 Obergefell v. Hodges (2014) and Falcis v.

CRG (2019):

 Obergefell v. Hodges (2014): In this landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person
under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court held that states must allow same-sex couples to marry and recognize same-
sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. This decision represented a significant
step towards equality in the United States, acknowledging that the government cannot
dictate whom individuals can love and marry.
 Falcis v. Civil Register General (2019): In contrast, the Philippine Supreme Court
took a different approach in the Falcis case. While addressing a petition challenging
the constitutionality of the prohibiton against same-sex marriage in the Philippines,
the Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds and held that the constitutional
right to marry, as currently framed, does not extend to same-sex couples. The Court
emphasized that changes in marriage laws would require legislative action, reflecting
a more conservative and procedural approach to the issue.

 Theory of Law and Legal Theories:

 Theory of Law involves a broader philosophical inquiry into the nature of law itself,
exploring fundamental questions such as what law is, its purpose, and its relationship
with morality. Theories of law, often referred to as jurisprudence in continental
Europe, attempt to categorize and define what makes a particular rule or norm a law.
These theories provide a framework for understanding the underlying principles that
govern legal systems.
 Legal theories, on the other hand, focus on the practical aspects of law, such as how
laws are applied, how legal reasoning is constructed, and how empirical methods can
be used to understand the operation of laws. While theory of law asks more abstract
questions about the nature and purpose of law, legal theory is more concerned with
the application and interpretation of laws within a legal system.

 Non-Conceptual Analysis:

 Non-conceptual analysis is a method commonly used in the natural and social

sciences. It seeks to explain phenomena in causal terms, aiming to understand why
past events occurred and to predict future outcomes. In this approach, the focus is on
empirical data and observable patterns, rather than on abstract concepts. For example,
in the natural sciences, theories such as gravity or the behavior of light can be tested
and verified through experimentation. Similarly, in the social sciences, theories may
attempt to explain social behavior or economic trends, though these are often more
contentious and less easily verifiable.

 Natural Law Theory:

 Natural Law Theory posits that law is based on moral principles that are inherent in
nature and discoverable through human reason. This theory argues that there is an
intrinsic connection between law and morality, meaning that laws should reflect moral
truths. According to natural law theorists, what is morally right ought to be legally
right, and laws that violate moral principles are not true laws. This perspective
 emphasizes the overlap between law and morality, suggesting that laws derive their
authority from their alignment with moral values.

 Traditional Natural Law:

 Traditional natural law theory argues for the existence of a higher law, often
considered divine or universal, which serves as the foundation for human laws. This
higher law is seen as eternal and unchanging, providing a moral standard against
which human laws can be measured. Key figures such as Cicero and Thomas Aquinas
contributed to this theory, asserting that human laws should reflect the principles of
this higher law to be just and legitimate.
 Cicero: In his work "De Legibus," Cicero described law as "highest reason implanted
in nature," which orders what ought to be done and prohibits the opposite. He
believed that this natural law is inherent in all rational beings and serves as the
foundation for human laws. For Cicero, law is a reflection of universal reason, and it
is through this reason that humans can discern what is right and wrong.
 Thomas Aquinas: In his "Summa Theologica," Aquinas provided a comprehensive
definition of law, describing it as an "ordinance of reason for the common good, made
by him who has care of the community, and promulgated." Aquinas emphasized that
law is rooted in reason and is directed towards the common good. He argued that laws
must be just, reasonable, and promote the welfare of the community. Aquinas also
discussed different types of law, including eternal law, natural law, human law, and
divine law, each serving a specific role in guiding human conduct.

 Modern Natural Law:

 Modern natural law theory, as articulated by John Finnis, builds on traditional natural
law but focuses more on practical reasoning and the pursuit of basic human goods.
Finnis identified several basic goods, such as life, knowledge, play, and friendship,
which are intrinsically valuable and provide a foundation for moral and legal norms.
According to Finnis, law should facilitate the common good by creating rules that
enable individuals to pursue these basic goods without conflict. He argued that the
validity of law is tied to its ability to promote these goods and contribute to the overall
well-being of society.

