Philo Reviewer

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW REVIEWER QUESTION 6: Let’s talk about Aquinas. Why is he

 s o impor tant? tant? How does he define defin e natural natural law law and where does does he put in the big picture? 3 Considerations of St. Thomas on Question 6: From St. Augustine, who insisted that “Theological“TheologicalChristian considerations not only permeate the whole of law and legal theory, but in fact constitute the only sound foundation of true theory, but in fact constitute the only sound foundation of true law and true  jurisprudence.”  jurisprudence.” 1. 2. 3.

St. Thomas Thomas understood understood and affirmed the order in the universe. The world is not a product product of chance. It was created by loving God whose existence and attributes we can demonstrate and who has ordered his creation in accord with his design.

Law  – An  – An ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has care of the community and promulgated. 4 Kinds of Law, accdg to St. Thomas: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Eternal Law The natural Law Human Law Divine Law

The Eternal Law  The whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason. Wherefore the very idea of the government of things in God, the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. “The Divine Reason’s conception of things” = ETERNAL LAW

Hence, these inclinations are put into human nature by God to help man achieve his final end of eternal happiness. The Human Law Human reason needs to proceed to the more particular determination of certain matters. Particular Determinations devised from Human Reasons = Human Law (Provided the other essential conditions of law be observed) Other essential conditions of law = St. Thomas definition of law, “Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated” Human Law derived from Eternal Law. The Divine Law  Divine Law = the natural law can be known by reason without the aid of explicit supernatural revelation. 4 Reasons to have a Divine Law 1. Man is ordained to to an end of eternal eternal happiness, therefore man should be directed to his end by a law given by God. 2. Man may may know without any doubt what he ought to do and what he ought to avoid, it was necessary for man to be directed in his proper acts by a law given by God, for it is certain that such law cannot err. 3. Man is not competent competent to judge of interior movements, that are hidden, but only of exterior acts necessary for man to conduct himself aright in both kinds of acts. 4. Human Law Law cannot punish punish or forbid all evil deeds: Therefore, Divine law must supervene, whereby all sins are forbidden.

QUESTION 7: Is the natural law the same for everybody? Does everybody everybody k now what what it requires? requires? Can it be be changed? changed?

The Natural Law MAN IS A RATIONAL CREATURE. (But not always haha jk, okay lang maging tanga minsan.)  A rule of reason, reason, promulgated by God in man’s nature, whereby man can DISCERN how he should act. Basic Inclinations of Man: 1. To seek seek good, including his highest good, which is eternal happiness with God. 2. To preserve himself in existence. 3. To preserve the species  –   –  that is, to unite sexually. 4. To live in the the community with other men. 5. To use his intellect and will – will  – that  that is, to know the truth and to make his own decisions.

General Principles – Principles – Truth  Truth or rectitude is the same for all and is equally known by all. Speculative Reason – Reason  – the  the truth is the same for all, but it is not equally known to all. Proper Conclusions of the Practical Reason  – neither  – neither is the truth or rectitude the same for all, nor, where it is the same, is it equally known by all. Thus it is right and true for all to act. Therefore, the natural law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge.

Natural Moral Law What is naturally and usually right, just as natural physical law tells us how nature usually behaves but there are some exceptions: for example, “do not give a murderer his gun back”

Hence, it involves the life of all. It demands prudence on the part of each one, and especially from those who exercise authority.

COMMON SENSE   A person can so dull his conscience with repeated sin that he will no longer acknowledge that what he is doing is wrong.

Essential Elements of Common Good  1. Respect for the person. 2. Social well-being and the progress of the group as a while. 3. Requires peace, the lasting security of a just order.

THE NATURAL LAW CANNOT BE CHANGED IN ITS ESSENTIALS. The natural law is changeless in the sense that its precepts cannot be upset or destroyed. It can change by extension, by new applications, as experience brings new situations and circumstances. Such change is not natural law itself; it is extrinsic to the natural law.

QUESTION 8: How does the law enacted by the  s tate – the human law  – relate to the natural law? Human law is an integral part of God’s plan, is designed to promote the common good and help man attain his highest end of happiness with God. Why we need human law? Man has a natural aptitude for virtue; but the perfection of virtue must be acquired by man by means of some kind of training.

