Remedial Law: The Empirical Philosophers – Chapter VIII

Reporters:
S. De la Cruz

G. Garlitos

C.M. Gonzaga

Introduction:

-The brief overview of the presentation's focus on empirical philosophies in remedial law.

-Importance of understanding philosophical underpinnings for legal practitioners.

1. Bacon’s Inductive Jurisprudence:

1.1. Francis Bacon's inductive reasoning approach.
1.1.1.Inductive Reasoning: Building Knowledge from Observation
 Involves moving from specific observations and cases to broader generalizations and
theories.
 Emphasizes empirical evidence and data as the foundation for drawing conclusions.
 Contrasts with deductive reasoning, which starts with general principles and moves to
specific instances.

2. Bacon's Inductive Jurisprudence

1.1.2.Bacon applied his inductive reasoning method beyond natural sciences to jurisprudence.
1.1.3.Sought to reform and improve the legal system by applying systematic observation and
analysis.
3. Francis Bacon's Influential Roles: Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England
3.1.1. Attorney General: Defending the Crown and Upholding Justice

 Bacon served as Attorney General from 1607 to 1613.

 Responsibilities included representing the Crown in legal matters and prosecuting cases
of national importance.
 His commitment to empirical methods informed his legal strategies and advocacy.

3.1.2. Lord Chancellor: Shaping Laws and Legal Reforms

 Bacon was appointed Lord Chancellor in 1618, the highest legal position in England.
 His tenure focused on legal reforms, including streamlining legal processes and
improving equity in the justice system.
 Bacon's empirical approach continued to influence his decisions and policy-making.
 3.1.3. Inductive Reasoning in Legal Practice

3.1.4.Highlight how Bacon's inductive reasoning was applied in his roles:

 Analyzing legal cases and evidence systematically.
 Formulating legal principles based on observed patterns and empirical insights.
 Promoting fairness and equity in legal proceedings through evidence-driven decisions.

4. The Father of Experimental Science and his Inductive method

4.1.1.Steps of Bacon's Inductive Approach:

 Observation: Careful observation of specific legal cases, precedents, and societal norms.
 Collection of Data: Gathering empirical data to form a comprehensive understanding of
legal matters.
 Analysis: Analyzing collected data to identify patterns, correlations, and underlying
principles.
 Generalization: Formulating general principles and legal theories based on observed
patterns.
 Application: Applying these principles to address legal challenges and create just and
equitable outcomes.

Bacon wrote in the advancement of learning as for philosophers they make imaginary laws
for imaginary commonwealth for the lawyers, they write according to the state where they
live, and what is received by law.

Francis Bacon outlined four distinct methods of inductive reasoning in his works, which are
commonly referred to as the "Four Idols." These methods were designed to help overcome
common pitfalls and biases in human thinking, thereby facilitating a more systematic and
objective approach to understanding the natural world. While these methods were primarily
focused on scientific inquiry, they can also be applied to various fields, including philosophy
and law. Here's a brief overview of Bacon's four inductive methods:

5. FOUR "IDOLS"
a. The Idols of the tribe (Idola Tribus):

 These are inherent biases and tendencies that all humans share due to human
nature.
 They arise from common human perceptions, such as seeing patterns where
none exist or imposing one's own beliefs onto observations.
 In the context of remedial law, understanding and recognizing these inherent
biases can help legal practitioners approach cases with greater objectivity and
avoid making unfounded assumptions.
b. The idols of the cave (Idola Specus):

 These refer to personal biases and limitations that result from an individual's unique
experiences and education.
  People tend to interpret the world based on their own backgrounds, leading to
potential distortions and misunderstandings.
 Legal practitioners can apply this method by being aware of their own
preconceptions and striving to approach each case with an open mind, considering
various perspectives and avoiding undue influence from personal biases.
c. The idols of the market (Idola Fori):

 These idols arise from communication and language, as they can be ambiguous or
misleading.
 Misunderstandings can occur due to imprecise terminology or unclear definitions.
 In the legal context, these idols highlight the importance of precise language and
clear communication to avoid misinterpretations that could impact legal
proceedings.

d. The idols of the theater (Idola Theatri):

 These idols refer to preconceived notions and dogmas that arise from cultural or
intellectual influences, including philosophical and ideological beliefs.
 People often accept and promote certain ideas without critical examination, leading
to the perpetuation of falsehoods.
 Legal practitioners can benefit by critically evaluating legal doctrines and principles,
ensuring that they are grounded in sound reasoning rather than uncritical
acceptance of established norms.

“Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much and so much only as
he has observed in fact or in thought about the order of Nature: beyond this he neither knows anything
nor can do anything”

6. Application of inductive method in legal processes and decision-making.

The process follows the stare decisis (settled decision) of a case that grows by each new application and
ruling. Like cases must be adjudicated in deciding a new case. Bacon stressed the importance of legal
reports and archiving as source of precedents that had become available with the invention of printing.

7. Emphasis on empirical observation, evidence collection, and analysis.

The right method for science is similar to the scientific method today: first observe facts, then record the
observations, then amass a body of data, perceive the affirms the hypothesis, arrive into a new law.
Case Reading:

Apiag v. Cantero, A.M. MTJ-95-1070, 12 February 1997, J. Panganiban [Bacon on Judicial Ethics]

FACTS

Maria Apiag, a public school teacher at Hinundayan, Southern Leyte, is legally married to Judge
Esmeraldo Cantero on August 11, 1947. They have two daughters namely Teresita A. Cantero and
Glicerio Cantero.

On September 21, 1993, complainants, through Atty. Redentor G. Guyala, wrote a letter to Judge
Cantero however there is no action or response from the respondent. Subsequently, complainants
learned that respondent Judge had another family: the wife’s name is Nieves C. Ygay, a Public School
teacher from Tagao, Pinamungajan, Cebu with five (5) children namely: Noralyn Y. Cantero; Ellen Y.
Cantero; Erwin Y. Cantero; Onofre Y. Cantero; and Desirie Vic Y. Cantero wherein in all of the public
documents, Judge Cantero misrepresented himself as being married to Nieves C. Ygay, with whom he
contracted a second marriage.

Judge Cantero denied the validity of his marriage to Maria Apiag because it was only dramatized just to
shot the wishes and purpose of their parents without his free will. He added “As a matter of fact, I was
only called by my parents to go home to our town at Hinundayan, Southern Leyte to attend party
celebration of my sister’s birthday from Iligan City, without patently knowing I was made to appear (in) a
certain drama marriage and we were forced to acknowledge our signatures appearing in the duly
prepared marriage contract(.) That was 46 years ago when I was yet 20 years of age, and at my second-
year high school days.”

However, before the marriage, they were engaged in a lovely affair which resulted in Maria Apiag’s
pregnancy in the name of Teresita Apiag now Mrs. Teresita Sacurom, one of the complainants. In order
to save the name and shame, the parents of both the respondent and the complainant came to an
agreement to allow them to get married in the name, but not to live together as husband and wife. In
addition, after the said affair, both will be immediately separated from each other without living
together as husband and wife even for a day, nor having established a conjugal home. Afterwhich, they
have never met each other nor having communication for the last forty years (40) years.

ISSUE

Whether or not a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is necessary to declare the prior marriage
void.

RULING

Yes, as per current jurisprudence, “a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact”
before any party thereto “can marry again; otherwise, the second marriage will also be void.” This was
expressly provided under Article 40 of the Family Code.
However, the marriage of Judge Cantero to Nieves Ygay took place and all their children were born
before the promulgation of Wiegel vs. SempioDiy and before the effectivity of the Family Code. Hence,
the doctrine in Odayat vs. Amante applies in favor of the respondent.