 Kelsen:

 Hans Kelsen, an Austrian legal theorist, proposed the "Pure Theory of Law," which
sought to define law as a system of norms independent of morality, politics, or social
considerations. Kelsen argued that law should be understood in its purest form, free
from external influences. According to Kelsen, the validity of legal norms comes from
their connection to a basic norm or "Grundnorm," which serves as the foundation of
the legal system. This Grundnorm is the ultimate source of legal authority, and all
other norms derive their validity from it. Kelsen’s theory emphasizes the formal
structure of law, focusing on the relationships between norms rather than their content
or moral implications.
 Finnis' Valuable Basic Goods:

 John Finnis identified several basic goods that are fundamental to human well-being
and provide the foundation for moral and legal norms. These basic goods include life,
health, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, friendship, practical reasonableness,
and religion. According to Finnis, these goods are intrinsically valuable and should be
pursued for their own sake. Law, in this context, serves to coordinate the pursuit of
these goods within a community, ensuring that individuals can achieve these goods
without infringing on the rights of others. Finnis argued that a legal system’s
legitimacy depends on its ability to promote these basic goods and support the
common good.

 Fuller's Internal Morality of Law:

 Lon Fuller argued that law is not merely a set of rules but an enterprise aimed at
guiding human conduct through the governance of rules. He introduced the concept of
the "internal morality of law," which consists of eight principles that a legal system
must adhere to in order to function effectively. These principles include generality
(laws should apply broadly), publicity (laws should be publicly known), non-
retroactivity (laws should be prospective), clarity (laws should be clear), consistency
(laws should not contradict each other), practicability (laws should be possible to
follow), stability (laws should remain constant over time), and congruence (laws
should align with the actions of officials). Fuller argued that a legal system that fails
to adhere to these principles loses its legitimacy and cannot be considered a true legal
system.

 Legal Positivism:

 Legal positivism is a school of thought that emphasizes the separation of law and
morality. According to legal positivists, law is a system of rules created by human
authority, and its validity is determined by its source, not by its moral content. Legal
positivists argue that the law should be understood as it is, rather than as it ought to
be, and that the role of legal analysis is to describe the law as it exists. Legal
positivism rejects the idea that law must conform to moral principles to be valid,
focusing instead on the formal aspects of law, such as its creation, interpretation, and
enforcement.

 Hart:

 H.L.A. Hart, a prominent legal positivist, proposed that law is a union of primary and
secondary rules. Primary rules are those that impose duties and obligations on
individuals, dictating what they must or must not do. Secondary rules are those that
provide the mechanisms for creating, modifying, and adjudicating primary rules. Hart
identified three types of secondary rules: the rule of recognition (which provides
criteria for identifying valid legal norms), the rule of change (which allows for the
creation and alteration of laws), and the rule of adjudication (which empowers
individuals to make authoritative decisions about whether a primary rule has been
violated). Hart’s theory emphasized the importance of these secondary rules in
ensuring the stability and coherence of a legal system.
 Hart-Fuller Debate:

 The Hart-Fuller debate is a significant philosophical discussion on the relationship

between law and morality. H.L.A. Hart argued that law is a system of rules that can be
understood independently of morality, emphasizing the importance of legal validity
based on formal criteria. Lon Fuller, on the other hand, argued that law inherently
involves moral principles, and that a legal system’s legitimacy depends on its
adherence to an internal morality of law. The debate centered on whether law should
be understood purely as a system of rules (Hart) or whether it must also incorporate
moral considerations (Fuller). This debate highlights the tension between legal
positivism and natural law theory, and it continues to influence contemporary legal
thought.

 Primary and Secondary Rules:

 Primary rules are the fundamental rules of a legal system that impose duties and
obligations on individuals. These rules dictate what people must or must not do, such
as prohibitions against theft or murder. Secondary rules, on the other hand, are the
rules that provide the mechanisms for creating, modifying, and adjudicating primary
rules. Secondary rules ensure that a legal system can adapt to changing circumstances,
resolve disputes, and maintain consistency in the application of laws. Hart’s
distinction between primary and secondary rules provides a framework for
understanding the structure and operation of a legal system, highlighting the
importance of both types of rules in maintaining legal order.

 Branches of Legal Positivism:

 Legal positivism is not a monolithic theory; it has different branches that interpret the
relationship between law and morality in various ways. Exclusive legal
positivism asserts that moral criteria cannot be a necessary or sufficient condition for
the legal validity of a norm. This branch strictly separates law from morality, arguing
that the validity of a legal norm is determined solely by its source within a legal
system. Inclusive legal positivism, however, allows for the possibility that moral
criteria can play a role in determining the validity of legal norms, but only if the rule
of recognition within a legal system permits it. Inclusive legal positivists argue that
while law and morality are distinct, there may be circumstances where moral
considerations are relevant to legal validity. This approach acknowledges the
complexity of legal systems and the potential for moral principles to influence legal
reasoning.