Common Good as St. Thomas’ Basis of Justification of Capital Punishment (Basis din ni Sen. Manny Pacquaio  – whaha joke) Life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men. (St. Thomas, approved the concept of death penalty bwahahaha, patayen ka ni digong, no to drugs!) However, the execution of the wicked is forbidden is wherever it cannot be done without danger to the good. “If a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. V. 6) QUESTION 10: What about animals? Don’’t they

2 Functions of Human Law  1.

2.

Constructive  –  natural law provides a guide for the formulation of laws to promote the common good. It includes the limitation that the human law should not attempt to prohibit every vice or enforce of every n ature. Protective Function  –  provides a shield against laws that violate the natural law. This role involves criticism of the human law. Its primary effect is to protect the rights of the people.

QUESTION 9: What is the “common good” that the human law is supposed to promote? Shouldn’t the

have rights? The assertion of animal rights involves a rejection of the reality that man essentially differs from the lower animals in that he has a spiritual and immortal soul. It reflects also a loss of faith in the order of creation by which God gave man “domination”   over the lower creatures. Singer maintains that “we can longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals and alone possessing an immortal soul.

 focus be on indivi duals and their r ig hts ? Singer treats “ethics as entirely independent of religion”  Law is not merely whatever legislative product results from the contentions of rival individuals and interests, rather, there is a common good   that is more than merely the total of individual goods. “Laws are enacted for no private profit, but for the common benefit of the citizens” (St. Isidore of Seville) Common Good  – the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members’ relatively thorough and ready access to th eir own fulfillment.

Man, however, has a duty to God to make a right use of animals without being cruel or inflicting needless pain. Conclusion (STEAK IS LIFE) It is lawful for man to kill animals. According to St. Thomas, the order of things is such that the imperfect are for the perfect… Wherefore, it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of animals and animals for the good of man.

**Animal-rights activits ignore the fact tha man is the only creature on earth whom God has wished for himself.

** If a human law “deflects from the law of nature”, it is unjust and “is no longer a law but a perversion of law. Two Ways that Law May be Unjust:

HOWEVER, those who reject any restraint on the use of animals can do so only by rejecting their own accountability to God for their use of creation.

1.

Environment Philosophy of St. Thomas The virtue restraints overuse and forbids excessive interference with the environment, but does not require the notion of rights of nonhuman creatures or of claims owned by them.

2.

QUESTION 11: Did Aquinas have an opinion as to which form of g overnment is best? Was he a cons ervative or a liberal? St. Thomas, favored MONARCHY, because “the rule of one man is more useful than the rule of many” for achieving the “unity of peace”. (DEINS ST. THOMAS, *sad reacts only) However, monarchy is only for the just but when it is unjust, it is the WOOOOOORST. (Sabi niya: Just as the government of a king is the best, the government of a tyrant is the worst  –  lowkey shade for Pres. Marcos) So ano yung solution dito? Sabi ni St. Thomas, the powers of the King should be limited. Also known as CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. Constitutional Monarchy  – “once the king is established, the government of the kingdom must be so arranged that opportunity to tyrannize be removed.  At the same time his power should be so tempered that he cannot easily fall into tyranny” St. Thomas as Conservative In a nonpolitical sense, he was a conservative that he was cautious about the role of the enacted law. For example, he believed that custom could have the force of law. However, the natural and divine laws proceed from the Divine will. Wherefore they cannot be changed by a custom proceeding from the will of man, but only by divine authority. Hence, it is that no custom can prevail over the Divine or Natural Law.

QUES TION 12: A m I bound in conscience to obey the human law? What if that law is unjus t/ Man is bound to obey “secular princes” – in so far as this is required by the order of justice. Wherefore if the prince’s authority is not just but usurped, or if he commands what is unjust, his subjects are not bound to obey him, except perhaps accidentally in order to avoid scandal or danger.

Being Contrary to human good, either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive not to the common good but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory. Laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine Good; such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry or anything else contrary to the Divine Law.

