a person has satisfied the legal entitlements to acquire property, which was not stolen, seized, or gained through fraud. If a property was legally acquired, it would be illegal for the government to seize it for redistribution. One cannot be faulted for becoming rich and be made guilty for the self-perpetuating poverty of others. For instance, if a person worked longer hours, devoted more talent and education, and saved money in order to earn more for himself and his family, would it be just to redistribute his property or to progressively tax his income to make him more “equal” with others? Many rich personalities worked their way up while some of the poor remain poor for not honing their skills, dreaming big, or working eamest. There is no dispute that unmerited wealth (ill-gotten wealth, wealth bequeathed because of aristocracy, political dynasty, or frailocracy) should be redistributed, but how about eamed wealth? Should we steal from the rich to feed the poor? Here, egalitarian policy may punish the diligent and reward the indolent. It promotes mendicancy (who is given free subsidies from taxpayers’ money) at the expense of hard work. Redistributing the rewards of success is like a teacher reallocating the grades of an A student to make him more “equal” with C students, or penalizing the A student with higher class dues or class assignments for having high grades. i d or unearned As vast holdings may actually perpetuate underserve , wealth, Nozick at least proposed in The Examined Life that inheritance taxes may be limitedly imposed, without preventing the valid transferees from using their property as capital for personally earned wealth. itali istributi ade not by free italists, redistribution of goods should be made not dinteibaon er property or land to equalize economic status. Redistribution can ial tual exchange of goods by consent through commercial eal th his goods in exchange for another’s spare 's wil en A goods oo that both are better off and the excess of each one Legal & Philosophical Issues | 29is i it is. It is inevitable that som, is redistributed on a needs and capacity basis. h e (capitalists) will get rich first to create wealth and employment that will benefit others. Income taxation at some point may also be a counterproductive Measure to redistribute wealth. The Laffer curve (by economist Arthur Laffer) shows that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point (such as beyond 33 to 35%) will be counterproductive to raising tax revenues, A worker would not be incentivized to work or Profit more (or declare and transmit more taxes) if he knew that additional profits would only enlarge his tax liability so that being more productive would only hurt his business or expose him to stringent taxes. This is why some economists instead encourage tax cuts to increase Productivity, profit, economic activity, and eventually higher revenues, Accordingly, the capitalists need not be penalized heavily as they are already contributing to the economy in maintaining profitable businesses that provide work, services, goods, and flow of capital. The government can also raise ids and imposing sin taxes and high taxes on luxury lening people’s income (income tax) and value exchanges (value-added tax), Law on Property and Economics Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in tha thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capit. talism but ina higher synthesis. It is found in a high ithesis that combines the truths of both. bE aha — Martin Luther King Jr., Where Do We Go From Here? Capitalist countries economically dj y differ fro. Protestant states from the Catholic and Islamic, bee " ideology, beliefs, and i e tion and frame the economic The vatngond mon and prosperity already spell much di Max Weber’s The Protestant Fy thic and th, that the Protestant’s value for hard ma t nt’s work, individual 42 CoP sarichment, multiplication of resources pv ronal ae necation, personal made Protestant States Sconomically richer; even as Renate ye male ‘atholics mi 30| Phitawsophia: Philosophy and Theory f Philippine LayPoverty as avow, with mendicancy, asceticism, and acts of piety as the highest oe a According to Weber, Catholicism tends to prayerful indolence, self-abnegation, and feudal habits. Indivi enfranchisement had to defer to frail ees and expesdine e llocratic interests and dit Pompous rituals and grandiose churches, orpendiares ofan “Perhaps indolence is authorized in Catholic Countries in general and in the Philippines in Particular,” similarly observed Rizal in F Piy Margall: The Struggles of Our Time, with “faith in miracles that makes men expect everything from heaven.” In The Philippines a Century Hence, Rizal advised that “When there are wealth ey errant a ae i 5 }0 more means to support itself.” He criticized the belief that “one has to become poor to enter heaven.” Since Weber, Protestantism has been identified with industrial development, proposing entrepreneurship as the solution to the bondage of Poverty and the means to multiply talents and resources. The Good News was intended to redeem the people from poverty, for God’s Kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven. Critics of Weber state that his analysis of Catholicism Particularly applies to Hispanic and French Catholicism. Italian Catholicism differently ushered the Renaissance, the birth of universities, high art and culture, and the emergence of the first banks, foreign exchange, and bond markets. Protestant colonies are said to be opulent because their poor indigenous Populations were displaced to give space for White settlers (displacement diasporic colonization). This is in contrast to Catholic colonizers’ marginal assimilation and inter-marriage with the native population. Official Catholic social teachings have taken a distributive socialist ethic, emphasizing works of charity, justice missions, and principles lke “preferential option for the poor,” “solidarity,” “universal destination of goods,” “collective g00d,” and “economizing goods.” While moder popes have supported a free and competitive market, they have criticized “consumerism” or an orientation towards excessive surplus, of valuing a person for “having” than “being: The good of persons and not just profits should be considered. The Catholic Catechism teaches that the rights, needs, and relationships of man cannot be reduced entirely into economic and market factors (Capitalism), or solely by centralized planning (Communism). ae relation ote mci lace in vi ood, hierarchy of values, ns a Someeaes eae work is also a duty and should be a source of dignity Positive and negative attitudes to prosperity and entrepreneurial neces, according to Napoleon Hill’s “mind-power” philosophy, can : 8 way to affecting one’s imagination, energy, Peni a oe) and subconscious manifestations of one’s ideas i reams: Ha an visualization, meditation, am Seay ermpen ere optimism. As a journalist an started Legal & Philosophical Issues | 31on success principles from his personal correspondence with rags-to-riches capitalists, including Andrew Camegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Thomas Edison, as well as statesmen such as US President Theodore Roosevelt ang Philippine President Manuel Quezon during the latter’s exile in the US. Hill’s works have been revived esoterically by Rhonda Bryne’s The Secret. Meanwhile, certain industries may not prosper depending on religious beliefs. Muslims only eat halal food, while the Jews prescribe kosher, and Hindus prefer vegetarian diet. Islamic banking also prohibits usury or payment of interest and loan penalties. It also disallows business investments related to pork, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, and pornography. Islamic rules on transactions (Figh al-Muamalat) are safer for borrowers as they protect against loan sharks and encourage profit-sharing (Mudharabah) and joint venture (Musharakah) between debtor and creditor. The Charter of Al-Almanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines details Islamic bank services available in the country as an alternative to Western ban! \king and investing. Private Property improvement. The drive for profits can lead to new Without private ownership, there is no market and in as there is nothing to gain, Pursuits and innovation. centive to be productive Aristotle said that “property should be esponsibility to maintai us dominion over our re Private” so that someone can take nav develop it. John Locke believed that as God gave bodies, He gave us domi val inion over things we put value igh the earth is common to man, Locke Pus value through his labor becomes his own olen, ae nat mas ndrew Jackson, we Pursue unfette ctivity ted economic a oa ited by regulation with Compensation to the Bulation, 7 e i oF contol or profits, Article XVir of Ria Rigna sSe to deprive him Of Man, Strongly stipulat 321 Phy ‘Lawsophia: Philosophy and Theory of Philipp ine Lawfor property rights and raised it to the level of an “inviolable right” requiring legal indemnification for public seizure of property: Private property being a sacred and inviolable right, nobody can be deprived of it except when public interest so demands legally, in which case it must be fulfilled under conditions of a just and probable indemnization. In transfers of ownership, Thomas Aquinas proposed the “just price.” The just price is the price people are prepared to pay, and the buyer will freely accept, given honest information. This includes a decent profit, but excludes deception and excessive profiteering, which Aquinas considered avarice or greed. In neo-Thomism, doing business has a social dimension, it should create opportunities for improving the lives of others, the creation of quality and useful products, and interpersonal engagement between merchant and customer, employer and employee. Joan Robinson, on one hand, espoused not a fixed price but “price discrimination”—selling the same product at a different price to different classes of people, according to their purchasing power. Sellers must have a lower price to attract more buyers, and an alternative higher price to those willing to pay extra. The same product can be sold cheap in a flea market and marked up in a luxury store. It was the 18th-century French economists called “Physiocrats” who coined the phrase laissez faire, laissez passer (“leave the individual alone, let commodities circulate freely”). They laid the foundation for the theories of Scottish economist Adam Smith, who, in The Wealth of Nations, argued that commercial transactions are legitimately based on self-interest since no one sells or buys without anything in it for him. For Smith, people are ultimately motivated with the question “what's in it for me?” Man is a rational calculator who looks for costs and benefits. Nevertheless, it is for the interest of one’s business to improve the quality of one’s products at competitive prices. Eventually, self-interest will yield to quality competitive goods that serve over-all public interest. This is the “invisible hand” of capitalism where the self-interest to survive in a free and competitive trade eventually serves public interest. Smith wrote: “Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage indeed, and not that of society, which he has in view. But the study of own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to that employment which is most advantageous to the society.” The best judge on how to manage one’s property is the investor himself, not the government, Smith opined, for he is the expert in his industry and how best to stay in the market and serve public demand. Legal & Philosophical Issues 133For US economist Robert Axelrod, competition and cooperation are both ingredients of the game. Even the selfish will eventually be forced to cooperate, for self-interested reasons, to produce mutually beneficial outcomes and save a common industry. Public Property Meanwhile, communal property refers to things that we use and own in common, such as natural resources, streets, bridges, parks, river banks, etc., as provided under Article 420 of the Civil Code. Even in a free-market economy, there are things that are not marketable and cannot be sold, such as public goods or services that will be difficult to be reserved for exclusive use. ‘Adam Smith conceded that the government should provide for those essential public goods that private individuals or firms will not find profitable as everyone will free-ride in their use. Examples are lighthouses, national defense, seaports, or streetlights. These will be provided by the government through taxation. David Hume suggested that it is the rich who should contribute largely to the supply of public necessities. In Communist States, private ownership is abolished and one is only entitled to “personal ownership,” understood as the ownership of goods to satisfy basic needs, which cannot be used as capital to produce income. There is instead “public or socialist ownership,” in which the means of production are owned either by the State or by a commune, to be disposed according to one’s labor or contribution to society. Rights over the land and the means of production are entrusted to a community rather than titled to an individual. Goods are also distributed according to the “test of need.” By “need” means something a human being cannot do without in order to survive, 2s distinguished from wants or desires that can go unlimited. The result is that citizens must be reduced into a “survival mode,” getting only what is needed to stay alive. The “tragedy of the commons” provides that common properties collapse due to overuse as individual users inevitably use public properties according to their self-interest. When land or property is held in common for general use, a person does not feel personally accountable or motivated to devote himself and invest his time and effort into it. Taking care of one’s property is like having your own child. You care more if it is your own. In fact, a person may be tempted to over-exploit or over-harvest common property if in the end, responsibility and liability will be shared by all. If property is nd! fenced, everyone can foul everywhere. The solution instead is to privatize make accountable the use of property according to reasonable regulations. Further, properties are themselves limited and cannot always be fre? for all because the growth of a population, even if controlled, is indefinite: 34] PhiLawsophia: Philosophy and Theory of Philippine LawWith a complex economy, the government cannot take care of everything and will not always be efficient. Finally, lack of property and personal space can be as disempowering as lack of legal rights, and it will not make much of a difference who is taking all the property — a private mogul or the State. Friedrich Hayek said that economic control is State control of the means to all our ends. A government big enough to provide everything would be strong enough to take everything away. Big Brother makes belittled housemates. porate Property Corporate ownership, on the other hand, reserves the property to an entity, but unlike Communism or public ownership, the owners are free to expand and use their properties and receive dividends; and unlike private properties, no private individual owns the corporate property. Itis the artificial person, the corporation, which owns the property. Corporate holdings are now the preferred avenue of capitalized ownership. Corporations can pool together the assets and investments of many shareholders to fund multi-million projects that a single person will not be able to do. Corporate ownership proportionately distributes the profits based on one’s stock ownership, and insulates shareholders from suits as the corporation has a separate personality from its stockholders. The corporation will pay the creditors and a stockholder can have the money equivalent of his shares once he opts out of the company. For a minimum subscription fee, one can participate in the earnings of interest-yielding corporations engaged in all kinds of investments. Stock ownership of corporations started when merchant ships and voyages in the 1500s had to be funded by patrons. Investors would provide money for an equivalent “share in ownership,” and in return would receive a share of the profits. Such was the case of the British East India Company whose ships traded spices and tea, Today, it is said that multinational corporations have become more powerful than states, Unlike the State that has limited citizenship, one can be a shareholder in a multinational company for a minimum price of shares. Corporate ownership, however, has been criticized for creating cartels and monopolies. To solve “corporate greed,” anti-trust laws have been passed to break monopolies, prohibit mergers, reserve government shares, limit management prerogatives and perks, and give incentives to new players. Still, it appears that certain industries are “natural monopolies,” such as oil refineries, railways, telecommunication networks, and banks. Given the scale of infrastructure, the limited operational areas available, and the amount of capital needed, there is a tendency to have only a few players to survive and surmount the costs for these industries. Legal & Philosophical Issues | 35