1. Legal Formalism, Immanuel Kant in Critique of Pure Reason, Immanent Rationality of

Law, Antonin Scalia

Legal Formalism:

 Legal Formalism is often described as a "mechanical" approach to law, where judges

are expected to apply legal rules without injecting their own personal values or
policy preferences. This approach views law as a closed logical system in which legal
outcomes can be determined through the straightforward application of rules and
 precedents. Formalists believe that by adhering strictly to the law as written, judicial
decisions will be more predictable, consistent, and fair.
 The key idea in legal formalism is that the law is autonomous, meaning it stands
apart from other social institutions like politics, morality, or economics. In this view,
the law should be interpreted based on its own internal logic and should not be
influenced by external factors. This perspective is often criticized for being too rigid
and disconnected from the social realities that laws are meant to address. However,
proponents argue that this rigidity is necessary to maintain the rule of law and
prevent judicial activism, where judges might impose their own views under the
guise of legal interpretation.

Immanuel Kant in Critique of Pure Reason:

 Immanuel Kant's philosophy, particularly in the Critique of Pure Reason, provides a

foundation for the formalist approach to law. Kant emphasized the importance of
reason in human cognition, arguing that our understanding of the world is shaped by
the structures of our mind. In the legal context, this translates to the idea that laws
should be understood and applied through the use of reason, without recourse to
subjective interpretations or external influences.
 Kant's notion of the categorical imperative, which requires individuals to act
according to maxims that can be universally applied, aligns with the formalist idea
that legal rules should be applied consistently in all cases. This means that the law,
like Kant's moral law, should be objective, universal, and derived from rational
principles. The idea is that by applying reason, we can derive legal principles that are
both just and universally applicable, avoiding the arbitrariness that might come from
individual discretion.

Immanent Rationality of Law:

 The concept of immanent rationality refers to the idea that the law, when properly
understood, embodies a rational order that is inherent within its structure. Legal
Formalism embraces this concept by arguing that the law, as a system of rules, has
its own internal logic that judges must follow. The immanent rationality of law
suggests that legal principles, when correctly applied, lead to rational and just
outcomes because they are derived from the logical structure of the law itself.
 This idea reinforces the formalist belief that the role of judges is to discover and
apply the rational order within the law, rather than to impose their own
interpretations. The immanent rationality of law suggests that the law is self-
sufficient and does not need to be supplemented by external moral or social
considerations. This approach seeks to preserve the integrity of the legal system by
ensuring that decisions are made based on the law itself, rather than on the personal
views of judges or the changing tides of public opinion.

Antonin Scalia:

 Justice Antonin Scalia was a leading advocate of Legal Formalism, particularly

through his judicial philosophy of originalism and textualism. Scalia argued that the
 Constitution and other legal texts should be interpreted according to their original
meaning—the meaning they had at the time they were written. This approach
reflects a commitment to the formalist idea that the law is a fixed and knowable
system that should not be altered by judges.
 Scalia’s textualism emphasizes the importance of the text itself, arguing that the role
of judges is to apply the words of the law as they are written, without inferring
broader purposes or intentions that are not explicitly stated. He believed that by
adhering to the text, judges would avoid the dangers of judicial activism, where
personal beliefs might influence legal outcomes. Scalia’s approach is often
contrasted with more interpretive methods that allow for broader considerations of
purpose, context, or evolving societal values.

2. Legal Realism, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Max Radin, Brian Leiter

Legal Realism:

 Legal Realism emerged as a reaction to the perceived rigidity and abstraction of

Legal Formalism. Realists argue that the law cannot be understood as a set of
objective rules but must be seen as a social institution influenced by a variety of
factors. Legal Realism challenges the formalist notion that law is a closed logical
system, arguing instead that legal outcomes are often indeterminate and that judges
play an active role in shaping the law.
 One of the central tenets of Legal Realism is that the law is not merely a set of rules
to be applied mechanically but is instead shaped by the broader social, economic,
and political context in which it operates. Realists argue that judges’ decisions are
influenced by their personal experiences, beliefs, and the specific circumstances of
the cases they hear. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the
real-world impact of legal decisions and the ways in which law interacts with other
social forces.

Oliver Wendell Holmes:

 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is often regarded as one of the founding figures of
Legal Realism. Holmes famously stated that "the life of the law has not been logic; it
has been experience," capturing the realist critique of formalism. He argued that the
law is not a system of abstract principles but a tool for achieving social ends. For
Holmes, the law should be flexible and responsive to the needs of society, rather
than bound by rigid rules.
 Holmes also introduced the idea that judges should consider the social
consequences of their decisions, rather than relying solely on legal doctrine. He
believed that the law evolves over time, shaped by the needs and experiences of
society, and that judges should play an active role in guiding this evolution. This
perspective was a significant departure from the formalist view that law is a fixed
and objective system, highlighting instead the dynamic and evolving nature of the
legal process.

