rationality over legality

7/30/2019 Rationality Over Legality

1/9

RATIONALITY OVER LEGALITY

Man is, in its very nature, rational.

Centuries have passed since two of the most prominent views regarding the

necessity of law were forwarded, namely: natural law and positive law. On one hand,

natural law originated from the Greek philosophers as it first appeared in ancient

Greece. Heraclitus, one of its pioneers, calls it, the rational harmony and order of

divergent things and events (Pascual, 1983). It is the unwritten law encompassing and

ruling the whole world, without which the cosmos would be in chaos(Ibid.). On the

other hand, positive law is based on the idea of the positivist jurisprudence that there

are no moral principles that precede the law. It is based from the implicit notion of

sovereignty, with the implied or correlative notion of independent political society thus,

positive law or every law simply called, is set by a sovereign person, or a sovereign

body of persons, to a member of the independent political society wherein that person

or body is sovereign supreme (Coquia, 2005).

Superiority of the Natural Law over Positive Law

Every man has the gift of rationality. We, as human beings have the natural

inclination to discern what is right and what is wrong, specifically what is moral and what


2/9

is immoral. Every creature that God created is given that gift of natural discernment. For

many centuries, it has been held, even at the start of the Greek era, the supremacy of

natural law over the positivist law or the man-made law. Many of the debates regarding

this supremacy say that there can be no positivist law without the natural one, thus

positivist law is derived from the natural law. Man-made laws are enacted on the bases

of the will of the state. It sets the standards of what is right or wrong within the criteria of

the society, within the standards of the superiors who rule the State.

Natural law also punishes things that are not punished in man-made laws. Man-

made laws failure to encompass all the things in this world makes natural law superior.

Natural law relates to every human conduct at all times, whereas man-made laws relate

to what is present, to what is urgently needed. Positivist laws relate only to the present

condition of the society, to the tangible objects of human conduct, thus they are

repealed or amended from time to time to suit the drastic changes in the society.

Furthermore, even though positivist law relates to the present state of the society, there

are still present avenues left untouched, thus natural law comes into the picture.

Mans rationality as the natural law philosophers would say, is all encompassing.

Rationality is what sets man apart from any other animals God has created. In the

absence of man-made or positivist law, man can still discern what is right and what is

wrong. Natural law, although general in nature, relates to every single human conduct

and amidst the differences between each individual, common notion of what is right and

what is wrong regarding general things makes a harmonious relationship between

members of the society. Thus, through reason, man knows that if a good is entrusted to


3/9

him for safekeeping, he shall return it to the owner whenever the latter demands for

such, without applying the laws regarding implied trust, quasi-contracts and the like.

The use of reason makes complicated things easier to comprehend. Rationality

enables man to choose what is right and in certain instances to choose, what is wrong

without going through the man-made law. Hence, natural law is regarded as that body

of universal and perfect precepts inherent in the heart and mind of man which guides

him in the exercise of rights, performance of obligations, observance of rules and

preservation of order and unity (Pascual, 1983)

Three Essential Elements of Natural Law: Natural Wants, Synderesis and Natural

Precepts

I. Natural Wants

Natural wants are inherent in every man. These wants are needs created

by the natural tendencies or appetites: certain desires and aversions

(Estrada, 1970), hence, these natural wants are inseparable with human

nature. Man has the tendency to search for an object that will serve as an end

for a certain natural want. Every object which will satisfy the natural want will

always be considered as good with respect to the natural law. Hence, not all

of the natural want of a man will be satisfied because it is anchored to mans

rationality and with regards to its effect to the society.

II. Synderesis


4/9

In synderesis, it forwards the idea that all the natural needs and the

appetites that give rise to them, are matters of experience, hence, base on

facts (Ibid.). In attaining these natural wants, man should use his natural

faculties only and naturally; hence, the principle of synderesis is for man to

act naturally.

III. Natural Precepts

The natural precepts state that the inherent rationality of man arranges the

order of the natural wants from the least desirable to the most desirable. The

resulting network of this arrangement of the natural wants is the Order of

Nature.

Cases: Application of the Superiority of Natural Law over Positive Law

I. Rutter vs Esteban

Facts:

On August 20,1941 Rutter sold to Esteban two parcels of land situated in

the Manila for P9,600 of which P4,800 were paid outright, and the balance was

made payable as follows: P2,400 on or before August 7, 1942, and P2,400 on or

before August 27, 1943, with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum. To

secure the payment of said balance of P4,800, a first mortgage has been

constituted in favor of the plaintiff. Esteban failed to pay the two installments as

agreed upon, as well as the interest that had accrued and so Rutter instituted an

action to recover the balance due, the interest due and the attorney's fees.