INCOME TAX, contrary to Human Good ? Yes, according to the author, income tax, which is riddled with arbitrary and even oppressive features in its substance and procedures. Yet the injustice of the income tax does not provide a justification for refusing to pay it because an unacceptable disruptions of the common good would result from the affirmation of such a right. St. Thomas notes that law does not have to be followed when noncompliance is required by the common good. If a case arises wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. Principle of Necessity or Justification Rightful action under necessity does not even involve a violation of law. Rather the law itself implicitly authorizes such action. (Think of Article 11 of the RPC  – Justifying Circumstance)

QUE S TIO N 13: Wait a minute. If people who follow  A quinas are s o s ure they are ri g ht as to the meaning of natural law, won’t they compel everyone to follow their rules? Won’t they use the law to make people be “good”? Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue. Openness – and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth and various ways of life and kinds of human beings – is the great insight of our times. Philosophical Relativism (Accdg, to Hans Kelsen)  Advocates the empirical doctrine that reality exists only within human knowledge and that as the object of knowledge, reality is relative to the knowing subject. Philosophical Absolutism (Note: Kelsen rejected this view) The metaphysical view that there is an absolute reality, example, a reality that exists independently of human knowledge. Kelsen believed that philosophical absolutism leads to political absolutism, while philosophical relativism

leads to political relativism  – that is democracy. (For short, against siya sa democracy haha) *** Tolerance, minority rights, freedom of speech and freedom of thought, characteristics of democracy, HAVE NO PLACE WITHIN A POLITICAL SYSTEM based on the belief in the absolute values.

It is better that “all things be regulated by law than left decided by judges 1. 2. 3.

However, Kelsen misread Aquinas. St. Thomas rejected absolutist government and cautioned that the law should not try to prescribe every virtue or forbid every vice. The purpose of the human law is to promote the common good and that law should lead men to virtue, not suddenly but gradually. Otherwise, the law enforceable and the law itself would be despised and greater evils would result.

Easier to find a few wise men to frame laws than judges to decide on cases. Lawmakers consider common good and not case to case basis. Lawgivers judge in the abstract and future events as compared to judges who may be affected by other things in cases  – judgment is perverted.

When the rule is clear of doubt, judge must find law & apply, not interpret.

QUE S TION 16: Natural Law as Part of Cons titution

QUESTION 14: Look. Isn’t the bottom line the fact

Even if state punishes should treat citizens as human beings.

that the law s hould now leg is late morality? Where do you get the right to impose your morality on me?

Interpretation may vary, may or may not be according to natural law.

 All human law enforces a morality.

QUESTION 17: Natural law use to declare statute Unconstitutional.

Hence, the real question is: Whether or not which morality it will and should enforce? Human law cannot attempt to cover the entire field of virtue and vice. Human Laws is framed for the common good of all the citizens. It operates through: (1) command; (2) permission; and (3) punishment. Despite the importance of virtue in the citizen, the role of the human law in enforcing virtue is limited. Matters of fortitude may be achieved either for the safety of the state or for upholding the rights of a friend and in like manner with the other law.

Highest duty of Supreme Court is to protect constitutional structure. Consti is the highest human law; it must be subject to a higher law. Seldom could judges impose their own morality. Ultimate Supreme Law = Law of God / Natural Law  All forms of human law are subject to higher law of God.

Pr ecepts of Natural Law But law is ordained to the common good. Wherefore there is no virtue whose acts cannot be prescribed by the law. Human law does not forbid all vicious acts, by the obligation of a precept as neither does it prescribe all acts of virtue. But it forbids certain acts of each vice,  just as it prescribe some acts.

QUES TION 15: J ob of a J udge? To construe constitution according to the intent of the testator, contracting parties, legislature and/or origination. Interpretivists Interpret by judges according to intent, spirit of the law, core principles and squeeze the meaning out of the text.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Maintains and Promote bodily life Maintains and promote social coexistence Lawful authority is to be obeyed. Do not do unto others what you do not want done to you. Leave and give everyone what is due. Contracts must be honored. Duties and State of life.