Max Radin:
  Max Radin further developed the ideas of Legal Realism by emphasizing the
importance of understanding law within its social context. Radin argued that legal
rules cannot be understood in isolation but must be seen as part of a broader social
and cultural system. He believed that legal decisions are influenced by a variety of
factors, including social norms, economic conditions, and the personalities of the
judges themselves.
 Radin’s work often focused on the gap between the formal rules of law and the
realities of how law is applied in practice. He argued that this gap reveals the
limitations of a purely formalist approach to law, as it fails to account for the
complexities of real-world legal decision-making. Radin’s emphasis on the social
context of law aligns with the realist view that law is not an objective and neutral
system but is shaped by the interaction between legal actors and society.

Brian Leiter:

 Brian Leiter is a contemporary scholar who has continued to develop the ideas of
Legal Realism. Leiter argues that legal reasoning is often indeterminate, meaning
that the law does not always provide clear and determinate answers to legal
questions. As a result, judges must rely on their own judgment and values to resolve
cases, introducing an element of subjectivity into legal decision-making.
 Leiter’s work emphasizes that law cannot be separated from the social and political
context in which it operates. He argues that Legal Realism provides a more accurate
understanding of how law functions in practice, as it acknowledges the role of
judicial discretion and the influence of external factors on legal decisions. Leiter’s
analysis highlights the limitations of formalist approaches that assume the law can
be applied mechanically and suggests that a more nuanced understanding of law
must account for the realities of judicial decision-making.

3. Legal Interpretivism, Hart-Dworkin Debate, Law as Integrity

Legal Interpretivism:

 Legal Interpretivism, as developed by Ronald Dworkin, is a theory that views law as

an interpretive practice that requires judges to apply principles that best justify the
legal system as a whole. Unlike Legal Formalism, which emphasizes the application of
rules, and Legal Realism, which focuses on the social context, Legal Interpretivism
argues that legal reasoning involves interpreting the law in light of moral and
political principles.
 Interpretivists believe that judges should not merely apply legal rules as they are
written but should seek to interpret these rules in a way that reflects the underlying
principles of justice, fairness, and integrity. This approach emphasizes that law is not
just about following rules but about understanding and applying the principles that
give those rules meaning. Legal Interpretivism challenges the idea that law can be
separated from morality and argues that legal decisions should be guided by
principles that reflect the best interpretation of the legal system.
Hart-Dworkin Debate:

 The Hart-Dworkin debate is one of the most significant discussions in legal

philosophy, centered on the nature of law and the role of judges. H.L.A. Hart, a legal
positivist, argued that law is a system of rules that should be interpreted based on
their literal meaning and that the role of judges is to apply these rules as they are
written. Hart believed that legal rules are created by social sources, such as
legislation and precedent, and that legal reasoning should be based on these rules
rather than on moral considerations.
 Ronald Dworkin, on the other hand, challenged Hart’s view by arguing that law is an
interpretive practice and that judges should consider principles of justice, fairness,
and integrity when making decisions. Dworkin believed that legal reasoning involves
more than just applying rules; it requires judges to interpret the law in a way that
best fits and justifies the legal system as a whole. He argued that legal decisions
should be guided by these principles, rather than by strict adherence to rules, and
that law is inherently connected to morality.
 The debate between Hart and Dworkin highlights the tension between a formalist
approach to law, which focuses on the application of rules, and an interpretivist
approach, which emphasizes the importance of moral reasoning and principles in
legal decision-making. This debate continues to influence contemporary legal
thought, with many legal scholars drawing on the ideas of both Hart and Dworkin in
their analyses of legal systems.

Law as Integrity:

 Ronald Dworkin’s concept of "Law as Integrity" is a central tenet of Legal

Interpretivism. According to Dworkin, law should be understood as a coherent
system that reflects the principles of justice, fairness, and integrity. He argued that
judges should interpret the law in a way that makes it the best it can be, consistent
with these principles.
 Dworkin’s idea of law as integrity means that legal decisions should be guided by the
principle that the law is a unified whole, and that judges should aim to provide the
most morally sound interpretation of the law. This approach requires judges to
consider not just the text of the law but also the broader moral and political values
that the law is intended to serve. Dworkin believed that by interpreting the law in
this way, judges can ensure that legal decisions are consistent with the underlying
principles of the legal system and that the law is applied fairly and justly.
 Law as Integrity contrasts with legal positivism by emphasizing that the law is not
just a set of rules to be followed mechanically but a practice of interpreting and
applying principles that reflect the best understanding of the legal system. This view
challenges the idea that legal reasoning can be separated from moral and political
considerations, arguing instead that law is inherently tied to broader principles of
justice and fairness. Dworkin’s approach seeks to ensure that legal decisions are not
only legally correct but also morally justifiable.

