Universalizability and Philippine Supreme Court Cases
ABSTRACT: The requirement that legal reasoning be universalizable is so unquestioned as a legal doctrine that it is practically axiomatic. Recently, two Philippine Supreme Court cases have been decided in a manner that apparently dispenses with this requirement. I discuss these two cases in the light of the requirement. I conclude that the requirement, rather than being diminished by the two cases, has actually maintained its axiomatic status on the basis that the reasoning in the two cases is deficient: the first either for inequality in treatment or for lack of clear guidance, and the second for the failure to appear impartial.
The requirement that judicial reasoning be universalizable, that the justifying reasons for a decision are to be articulated or at least must be capable of being articulated in the form of a universal norm under which the facts of the case are to be subsumed so as to entail logically the decision, (1) is an acknowledged formal legal principle indispensable to any sound theory of adjudication. Recently, two Philippine Supreme Court Decisions, Alonzo v. IAC (2) and Marcos v. Manglapus, (3) challenged the very indispensability of such a requirement. This paper will discuss the interaction between and effects of these two decisions on the requirement of universalizability, by determining whether the requirement is indeed seriously challenged by the two cases and, conversely, by assessing and analyzing these two cases in terms of the requirement.
These two decisions resolved the issues in the two cases by creating exceptions for the unique circumstances attendant to the cases, thus apparently dispensing with the requirement. In particular, the Alonzo case held:
"In fact, and this should be clearly stressed, we ourselves are not abandoning the Cojenero and Buttle doctrines. What we are doing is adopting an exception to the general rule, in view of the particular circumstances of the case." (4)
In the Marcos case, reference was made to the special circumstances involving President Marcos thus:
"This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and within the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by itself." (5)
In discussing the interaction between and effects of these two decisions on the requirement of universalizability, the paper will first briefly explain the rationale behind the requirement.
Consider your and the court’s response to the above question. Would your decision be different if it could be shown that, in a certain small,
Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...
War is not a cheap man’s game. At the core of every nation sits an economy comprised of varying wealth and resources. A nation’s prosperity is dependent on its economic fortitude. In a constant state of fluctuation, economic prosperity is often fleeting, with a single event capable of causing economic turmoil for decades to come. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 acted as a catalyst for economic change in the United States. The attacks presented isolated economic desolation, but the growing concern for security and the war on terror provided the greatest economic impact for the United States and the world.
The contradictory outcomes of cases presenting very similar facts to the court leads some jurists to cry out for reform and to denounce the defects in the present common law rules. Some, are supportive of the implementation of a statutory obligation to make reparation for wrongfully caused mental
Realism can be described as a theoretical approach used to analyze all international relations as the relation of states engaged in power (Baylis, Owens, Smith, 100). Although realism cannot accommodate non-state actors within its analysis. There are three types of realism which include classical (human
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
The racial discrimination was one of the aspects of the discrimination in this story. Consequently, Crooks had to battle with various difficulties and conflicts, which prevented him from reaching his full potential. The ranch hands did not let Crooks live, eat, and play with them because his skin colour was different. It led to the conflict between him and Lennie. "Why ain't you wanted?" Lennie asked. "Cause I'm black. They play cards in there, but I can't play because I'm black. They say I stink. Well, I tell you, you all of you stink to me.” (Steinbeck, 68). In this conversation between Lennie and African - American stable buck Crooks, Crooks explains why he could not accepted to play cards together with other ranch hands. The fact that other ranch hands discriminate Crooks because of his skin colour is one of the important examples that prove social belief that race was one factor to determine a person’s value in Depression era. Crooks was isolated. This isolation prevented Crooks ...
Racial Prejudice is what’s presented by the others on the ranch towards the only African American man on the ranch. They would call his crucial names, bad mouth him and some would even threated him, giving him the fear of losing his job. Crooks was isolated from all the other workers, he had his own room of to the side, not allowing anyone to be in his room, because he preferred being isolated. At this portion of the story the reader is able to begin making a connection between Lennie and Crooks, even though the discrimination is shown more frequently toward Crooks because his skin is a different color, they both feel unwanted at the ranch, they both want to leave. Crook allows Lennie to come into his room one night just for alittle while all the other men were out, they sat and talked for alittle, until Curleys wife grows nosey and comes to the door to see what they are talking about. Curley’s wife is the only female on the ranch so she is all over the place, in everyone else’s business except for her own. As Crook is enjoying the company that he is having with Lennie at this time and he tells Curleys wife to leave, she then becomes offended and grows mean saying “do you know what I could do to you if you open your trap?”(Steinebck 80) trying to intimidate Crooks. She knows that he is unable to do or say anything out of the way to her, giving the reason why she does
Legal Pluralism is the presence of various legal systems within a single country or a geographical area. Legal Pluralism is omnipresent although it is generally assumed to exist in countries only with a colonial past. This is because in most countries with a colonial past, colonial laws co-exist alongside indigenous laws. However, if we look at the expansive definition of legal pluralism, it can be said that every society or country if legally plural. The modern definition of legal pluralism also deals with the issues of relation between state and non-state legal orders. It shows the dichotomy that exists between customary legal norms and state law. The judiciary of India has upheld this principle of pluralism in many cases by showing that
Although realism presents a solid framework for international political structure, constructivism fills in the gaps that realism fails to address or ignores. That being said, constructivism is still not the perfect theory as it still debated and contrasted against many other critical theories. Realism presents a solid framework for the international system. However there are some gaps in it structure that it does not recognize or fails to explain. Constructivism tries to fill in these gaps. Although constructivism is good at examining problems of other theories it does not present a solid framework on its own. It relies on theories such as realism to present this framework so it can criticize it. Together realism and constructivism provide a solid framework and allows the ability to explain its shortcomings.
The first inhabitants of the Philippines arrived from the land bridge from Asia over 150,000 years ago. Throughout the years, migrants from Indonesia, Malaysia, and other parts of Asia made their way to the islands of this country. In the fourteenth century, the Arabs arrived and soon began a long tradition of Islam. Many Muslims are still living in the Philippines today.
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
They would save more than one billion dollars per year and the death rate would also decrease if smoking was banned. About 33% to 50% of people who try smoking become regular smokers and 70% to 90% of people who are regular smokers are addicted to nicotine. It is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. Children who are curious or already influence by family members smoking would want to try it out and when they see other people doing it, they accept it as some normal behavior and most likely would become addicted to it. Smoking kills more people than human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, traffic accidents, murder, suicide, and firearm-related incidents combined. Also smoking should absolutely be banned from public places since second hand smoke cause’s health problems as well. I should be able to sue the person because he/she is harming my life. Thus smoking should be banned because it causes so many problems to health whether it is to the smoker or to the second hand
The judicial statement of Roskill LJ observed in The Albazero [1977] AC774 held plenty of arguments in modern world today. To reach an extent of agree or disagree the judicial statement, it should be critically analysed from a legal perspective:
Some may argue that bans infringe on smoker 's right. There is no right to smoke. A person 's rights end when it infringes on another 's rights.