INSTRUCTIONS: Comprehensively explain your answers for the following statements and/or

questions. Cite the necessary philosophical theories or doctrines to support your answers. Please
submit your answers in PDF in this email address - aldenreuben.luna.gslaw@ust.edu.ph.

1. A bill was proposed for the legalization of prostitution in the Philippines. The proponent of the
bill seeks to protect prostitutes or sex workers by affording them basic labor and social welfare
rights, and increase government revenue through the taxes that will be taken from them and/or
their employees. If both Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbes were invited in the Congressional
hearing as resource persons for the deliberation of this bill, would they support or oppose its
enactment? Explain. (10 points)

2. The current structure of government in the Philippines is both democratic and republican. In
its present state, what do you think will be Plato’s and Locke’s observations and/or comments on
our system or structure of government, both theoretically and as practiced/exercised? Explain.
(10 points)

3. Provide your socio-philosophical perspective on expanding the requirements for any person
seeking to run for presidency, adding therein that he/she must not have any previous criminal
record and must at least have a college degree, applying any of the philosophical doctrines
discussed in class. (8 points)

4. Compare and contrast the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques
Rousseau. (10 points)

5. The Philippines adheres to the doctrine of separation of church and state. Both as to law and
actual practice, what do you think will be John Locke’s observations and/or comments on the
current state of said doctrine in the Philippines? Explain. (8 points)

6. The Philippines is the only country that has no divorce law in the world. As a student of law,
what is your position as regards the enactment of a divorce law in the Philippines? In justifying
your position, use any of the philosophical doctrines discussed in class. (8 points)

7. Relate any law, legal provision or jurisprudence in any subject that you have so far studied in
law school with any of the doctrines or theories that we have discussed in class. (6 points)

Limua, Jhaster Troy T. 1-G October, 12, 2023

ANSWERS:
1. If Aquinas were to attend that deliberation he will disapprove of such bill; Hobbes on the
other hand, will approve of the bill. For Aquinas, the first thing that he will investigate is
the nature of the bill at hand. Whether the bill, when turned to law, still aligns to our
natural law, in which he deemed supreme over human or positive law.

According to Aquinas, our natural law draws reasons from our basic goods in which is
better exemplified by the golden mean or the balance of its practice in which he draws
from Aristotle. One basic good is reproduction, its purpose is very clear to RE-produce.
Using the test of positive injunction and prohibition to infer whether the bill at hand
violates the golden mean --- would dictate Aquinas approval. Knowing that prostitution
goes beyond reproduction and is an age-old vice, prostitution have clearly violated the
natural law. Aquinas explains that any violation of human law with regards to natural law
is a perversion of law and thus we are morally obligated to not obey such law as it is
perverted. By that, since the bill at hand is a clear perversion of natural law and by way of
the two test falls into prohibition or vices, Aquinas will vehemently disapprove of the bill
in session.

For Hobbes, he would first examine the exchange the was brought upon by the bill
whether it is a clean exchange on the part of the sex workers and the government since
social contract dictates that there be an exchange from the people to the government.
Upon seeing that the prostitutes would pay taxes and the government will be affording
them of labor and welfare rights – Hobbes would agree.

2. For Plato he would disapprove of this government structure as he abhors democracy as it

exhibits the unreasonable whims and unqualified opinions of both people and officials.
We must remember that Plato advocates for a “Philosopher King” or guardians honed by
their rationality and love of knowledge which is the complete opposite of democratic
republican wherein the sole qualification of officers sitting in elective government
position is the unqualified opinion of the untrained masses.

For Locke on the other hand, he would approve of our government structure as it exhibits
the will of the people in creating a government they will follow – social contract. Aside
from that, Locke would approve of our constitution as it separates the church and state in
which is integral to his writings as he was born in era wherein in English Catholics and
Protestant are persecuting each other based on belief in which Locke’s disapprove as he
believes that the government should not dabble and enforce belief to private citizens.

3. My socio-philosophical perspective on the expansion of the qualification of presidency in

the Philippines goes against the socio-philosophical perspective of Plato. For one, I do
not believe that in any elective position for the government there should be a college
 degree education. As it goes against the essence of democratic spaces in which should be
exclusive for all.

If in today’s time, there is already a monopoly of position in the government what more if
we were to further restrict this to those who achieved education. On a data by DepEd, out
of 100 pupils only 7 finish college. Now imagine, how tighter the grips of political
families would become if we were to further restrict the qualification. Essentially, this
country would be aristocratic in nature, but not in the essence that Plato’s aristocracy
envisioned – this aristocracy would only benefit that small circle. In electoral researchers,
only political families conduct actual political trainings thus this qualification will be
purely catered to them.

I want to maintain the following qualifications, due to reasons that no matter how small
of a chance a regular joe to get elected there is still a chance, there is still hope for our
democratic spaces. We must remember, that in Plato’s suggestion of the philosopher
kings, the state will raise everyone equally. In our case, we cannot create a genuine
guardian as we are separately raised and given different opportunities. Thus, my thought
is completely in divergence with ancient philosophical thinking.

However, in the question of criminal record I agree in that expansion as I believe that
being morally upright is a virtue tested by time. A virtue that many philosophers like
Plato include in their ideal leader.

4. Hobbesian social contract is vastly harsher than those of Rousseau’s. In the Hobbesian
purvey for one, the social contract’s legitimacy may be approved in any way, may it be
through a violent killing or through a peaceful protest. As longs as the government in
place will be able to protect and provide for the people it becomes legitimate. While on
Rousseau’s idea of social contract, he has grappled with the legitimacy of liberty and
authority. Settling with the notion that if the people reached upon general will and the
authority at hand is able to function upon the will of the people then the social contract is
valid.

That specific distinction can be rooted as to how the two-philosopher looked at the state
of nature and our natural right. Again, Hobbe’s looked at it as due to reason of the
violence we can inflict with each other while JJR looked at it in a way that since we have
transitioned from the state of nature and become highly inter-dependent a social contract
is a must.

5. Based on his background, Locke would be very much delighted to this doctrine in our
constitution. We must remember that Locke, in his life, lived through Henry the VIII
wherein prosecution of English Catholics by English Protestant is rampant. Locke has
 mentioned in his essay that the government lack the wisdom to intervene and find one
true religion. And even if they did, he added, that the government cannot force upon
private citizens a religious belief as it is nothing more than a belief; wherein a person’s
own volition is needed to accept such beliefs. Locke would applaud our constitutional
framers for their impartial decision of including this doctrine.

6. I am in favor of the divorce bill/law. As I find abusive/dysfunctional families more of

hindrance to society and to the improvement of various socio-political factors in our
nation. I’d rather see people in a broken family but they’re exponentially happier and
functions well in a society than be a complete one and be completely broken and an
unproductive member of our society.

In Aristotle’s discussion of “Eudaimonia” he describes it as a state of happiness in which

pertains to the relation of individual to community and the inclusion of common good.
And how can a person, reach his/her eudaimonia if he/she is trapped in a relationship
he/she does not want or is abused in. How can a person be able to fulfill his essence and
purpose of being able to reason when in fact he is inhibited. The extension of an abusive
relationship, or in a much less sad instance a dysfunctional relationship, extends not only
to the contracting parties but also to their kids, if they have. Not only are we hindering
the pursuit of eudaimonia and the pure essence of the contracting parties but also of their
children.

Marriage is also technically a social construct, if we are morally obligated to revolt

against a government not serving its purpose then why are we to be restricted to get out
of a social construct that does not serve its purpose any longer.

7. In Plato’s The Republic, the conversation between Socrates, Glaucon, Polemarchus,

Cephalus, and Thrasymachus grappled on the idea of ‘Justice’. This conversation and
ideation of what justice and what it should look like emanates deeply in our constitution
from the preamble and the declaration of state policies – the idea and importance of
justice is included. Like the Republic our constitution in its 40+ years has continually
grappled with our realities to deliver a brand of justice that is truly justiciable to all
Filipinos.