On the other hand, the charge of falsification will not prosper either because it is based on a finding of
guilt in the bigamy charge. Since, as shown in the preceding discussion, the bigamy charge cannot stand,
so too must the accusation of falsification fail. Furthermore, the respondent judge’s belief in good faith
that his first marriage was void shows his lack of malice in filling up these public documents, a valid
defense in a charge of falsification of public documents, which must be appreciated in his favor.
2. Exhuming the Evidence: Hume’s Presumptions and Probabilities:

Exhuming the Evidence: Hume’s Presumptions and Probabilities

Unraveling the Impact on Evidentiary Assessment in Legal Cases

Introduction

 Exploration of David Hume's philosophy on presumption and probability.

 Relevance of Hume's ideas in the context of legal reasoning and evidentiary assessment.

David Hume's Philosophy

 David Hume (1711–1776) as a prominent Scottish philosopher.

 Hume's concepts of presumption and probability:

 Presumption as a belief based on past experience or custom.

 Probability as a measure of how likely an event is to occur based on evidence.

Impact on Evidentiary Assessment

 How Hume's philosophy influences the way evidence is assessed in legal cases:

 Emphasize the importance of past experience and custom in shaping legal judgments.

 Highlight the role of probability in determining the weight of evidence.

Probabilistic Reasoning in Legal Cases

 How judges and lawyers apply probabilistic reasoning:

 Analyze cases with incomplete information using Bayesian probability.

  Bayesian Probability: In cases with incomplete information, legal professionals
often turn to Bayesian probability, a powerful tool that allows them to update
their beliefs based on new evidence. Just as Hume emphasized evidence-based
belief, Bayesian probability provides a structured way to incorporate new
information into ongoing legal assessments.

 Weigh competing evidence based on its likelihood and relevance.

 Hume's concept of probability takes center stage as lawyers and judges weigh
competing evidence. They assess the likelihood of different outcomes,
considering the strength, relevance, and credibility of each piece of evidence
presented.

 How probabilistic reasoning can be applied in a legal scenario.

 Imagine a personal injury case. The plaintiff claims their injury was due to a
faulty product, while the defendant argues it was the plaintiff's own negligence.
Here, probabilistic reasoning comes into play.

 Scenario Visualization:

1. Plaintiff's Evidence: Witness testimony and expert analysis,

presenting a probability of 70% that the product was faulty.
2. Defendant's Evidence: Surveillance footage and eyewitness
accounts, suggesting a 60% probability of the plaintiff's
negligence.
3. Bayesian Probability Application: By incorporating both sets of
evidence, legal professionals can arrive at a more nuanced
understanding of the probabilities associated with each
argument.
 Probability Adjustments:
1. Initial Belief (Plaintiff's Case): 50% product fault + 50%
negligence = 50% likelihood.
2. Incorporating Plaintiff's Evidence: 70% product fault + 30%
negligence = Adjusted likelihood.
3. Incorporating Defendant's Evidence: Adjusted likelihood based
on new information.
 Informed Decision:
Through probabilistic reasoning, legal professionals can arrive at a more
informed decision, acknowledging the evolving landscape of evidence
and adjusting their beliefs accordingly.

Case Study: Applying Hume's Philosophy

 Present a hypothetical case where Hume's principles are applied:

 Hypothetical Case: The Art Gallery Heist:

 1. A high-profile art gallery is robbed of a priceless painting during an elaborate gala event.
2. The prime suspect, a renowned art collector, is apprehended but vehemently denies
involvement.
3. The judge faces the challenging task of evaluating the evidence and arriving at a just
verdict.

 Presumption and Probability in Action:

1. Presumption: The judge considers established norms within the art world. Given past
instances of art thefts and the suspect's reputation, there is a presumption of guilt.
2. Probability: As the trial unfolds, evidence is presented on both sides. The judge weighs
the probability of the suspect's involvement based on the strength and credibility of the
evidence.

 Weighing Evidence:
1. Plaintiff's Evidence: Surveillance footage showing the suspect in the vicinity at the time
of the theft, raising the probability of involvement.
2. Defendant's Evidence: Alibi from reliable witnesses who attest to the suspect's presence
elsewhere, challenging the presumption of guilt.