5/9

The complaint also contains a prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged in

accordance with law. Esteban claims that this is a prewar obligation contracted

and that he is a war sufferer, having filed his claim with the Philippine War

Damage Commission for the losses he had suffered as a consequence of the

last war; and that under section 2 of RA 342(moratorium law), payment of his

obligation cannot be enforced until after the lapse of eight years. The complaint

was dismissed. A motion for reconsideration was made which assails the

constitutionality of RA 342.

Analysis:

In this case, there is obviously a clash between the natural law and

positive law. When a man borrowed money from another, it is but natural for him

to return such to the creditor, such is also the case, when a man bought a

property from another, he must pay for its full amount since he has in his

possession the entire property and not just a part of it corresponding to his

payment. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 342, provides that all debts and other

monetary obligations contracted before December 8, 1941, any provision in the

contract creating the same or any subsequent agreement affecting such

obligation to the contrary notwithstanding, shall not due and demandable for a

period of eight (8) years from and after settlement of the war damage claim of the

debtor by the Philippine War Damage Commission; and section 3 of said Act

provides that should the provision of section 2 be declared void and

unenforceable, then as regards the obligation affected thereby, the provisions of

Executive Order No. 25 dated November 18, 1944, as amended by Executive


6/9

Order No. 32, dated March 10, 1945, relative to debt moratorium, shall continue

to be in force and effect, any contract affecting the same to the contrary

notwithstanding, until subsequently repealed or amended by a legislative

enactment. Hence, from the wording of the law, any person including the herein

respondent is not obliged to pay their indebtedness contracted prior to the World

War, for a period of 8 years from and after the settlement of the war damage

claim of the debtor by the Philippine War Damage Commission. The enactment

of RA 342, clearly prejudices the creditors and a clear violation of the natural law

that a debtor must pay for his debt at the time it becomes due and demandable

but because of the said law, the due period was suspended for 8 years from and

after settlement of the Philippine War Damage Commission.

The court ruled that In the face of the foregoing observations, and

consistent with what we believe to be as the only course dictated by justice,

fairness and righteousness, we feel that the only way open to us under the

present circumstances is to declare that the continued operation and

enforcement of Republic Act No. 342 at the present time is unreasonable and

oppressive, and should not be prolonged a minute longer, and, therefore, the

same should be declared null and void and without effect (Rutter vs Esteban,

1953). Thus, the natural law wins over the positive law (RA 342) due to its

unreasonableness and violation of the natural law.

II. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines vs Executive Secretary


7/9

Facts:

The Office of the Executive Secretary issued Executive Order No. 46

which grants the Office of the Muslim Affairs the exclusive right to issue Halal

certifications. The petitioner however contends that EO 46 is unconstitutional for

impairing their right to religion since it is the petitioner who has affiliation to some

national Islamic Organizations and an active member of international

organizations which accredited the petitioner to issue Halal certifications in the

Philippines. The respondent however contends that EO 46 is issued for the

welfare of the Muslim communities so that the foods that are certified as halal are

secured free from meat contents or any of its derivatives.

Analysis:

In this case, EO 46 was enacted in violation of the natural right of the

Muslim Community to decide what is good for their community. Halal

certifications are secured by the herein petitioner to every food product, certifying

that such food has complied with the Islamic standards regarding the contents of

the food, beverages and the like. EO 46 was passed without asking the opinion

of the Islamic community, hence, their right to issue halal certifications for their

own welfare was infringe.

The court declared EO 46 as violative of the right to exercise the freedom

of religion of the Islamic community, in doing the necessary religious practices in

accordance with the teachings in their Quran to bless food, beverage and issue

a halal certification for such, hence, the natural law is superior to positive law

(Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines vs Executive Secretary, 2003).


8/9

Bibliography:


9/9

Aquino, R. (2006). A Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy. Quezon City:

Central Book Supply, Inc.

Coquia, J. (2005). Readings in Legal Philosophy and Theory: Text and Comments from Plato to

McDougal. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company.

Estrada, A. (1970). The Philosophy of Law. University Book Supply.

Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888 (Supreme

Court July 9, 2003).

Pascual, C. (1983). Introduction to Legal Philosophy. Manila: Premium Printing House.

Rutter vs Esteban, G.R. No. L-3708 (Supreme Court May 18, 1953).

rationality over legality

Documents