(A.

) How does the classical philosophy of natural law, as articulated by figures like Aristotle, Cicero,
and Thomas Aquinas, influence and shape the development of the law of nations or international
law? (15 points)

(B.) Is Israel legally and/or morally justified under international laws in doing its current actions
against Hamas and the Palestinian people? (10 points)

A. Aristotle, Cicero, and Thomas Aquinas are just three of the many great thinkers in our history.
They have contributed largely in many aspects, one of which is in consonance with the law of
nations or international law. In the book of Aristotle entitled “The Politics, he posited that man,
being a social animal, needs to live in a community. With that need, the state blossomed. We started
from a small unit called family; it enlarged and became a village; then it expanded and became the
polis, or city-state, that we are currently living in. The creation of the state is important in the study
of international law, essentially because there would be no such thing if there were no states to
begin with. For Cicero, in De Legibus, he wrote that “we are born for justice, and that right is based,
not upon men’s opinions, but upon nature." The idea of Cicero is inclined toward the formulation of
the law, not the state. He believes that the “law” is the idea of what is just and true. It must not be
used as an instrument to prejudice another, but instead crafted for the welfare of the general public.
Lastly, in the contribution of Thomas Aquinas; The contribution of Thomas Aquinas revolves around
divine reason. He projected that the development of the laws we have now in the state is because of
our adherence to the Almighty. Since we acknowledge his power, we limit ourselves to gratifying
what was asked of us—to be of help and to co-exist in harmony with others.

B. No. The history of the Israel-Palestine conflict did not happen overnight but stemmed from many
things that had happened in the past. Even so, although we are not in the position to rightfully judge
who is the historical rightful owner of the place, we can all agree on one idea: Hostilities can never
be justified. The news about the employment of hostile means to erase an entire Hamas or
Palestinian race is inhumane and goes against the rules laid down in international law. Our
international law has always been in favor of human rights and has tried to suppress any form that
damages this very right. This is, in fact, the reason why the United Nations came to exist.
(A.) What would you consider as enduring contributions of the Roman jurists/law to modern-day
legal systems? (15 points) (B.) Cite two Latin legal maxims that appeal most to you and briefly
explain each. (10 points)

A. Roman jurists had indeed left us with several remarkable contributions that, up until now, are
here. But personally, the Roman jurist’s contribution to civil law is something that I consider
important in relation to the modern-day legal system. As we all know, they formulated what came to
be known as “civil law” concerning contracts, trade and commerce, infringement of rights, property
and occupancy, warranties and mortgages, marriage, and divorce. This is a great contribution since
even now, human relations are governed by the civil law of every state. We are granted privileges
that best cater to our interests; in return, we have to comply with the limitations prescribed so that,
in exercising our rights, we don’t hamper the rights of others.

B. The first maxim would be Audi alteram partem, which means hear the other side. This legal
maxim caught my attention because it is relevant to our realities today. We are immediately clouded
with our vision of what truth is, even on the basis of the story told by one person. This is
detrimental because people have already demonized the other side even without getting their fair
share of expressing themselves. While there can only be one version of truth, that does not
automatically imply that the truth of the other is an evil lie. This maxim is related to art. III, Sec. 14.
(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel and to have a speedy, impartial, and
public trial.

The second maxim is Ignorantia legis neminem excusat, which implies that ignorance of the law
excuses no one. This is a remarkable maxim to me as a Political Science graduate since, in our four
years of college, we devote so much time to policy-making that is fair and just to the people. This
maxim implies that one could not invoke the fact that he did not know that the law exists so that he
could be exempted from the crime because, as citizens, we have to be aware of the things we have to
comply with so that, inasmuch as we enjoy rights and privileges, we do not also rob the rest of them
from enjoying theirs. This maxim is under Art. 3 of the New Civil Code, which provides that
ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
In relation to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas on crime and punishment, he justified the necessity
of both civil and penal law. According to him, the morals of the people are somehow shaped by the
standards set by the state's system, as it becomes a part of the values people embrace, even if it is
not inherent to their nature. For instance, out of fear of persecution, a person can become
habituated to doing what is virtuous since penal law compels them to do so. This contribution is
significant because, at present, our concept of what is right is subjective and may be influenced by
our personal biases, religions or custom in our place. However, since there is one law uniformly
applied in this dynamic, we are left with little option but to comply with the uniform rights in
accordance with the terms and delimitations set forth by the state.

Furthermore, he believed that justice is a habit, whereby a person renders to each what is due
through a constant and perpetual will. This conveys the importance of equity over equality. For
example, those thriving in lower strata are given more consideration, while those in higher
positions are afforded the same rights, though not to the same extent as those who need it more.
lThis concept is particularly crucial and relevant in the status quo, where many people who live
below the poverty line are deprive of access and opportunities. Given the limitations of our
government machinery, resources should be directed more toward those who need them most.

Karol Wojtyla's insight on the theology of the body, on the other hand, hinges on the ability of the
man as a rational being rather than being easily susceptible to our innate desire for sex. He posited
that man is a sexual person, not a sexual being. Thus, unlike animals, our desires can be subject to
such limitations; such limitations are those that we craft on our own. This is the very reason why
our laws are based not on our sexual needs but on things that we think are much more important
than that, like policies on divorce, same-sex unions, monogamy, and artificial birth control. If we try
to understand this theology in juxtaposition with the challenges of contemporary legal thought and
practices, we will realize that we uphold the same line of thinking as Wojtyla. Instead of attending
to our personal needs, we try to step backward and look at things from a bigger perspective. In that
way, we see that there are things that are necessary to be put in line before anything else such that
gratify our needs.