Pr operties of Human Law 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Enforceable Concerned with external conducts only. Human law is limited to particular groups of people. Human law is historically conditioned. Human Law has a presumptive obligatory force.

upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother. CASES Roe v. Wade Facts.  Texas statutes made it a crime to procure or attempt an abortion except when medically advised for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Appellant Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional on their face and an injunction to prevent defendant Dallas County District  Attorney from enforcing the statutes. Appellant alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant, and that she was unable to receive a legal abortion by a licensed physician because her life was not threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy and that she was unable to afford to travel to another jurisdiction to obtain a legal abortion. Appellant sued on behalf of herself and all other women similarly situated, claiming that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Held. The right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but the right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. The abortion laws in effect in the majority of the States are of relatively recent vintage, deriving from statutory changes generally enacted in the latter half of the 1 9th century. At common law abortion performed before quickening (the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero) was not an indictable offense, and it is doubtful that abortion was ever a firmly established common law crime even when it destroyed a quick fetus. Three reasons have been advanced for the historical enactment of criminal abortion laws. The first is that the laws are the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct, but this argument has been taken seriously by neither courts nor commentators. The second reason is that the abortion procedure is hazardous, therefore the State’s concern is to protect pregnant women. However, modern medical techniques have altered the situation, with abortions being relatively safe particularly in the first trimester. The third reason is the State’s interest is in protecting the prenatal life. However, this is somewhat negated by the fact that the pregnant woman cannot be prosecuted for the act of abortion. For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute. For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health based

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life, based upon the State’s interest in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child. Discussion. The Court finds that an abortion statute that forbids all abortions except in the case of a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother is unconstitutional based upon the right to privacy. However, it does allow for regulation and proscription of abortion when the statute is narrowly tailored to uphold a compelling state interest, such as the health of the mother or the viable fetus. The court declined to address the question of when life begins. ESTRADA V ESCRITOR FACTS. Escritor, a member  of  the Jehovah’s Witness, was charged for immoral conduct for  co‐ habiting with a man without the benefit of  a marriage, their  relationship bearing a child. She secured a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness,” indicating their  church’s approval of  their  union in accordance with the beliefs of  the Jehovah’s Witness. HELD. The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. The free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in our Constitution. As Jefferson put it, it is the most inalienable and sacred of human rights. The State’s interest in enforcing its prohibition cannot be merely abstract or symbolic in order to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh a free exercise claim. In the case at bar, the State has not evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the concubinage or bigamy charges against respondent or her partner. Thus the State’s interest only amounts to the symbolic preservation of an unenforced prohibition. Furthermore, a distinction between public and secular morality and religious morality should be kept in mind. The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. The Court further states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests. Assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest, it has to further demonstrate that the state has used the least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state. Thus the conjugal

arrangement cannot be penalized for it constitutes an exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of religion. MENDOZA AND LIM V SPS GOMEZ FACTS.  As a result of a vehicular collision resulting from the driver’s negligence, respondents suffered physical injuries and the Isuzu truck sustained extensive damages. Hence, this case for damages. Respondents argued that although the registered owner of the bus was Lim, the actual owner of the bus was Cirilo Enriquez (Enriquez), who had the bus attached with Mayamy Transportation Company (Mayamy Transport) under the socalled "kabit system." Respondents then impleaded both Lim and Enriquez. HELD. The registered owner is deemed the employer of the negligent driver, and is thus vicariously liable under Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the Civil Code. The registered owner of the motor vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered merely as an agent of such owner. Thus, whether there is an employeremployee relationship between the registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the liability of the registered owner who the law holds primarily and directly responsible for any accident, injury or death caused by the operation of the vehicle in the streets and highways  As such, there can be no other conclusion but to hold Lim vicariously liable with Mendoza. This does not mean, however, that Lim is left without any recourse against Enriquez and Mendoza. Under the civil law principle of unjust enrichment, the registered owner of the motor vehicle has a right to be indemnified by the actual employer of the driver; and under Article 2181 of the Civil Code, whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. [Supplementary Notes:] Generally, when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee (culpa in eligiendo) or in the supervision over him after the selection (culpa vigilando), or both. The presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure; consequently, it may be rebutted. Accordingly, the general rule is that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and supervision of his employee he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved of liability. However, with the enactment of the motor vehicle registration law, the defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil Code  that the employee acts beyond

the scope of his assigned task or that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage  –  are no longer available to the registered owner of the motor vehicle, because the motor vehicle registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article 2180. (Basically, as long as you’re the registered owner of the vehicle, you along with the driver are liable.) LEUS V ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE

1) Public and secular morality should determine the prevailing norms of conduct, not religious morality. The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular, not religious x x x. “Religious teachings as expressed in public debate may influence the civil public order but public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms.” Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what some might regard as religious programs or agenda. The non-believers would therefore be compelled to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a religious belief, i.e., to a “compelled religion,” anathema to religious freedom. Likewise, if government based its actions upon religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve or endorse that belief and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious or non-religious views that would not support the policy.  As a result, government will not provide full religious freedom for all its citizens, or even make it appear that those whose beliefs are disapproved are second-class citizens. Expansive religious freedom therefore requires that government be neutral in matters of religion; governmental reliance upon religious  justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality. In other words, government action, including its proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law like concubinage, must have a secular purpose. That is, the government proscribes this conduct because it is “detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society” and not because the conduct is proscribed by the beliefs of one religion or the other. Although admittedly, moral judgments based on religion might have a compelling influence on those engaged in public deliberations over what actions would be considered a moral disapprobation punishable by law.  After all, they might also be adherents of a religion and thus have religious opinions and moral codes with a compelling influence on them; the human mind endeavors to regulate the temporal and spiritual institutions of society in a uniform manner, harmonizing earth with heaven. Succinctly put, a law could be religious or Kantian or Aquinian or utilitarian in its deepest roots, but it must have an articulable and discernible secular purpose and justification to pass scrutiny of the religion clauses. x x x.

(2) The petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is not a disgraceful or immoral conduct since she and the father of her child have no impediment to marry each other. In stark contrast to Santos, the Court does not find any circumstance in this case which would lead the Court to conclude that the petitioner committed a disgraceful or immoral conduct. It bears stressing that the petitioner and her boyfriend, at the time they conceived a child, had no legal impediment to marry. Indeed, even prior to her dismissal, the petitioner married her boyfriend, the father of her child. As the Court held in Radam, there is no law which penalizes an unmarried mother by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons; that neither does such situation contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution.  Admittedly, the petitioner is employed in an educational institution where the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church, including that on pre-marital sexual relations, is strictly upheld and taught to the students. That her indiscretion, which resulted in her pregnancy out of wedlock, is anathema to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. However, viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct, the petitioner’s conduct cannot be considered as disgraceful or immoral; such conduct is not denounced by public and secular morality. It may be an unusual arrangement, but it certainly is not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the law. To stress, pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS.  Accordingly, the labor tribunals erred in upholding the validity of the petitioner’s dismissal. The labor tribunals arbitrarily relied solely on the circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s pregnancy and its supposed effect on SSCW and its students without evaluating whether the petitioner’s conduct is indeed considered disgraceful or immoral in view of the prevailing norms of conduct. In this regard, the labor tribunals’ respective haphazard evaluation of the evidence amounts to grave abuse of discretion, which the Court will rectify. The labor tribunals’ finding that the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock despite the absence of substantial evidence is not only arbitrary, but a grave abuse of discretion, which should have been set right by the CA.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS (DISCLAIMER: Not 100% sure with the answers especially numbers 7 and 8  – don’t just rely with my answers AND please notify me nalang if may corrections)

be determined by two functions with respect to human law; constructive and protective functions.

1. What is the bas is or cons ideration of S t. Thomas on Question 6 on the philosophy of L aw?

Protective – provides a shield against laws that violate the natural law.

From St. Augustine, who insisted that “Theological Christian considerations not only permeate the whole of law and legal theory, but in fact constitute the only sound foundation of true theory, but in fact constitute the only sound foundation of true law and true  jurisprudence.”