 Bayesian Update:
1. The judge employs Bayesian probability to continuously update their assessment as new
evidence emerges.
2. Initial Presumption: 70% probability of guilt + 30% probability of innocence.
3. Incorporating Plaintiff's Evidence: Adjusted probabilities based on the surveillance
footage.
4. Incorporating Defendant's Evidence: Further adjustments based on the alibi testimonies.

 Informed Decision:
1. Through meticulous evaluation and probabilistic reasoning, the judge arrives at an
informed decision.
2. The final decision reflects a balance between presumption and probability, taking into
account the evolving landscape of evidence.

 Implications:
1. This case study underscores how Hume's philosophy guides the judge's reasoning
process.
2. It showcases the dynamic interplay between established beliefs, evolving evidence, and
the pursuit of a just and fair verdict.

Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners

 The practical takeaways for judges and lawyers:

 Consideration of Past Experience:

 1. Legal practitioners should recognize the significance of past experience and
established customs in shaping their initial judgments.

2. Drawing parallels to Hume's concept of presumption, acknowledging the influence

of historical patterns can guide more informed assessments.

 Application of Probabilistic Reasoning:

 Embracing probabilistic reasoning allows legal professionals to navigate cases with

incomplete information.

 Like Hume's emphasis on probability, they can evaluate evidence by assigning weight
based on its credibility and relevance.

 Balance of Competing Evidence:

 Just as Hume's philosophy encourages a balanced assessment of evidence, legal

practitioners must weigh competing arguments impartially.

 Applying Bayesian probability, they can dynamically adjust their beliefs as new evidence
surfaces, ensuring fairness in judgment.

 Enhancing Fairness and Accuracy:

 By integrating Humean principles, legal practitioners contribute to fair and accurate

judgments.

 Striking a harmonious chord between presumption and probability, they safeguard

against hasty conclusions and uphold the integrity of the legal process.

Case Reading:

Sevilla v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, 31 July 2006, J. Chico Nazario [Presumption of Regularity
of Performance and Validity of Marriage]

The certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that the
document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register
despite diligent search. Here, the testimony of the representative from the Office of the Local
Civil Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader, stated that they cannot locate the logbook due
to the fact that the person in charge of the said logbook had already retired. This belies the
claim that all efforts to locate the logbook or prove the material contents therein, had been
exerted.

FACTS

Petitioner Jaime O. Sevilla claimed that on 19 May 1969, through machinations, duress and
intimidation employed upon him by Carmelita N. Cardenas and the latter’s father, retired
Colonel Jose Cardenas of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, he and Carmelita went to the City
Hall of Manila and they were introduced to a certain Reverend Cirilo D. Gonzales, a supposed
Minister of the Gospel. On the said date, the father of Carmelita caused him and Carmelita to
sign a marriage contract before the said Minister of the Gospel. According to Jaime, he never
applied for a marriage license for his supposed marriage to Carmelita and never did they obtain
any marriage license from any Civil Registry, consequently, no marriage license was presented to
the solemnizing officer. For her part, Carmelita refuted these allegations of Jaime, and claims
that she and Jaime were married civilly on 19 May 1969, and in a church ceremony thereafter on
31 May 1969. The trial court declared the nullity of the marriage of the parties, holding that
being one of the essential requisites for the validity of the marriage, the lack or absence of a
license renders the marriage void ab initio. No marriage license no. 2770792 was ever issued by
Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of San Juan, hence, the marriage license no. 2770792
appearing on the marriage contracts executed on May 19, 1969 and on May 31, 1969 was
fictitious. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and uphold the validity of
the marriage of the contracting parties.

