PHILOSOPHY OF LAW REVIEWER Hence, these inclinations are put into human nature by
God to help man achieve his final end of eternal
QUESTION 6: Lets talk about Aquinas. Why is he
so important? How does he define natural law and
where does he put in the big picture?
3 Considerations of St. Thomas on Question 6:
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.
1. St. Thomas understood and affirmed the
order in the universe.
2. The world is not a product of chance.
3. 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 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. Eternal Law
2. The natural Law
3. Human Law
4. 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 Reasons conception of things =
ETERNAL LAW
The Natural Law
MAN IS A RATIONAL CREATURE. (But not always
haha jk, okay lang maging tanga minsan.)
A rule of reason, promulgated by God in mans nature,
whereby man can DISCERN how he should act.
Basic Inclinations of Man:
1. To 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 community with other men.
5. To use his intellect and will that is, to know
the truth and to make his own decisions.
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 an end of eternal
happiness, therefore man should be directed
to his end by a law given by God.
2. Man 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 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 cannot 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 know what it
requires? Can it be changed?
General Principles Truth or rectitude is the same for
all and is equally known by all.
Speculative Reason the truth is the same for all, but
it is not equally known to all.
Proper Conclusions of the Practical Reason 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
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.
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
state the human law relate to the natural law?
Human law is an integral part of Gods 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.
2 Functions of Human Law
1. 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 nature.
2. 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? Shouldnt the
focus be on individuals and their rights?
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 their
own fulfillment.
Hence, it involves the life of all. It demands prudence
on the part of each one, and especially from those who
exercise authority.
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.
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? Dont they
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.
Singer treats ethics as entirely independent of religion
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.
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.
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.
QUESTION 11: Did Aquinas have an opinion as to
which form of government is best? Was he a
conservative 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.
QUESTION 12: Am I bound in conscience to obey
the human law? What if that law is unjust/
Man is bound to obey secular princes in so far as
this is required by the order of justice. Wherefore if the
princes 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.
** 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:
1. 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.
2. 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)
QUESTION 13: Wait a minute. If people who follow
Aquinas are so sure they are right as to the
meaning of natural law, wont they compel
everyone to follow their rules? Wont 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.
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.
QUESTION 14: Look. Isnt the bottom line the fact
that the law should now legislate morality? Where
do you get the right to impose your morality on
me?
All human law enforces a morality.
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.
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.
QUESTION 15: Job of a Judge?
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.
It is better that all things be regulated by law than left
decided by judges
1. Easier to find a few wise men to frame laws
than judges to decide on cases.
2. Lawmakers consider common good and not
case to case basis.
3. 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.
QUESTION 16: Natural Law as Part of Constitution
Even if state punishes should treat citizens as human
beings.
Interpretation may vary, may or may not be according
to natural law.
QUESTION 17: Natural law use to declare statute
Unconstitutional.
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.
Precepts of Natural Law
1. Maintains and Promote bodily life
2. Maintains and promote social coexistence
3. Lawful authority is to be obeyed.
4. Do not do unto others what you do not want
done to you.
5. Leave and give everyone what is due.
6. Contracts must be honored.
7. Duties and State of life.
Properties of Human Law
1. Enforceable
2. Concerned with external conducts only.
3. Human law is limited to particular groups of
people.
4. Human law is historically conditioned.
5. Human Law has a presumptive obligatory
force.

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 19th
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 States 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 States 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 womans 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
upon the States interest in promoting the health of the
mother.
For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may
regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where
necessary for the preservation of the mothers life,
based upon the States 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 memberofthe Jehovahs
Witness, waschargedfor immoral conduct for co
habiting withamanwithout the benefit of a
marriage,their relationship bearinga child. She
secureda Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness,
indicatingtheir churchs approval oftheirunionin
accordancewith thebeliefsofthe Jehovahs
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 States 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 States 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 drivers 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 youre the registered owner of the
vehicle, you along with the driver are liable.)
LEUS V ST. SCHOLASTICAS 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners dismissal. The labor tribunals
arbitrarily relied solely on the circumstances
surrounding the petitioners pregnancy and its
supposed effect on SSCW and its students without
evaluating whether the petitioners 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 petitioners

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 dont just rely with
my answers AND please notify me nalang if may
corrections)
1. What is the basis or consideration of St. Thomas
on Question 6 on the philosophy of 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.
a) St. Thomas understood and affirmed the
order in the universe.
b) The world is not a product of chance.
c) It was created by loving God whose existence
and attributes we can demonstrate and who
has ordered his creation in accord with his
design.
2. What is the ultimate purpose 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 it part of the natural law to punish? (b) What
punishment should be imposed?
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
be determined by two functions with respect to human
law; constructive and protective functions.
Construction provides a guide for the formulation of
laws to promote the common good.
Protective provides a shield against laws that violate
the natural law.
3, What is the first thing a judge must do to
interpret constitution?
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 theres 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-post facto law?
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. Birth control and abortion, is it in accordance
with Natural Law? (Roe 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. Death penalty, does it violate 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.
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.

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, should they be obeyed?

Suggested Answer
It depends. According to St. Thomas, Human law is an
integral part of Gods 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 Gods 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 Justice Puno.

In the case of Estrada v Escitor, Justice Puno said the
morality refers to how we ought to live and why. The