2ND Quiz

1) In his insightful column, "Too Many Lawyers, Not Enough Jurists," Dean Ranhillo Aquino
emphasizes the importance of lawyers embracing a broader philosophical perspective.

Drawing from Aquino's arguments and considering the notion of "casting the
philosopher's stone," should lawyers aspire to be both legal practitioners and
philosophical thinkers? What potential benefits and challenges will lawyers obtain in
adopting a philosophical approach in their legal practice? (25 points)
Drawing from the perspective of Dean Ranhillo Aquino, as to the first question, I say yes. Lawyers must
aspire to be both legal practitioners and philosophical thinkers. I see law and philosophy to be so closely
intertwined that we need to be knowledgeable in both so as to fully grasp the entirety of what the law
means. It is not one over the other. To be a great legal practitioner, we should also be a great
philosophical thinker. As stated by Dean Aquino in his column, "We need more jurists in the Philippines –
which is to say that we need more thoughtful people for whom law is the object of serious study, and its
recondite problems...", I agree. Lawyers are oftentimes too focused on what a certain provision of the law
means, but finds it hard to really understand the context of it from different perspectives. This is why
applying philosophy is needed in both studying and practicing law. Philosophy allows us to look at law
from the above, letting us see through it from a wider sense of view.
As to the second question, there are many potential benefits lawyers may obtain in adopting a
philosophical approach. Aside from being able to understand in-depth on what the law means, adopting a
philosophical approach allows us to see things from differing perspectives, we are able to look at law from
different angles, thereby making us understand it more clearly and comprehensively. However, some
challenges we might face in adopting this approach is that it might lead us to false conclusions if we are
not careful with it, thus it is important to be knowledgeable not only with philosphy but also in law, and vice
versa.
2) How do Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which emphasize
the importance of justice, avoiding the abuse of rights, and preventing harm, align with the
idea that good law draws its strength from moral principles? Use practical examples to
illustrate the connection between these legal provisions and the moral conscience of
society. (25 points)
Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines all highlight how our law is dedicated on
preserving morals and honesty throughout the exercise of our rights. It is evident through these 3
provisions that our laws draw its stregth from moral principles. These serve as guiding principles on how
we, as a civil society, must behave, in a way that it punishes those that do otherwise.
To illustrate, when one person constructs a fence not within his lot, thereby not acting within his right, and
because of this, causes damage to another person, then the former is punished by law in a way that it
provides the party who the damage was caused to, to acquire compensation for such damage.
3) Explore the core principles of five major legal theories: natural law, positivism,
interpretivism, legal realism, and critical theory. Explain the key ideas and leading figures
associated with each theory. (50 points)
Natural Law is based on the precept that our laws are based on the observation of how us humans
behave in our day-to-day lives. What we, as a society, perceive as good, is ingrained into our laws.
Likewise, what law perceive to be just, fair, and reasonable, become the basis of good in our society.
Positivism is based on the precept that what the law states is a result of explicit and implicit conformities
and resolutions, not by what nature naturally dictates. Here, there is no basis from human behavior. So
long as the law is procedurally correct, then it is deemed as valid. It strictly follows the principle of "Dura
Lex, Sed Lex" or "It may be harsh, but it is the law", in a way, that it does not give credence to other
matters except to what the law provides.
Interpretivism is based on the precept that "What the law means is what the judges of the law would read
it to mean." This type of legal theory focuses on the belief that laws are not just mere texts or group of
texts promulgated, it sees law as something that can be expanded and perceived more deeply by
subjecting it to interpretations and constructions from the Courts. Here, we have 2 dimensions of legal
interpretation, first is formal dimension wherein we try to see if the principles and past decisions make
consistent logical sense. On the other hand, we have substantive dimension wherein laws are justified
and explained by going over various principles in order to arrive at a substantial conclusion.
Legal Realism pertains to looking at law as that in real events and drama that happen in our daily lives.
They portray the "trials" of life. It focuses on the different, real, and practical human realities that are
oftentimes overlooked, rather than focusing more on logic. In Holmes word, "the life of the law has not
been logic, it has been experience."
Lastly, Critical Theory is focused on the belief that laws should be subjected to strict criticism. It
challenges and raises suspicions on the existing principles and doctrines brought about by law. It runs on
the belief that law is not perfect in any way and that it is full of inconsistencies and inhumanities, and thus,
must be strictly criticized.

2ND Quiz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ND Quiz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1) In his insightful column, "Too Many Lawyers, Not Enough Jurists," Dean Ranhillo Aquino

emphasizes the importance of lawyers embracing a broader philosophical perspective.

You might also like