 3, What is the fir s t thing a judg e mus t do to interpret cons titution?

a) b) c)

St. Thomas understood and affirmed the order in the universe. The world is not a product of chance. It was created by loving God whose existence and attributes we can demonstrate and who has ordered his creation in accord with his design.

Construction – provides a guide for the formulation of laws to promote the common good.

In the interpretation of any legal document, whether a will, contract, statute or Constitution, the object should be construed, according to the intent of its framers. That is, to follow its original intent or to discern it.  And where its words are clear and plain and there’s no need for interpretation, the first rule is to construe according to the sense of its terms and the intention of the parties.

4. What is an ex-pos t facto law?  2. What is the ultimate purpos e of humans ? Suggested Answer: a) To seek good, including his highest good, which is eternal happiness with God. b) To preserve himself in existence. c) To preserve the species  –  that is, to unite sexually. d) To live in the community with other men. e) To use his intellect and will – that is, to know the truth and to make his own decisions.

 3. (a) Is i t part of the natural law to puni s h? (b) What  puni s hment should be impos ed? Suggested Answer: a. Yes, man has a natural aptitude for virtue; but the perfection of virtue must be acquired by man by means of some kind of training. It is necessary for such to be restrained from evil by force and fear, in order that, they might desist from evil-doing and leave others in peace and that themselves by being habituated in this way, might be brought to do willingly what they did from fear, and thus become virtuous. Therefore, in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to punish. Because human law is derived from natural law  – hence, “that one must not kill may be derived as a conclusion from the basic principle that one should do harm to no man”. b. The law of nature has it that the evil doer should be punished, but the human law decrees whether the punishment should be in this or that way by fine, imprisonment or other penalty. Hence, punishment can

 An act committed was not a crime, cannot be made so by statute without violating the constitutional inhibition as to ex post facto laws. An ex post facto law is one which: a) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when was done; b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. d) Alters the legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon a less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; e) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposing a penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal or a proclamation of amnesty.

 5. B ir th control and abortion, is it in accor dance with Natural Law? (R oe v Wade) Suggested Answer It depends. According to Roe v Wade, the Court finds that an abortion statute that forbids all abortions except in the case of a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother is unconstitutional. However, it does allow for regulation and proscription of abortion when the statute is narrowly tailored to uphold a compelling state interest, such as the health of the mother or the viable

fetus. The court declined to address the question of when life begins.

6. D eath penalty, does it vi olate Natural Law? Suggested Answer It depends. According to St. Thomas, Common Good can be basis of justification of Capital Punishment Life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men. However, the execution of the wicked is forbidden is wherever it cannot be done without danger to the good. “If a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. V. 6)

7. Two theories of Natural Law. Suggested Answer a) Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. b) That men are rational beings.

8. Lawful authority of parents to discipline their children, s hould they be obeyed? Suggested Answer It depends. According to St. Thomas, Human law is an integral part of God’s plan, is designed to promote the common good and help man attain his highest end of happiness with God. Hence, law is not merely whatever legislative product results from the contentions of rival individuals and interests, rather, there is a common good  that is more than merely the total of individual goods. The function and authority of the human law and state are limited. The state is part of God’s plan, which is oriented toward the salvation of human persons. It is fair to say that the ultimate purpose of the state is not the good or seeming good of body politic but that of the individual members that compose it. (Note: May naalala lang ako na the State cannot make a law authorizing or mangialam on how the parents discipline their chilren, because it is inherent to the  parents to discipline their children and parang obligation na nila yun – Family Code yata or naalala ko lang to sa lecture ni atty. Sta Maria. Unless yung pag discipline nila is contrary to law)

9. What is morality according to J us tice Puno. In the case of Estrada v Escitor, Justice Puno said the morality refers to how we ought to live and why. The

question of how we ought to live necessarily considers that man does not live in isolation, but in society. That. Devlin posits that a society is held together by a community of ideas, made up not only of political ideas but also of ideas about the manner its members should behave and govern their lives. The latter are their morals; they constitute the public morality. Each member of society has ideas about what is good and what is evil. If people try to create a society wherein there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil, they will fail; if having established the society on common agreement, the agreement collapses, the society will disintegrate.