ISSUE

Whether or not the marriage of Jaime to Carmelita was valid and existing. (YES)

RULING

The certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that the
document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register
despite diligent search. Such certification shall be sufficient proof of lack or absence of record as
stated in Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Here, the testimony of the representative
from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader, stated that they
cannot locate the logbook due to the fact that the person in charge of the said logbook had
already retired. This belies the claim that all efforts to locate the logbook or prove the material
contents therein, had been exerted. Moreover, the absence of the logbook is not conclusive
proof of non-issuance of Marriage License No. 2770792. It can also mean, as we believed true in
the case at bar, that the logbook just cannot be found. In the absence of showing of diligent
efforts to search for the said logbook, the Court cannot easily accept that absence of the same
also means nonexistence or falsity of entries therein. Finally, the rule is settled that every
intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the
marriage bonds. The courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly
repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight. The Court is mindful of the policy
of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social
institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in
favor of the validity of the marriage
 3. Probability and Improbability:

 Laws for reason and science, according to Humes, are generalizations of the mind.
 Anything and everything can happen against things we consider customary. What we consider
as casual events are mere habitual occurrence or sequence of events and the sequence can
always change.
 This does not mean that the two sides of the story or two contrary occurrences have equal
probability of happening or equal believability
 For Humes, any report of the irregular or of the miraculous goes against ordinary experience
must surmount the balance of probabilities and previous human experience.
 There is always a chance of something else can happen, but the frequency of something
happening in the past affects our judgement of it happening again
 Hume’s fork is useful in being skeptical of proffered evidence. In courts, lawyers and
investigators try to establish the cause and effect of events and how things must happened
based from the evidence from the crime scene.

Case Readings: c. Civil Service Commission v. Belagan, G.R. No. 132164, 19 October 2004, J. Sandoval
Gutierrez [Probability and Improbability of Crime]

Magdalena Gapuz, founder of “Mother and Child Learning Center” and Ligaya Annawi, a public school
teacher filed separate complaints against Dr. Allyson Belagan, Superintendent of DECS of Baguio City.
Both complainants charged Belagan with sexual harassment and various malfeasances.

Magdalena alleged that when she filed an application with DECS for a PERMIT TO OPERATE a pre-school,
one of the requisites for its issuance was an inspection of the school premises. Since the officer assigned
to conduct the inspection was absent, respondent Belagan volunteered his services. Magdalena and
Belagan visited the school and during the course of the inspection, the respondent suddenly placed his
arms around Magdalena’s shoulders and kissed her cheek. Shocked, Magdalena muttered “Sir, is this

part of the inspection? Pati ba naman kayo sa DECS walang values?”. Fearful that her application will be
jeopardized and that her husband might harm the respondent, she kept the incident to herself.

Several days later, Magdalena went to the DECS office and asked the respondent the status of her
application and the latter replied “mag date muna tayo”. Magdalena denied explaining that she is
married. Magdalena the n reported the incident to a DECS Assistant Superintendent. Subsequently, her
permit was issued.

Magdalena then read in a newspaper that Belagan was being charged by another DECS employee
(Ligaya) of sexual indignities. Magdalena wrote a letter to the former DECS Secretary which resulted to
the respondent being placed under suspension.

DECS Secretary rendered a JOINT DECISION finding Belaga GUILTY of sexual indignities or harassments.

On appeal, the CSC AFFIRMED the DECS Secretary.

4. Wittgenstein on the Game of Doubt:

 For Wittgenstein, doubts and suspicions on common sense matters are motivated, these are
called “hinge propositions.
 The motivation for questioning basic matters indicates a certainty more than a doubt.
 In debates, opponents play along the terms of “doubt “ and “know” the exchange of language
becomes a game.
 In this piece, Ludwig Wittgenstein is taken to be an “anti-philosopher”. More specifically, the
following tackles Wittgenstein’s position on philosophical doubt — or at least on what’s often
called “global scepticism” (or “universal scepticism”).
 Like many of Wittgenstein’s other positions, this is the Austrian philosopher’s critique of a
central tradition (dating back over two millennia) within Western philosophy

Case Reading:

Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005, J. Carpio [Probative Value of Evidence]

Armi Alba, mother of 13-year-old Rosendo Alba, filed a petition for compulsory recognition,
support and damages against petitioner. Petitioner denied that he is the biological father
respondent. He also denied physical contact with respondent’s mother.

Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the
proceedings. To support this motion, respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Saturnina C.
Halos, the head of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research Institute, a DNA
analysis laboratory. In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing
and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity.

Petitioner opposed DNA testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. He further
argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination.