Instructions: Create a diagram or mind map on the topics assigned.

Be ready for a
presentation regarding the diagram or mind map next meeting during the discussion

Group 5

Jurisprudence/ case law doctrines

A. Value/binding effect
B. requirements for modification/abandonment of doctrines
C. Obiter dictum, Doctrine of Stare Decisis/Doctrine of Precedent

Jurisprudence derives from the Latin word ‘jurisprudentia’ which means the study, knowledge or
skill with regards to the law. Romans liked to call it the observation of all things human,
combined with the knowledge of the just and unjust. Salmond defines it as the science of the
very first principles of civil law.

A. Value/Binding Effect:

Value
In the Philippines, jurisprudence and case law doctrines play a vital role in interpreting laws.
They help elucidate legal principles and provide guidance for judges, lawyers, and citizens when
dealing with legal issues. These doctrines help ensure consistency in how laws are applied in
various situations. It holds a significant value in the legal system of the Philippines, as it does in
any country with a common law tradition. It also refers to the body of legal decisions and
interpretations made by courts over time, which collectively contribute to the development of
legal principles and the understanding of the law.

Binding Effect
The principle of stare decisis is observed in the Philippine legal system. Decisions of the
Supreme Court, as the highest court, are binding on all lower courts. This means that lower
courts are required to follow the interpretations and rulings made by the Supreme Court. This
principle promotes legal predictability and stability.
When a court's decision establishes a legal principle or interpretation of the law, that decision
becomes a precedent that guides future cases with similar facts or legal issues. Lower courts
are generally obligated to follow these precedents set by higher courts within the same
jurisdiction. This creates consistency and predictability in the application of the law and ensures
that similar cases are treated similarly over time. In the context of a binding effect, if a higher
court has ruled on a particular legal issue, lower courts within the same jurisdiction are generally
required to apply that ruling to similar cases, even if they might personally disagree with it. This
helps maintain the rule of law and ensures that legal decisions are based on established legal
principles rather than individual preferences.

B. Requirements for Modification/Abandonment of Doctrines:

Legal Development
As societal norms and circumstances evolve, legal doctrines may need to be adapted to remain
relevant. For example, a legal doctrine established decades ago might require modification to
align with modern advancements or changing attitudes.

Criteria for Modification

In the Philippines, the Supreme Court has the authority to modify or overturn its own
precedents. This is usually done when there are compelling reasons such as significant
changes in societal values or the discovery of a more accurate interpretation of the law. The
Supreme Court often considers the principle of stare decisis, balancing the need for consistency
with the need for legal evolution.

Abandonment
Abandoning a doctrine is rare and happens when it becomes clear that the doctrine is no longer
practical or aligns with prevailing legal principles. The Supreme Court carefully evaluates the
implications of abandoning a doctrine and considers the impact on legal certainty. It can also be
abandoned due to several reasons like: Irrelevance: If a legal precedent has become irrelevant
due to changes in laws, societal values, or circumstances, it may be considered for
abandonment. Unworkability: If a precedent has proven to be unworkable in practice or has led
to unintended consequences, it may be abandoned in favor of a more practical approach.
Outdated Legal Theories: If a precedent was established based on outdated legal theories that
no longer hold validity, it may be abandoned in favor of more current legal understanding.
Inconsistencies: If a precedent creates inconsistencies within the legal framework or with other
established precedents, it may be abandoned to achieve greater coherence.

C. Obiter Dictum, Doctrine of Stare Decisis/Doctrine of Precedent:

Obiter Dictum
In the Philippines, obiter dicta are statements made by a court in a decision that are not
essential to the decision's outcome. While not legally binding as precedent, they can provide
insight into the court's reasoning and legal analysis. These statements might be cited in
subsequent cases as persuasive authority. An obiter dictum is 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" (Newman vs. Kay, 49 S.E. 926, 931, 57 W. Va. 98, 68 L.R.A. 908, 4 Ann.
Cas. 39 citing United States ex rel. Johnston vs. Clark County Court, 96 U.S. 211, 24 Ed. 628),
or the opinion of the court upon any point or principle which it is not required to decide (29
Words & Phrases 15), 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 (29 Words & Phrases 13.)

Doctrine of Stare Decisis/Doctrine of Precedent

The Philippine legal system places significant importance on the doctrine of stare decisis or
doctrin of precedent. Both of these doctrines are similar in nature where lower courts are bound
by the decisions of the Supreme Court and are expected to follow established precedents. This
helps maintain consistency and predictability in the interpretation and application of the law.
However, it's important to note that while the doctrine promotes consistency and stability in the
legal system, it is not an absolute rule. Courts can depart from precedent under certain
circumstances, such as when there are strong reasons to reconsider a previous decision due to
changes in legal understanding of societal norms.

Hierarchy of Precedents
In the Philippines, decisions of the Supreme Court are the highest authority and must be
followed by all lower courts. Decisions of lower courts are generally not binding on other courts
but may be persuasive in similar cases. Decisions from foreign courts can also be considered
persuasive if they offer valuable legal reasoning.

Mind Map