 1. Legal Terms

 Jurisdiction: Refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case. It is derived
from laws or constitutions and includes the power to render a judgment and execute
it.
 Venue: The geographical location where a case is tried. Unlike jurisdiction, which
refers to authority, venue refers to the place where that authority is exercised.
 Concurrent Jurisdiction: Occurs when more than one court has the authority to hear
and decide a case.
 Trial Courts: These are courts that conduct trials, determining the facts of the case
and applying the law to those facts.
 Rules of Court: Procedural guidelines that govern how cases are conducted in courts.
These rules cover everything from the filing of cases to the final judgment.
 Pleading: A formal document in which a party to a legal case states or responds to
claims. Examples include complaints, answers, and replies.
 Appellate Brief: A written argument submitted to an appellate court, outlining the
legal reasons why the decision of the lower court should be upheld or reversed.
 TSNs (Transcript of Stenographic Notes): The official record of everything said
during a court proceeding.
 Parties:
o Plaintiff: The party who initiates a lawsuit.
o Defendant: The party against whom the lawsuit is brought.
o Petitioner: The party who presents a petition to the court.
o Respondent: The party against whom the petition is filed.
o Appellant: The party who appeals a court decision.
o Appellee: The party against whom the appeal is filed.
 Decision: The judgment or conclusion reached by a court in a legal case.
 Precedent (Stare Decisis): A legal principle stating that courts should follow previous
rulings in similar cases to ensure consistency and predictability in the law.
 Fallo: The dispositive portion of a decision, indicating the final ruling of the court.
 Other Terms:
o Ab Initio: From the beginning.
o Ad Litem: Refers to a person appointed by the court to act on behalf of
another party, such as a minor or an incompetent adult.
o Adjudicate: To make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or
disputed matter.
o Affidavit: A written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, used as
evidence in court.
o A.K.A (Also Known As): An alias or other name a person is known by.
o Bona Fide: In good faith, genuine.
o Case in Point: A specific instance or example that is relevant to the current
situation.
o Case Law: The law established by the outcome of former cases.
o Chattel: Personal property that is movable.
o Decedent: A person who has died.
o Dictum: A statement or observation in a judicial opinion that is not necessary
to the decision in the case.
 o Per Curiam: A court opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than
specific judges.
o Ratio Decidendi: The legal reasoning or rationale for the decision in a case.
o Ex Parte: Legal proceedings where only one party is present or heard.
o De Parte: When a party has legal representation.
o De Oficio: When a legal representative is appointed by the court.
o Interlocutory: A temporary or provisional ruling that is not final.
o Intestate: Dying without a legal will.
o Testate: Dying with a legal will.
o Lis Pendens: A notice that a lawsuit has been filed concerning real estate,
impacting the rights to the property.
o Res Judicata: A matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and
may not be pursued further by the same parties.
o Subpoena: A writ ordering a person to attend a court.

2. Government Structure

 Executive Branch: Composed of the President, Vice-President, and Cabinet

Members. The President has ordinance power and can issue executive orders,
proclamations, and administrative orders, which are sources of law.
 Legislative Branch: Consists of the Senate and House of Representatives. They enact
laws, known as Republic Acts (RAs), which are primary sources of law.
 Judicial Branch: Includes the Supreme Court, Appellate Courts, and Trial Courts. The
judiciary interprets the law and can declare laws unconstitutional, impacting their
validity.

3. Statutory Law

 Classification:
o Constitution: The supreme law of the land.
o Treaties: Agreements with other nations that have the force of law.
o Statutes Proper: Laws enacted by the legislative branch.
o Municipal Legislation: Laws enacted by local government units.
o Subordinate Legislation: Rules and regulations issued by administrative
agencies under the authority of a statute.
o Legislative Rules: Rules established by legislative bodies for internal
governance.
o Court Rules: Procedural rules established by the judiciary.
 Points to Consider:
o Enactment: The process by which a law is passed.
o Termination: The end of a law's effect, either by repeal or expiration.
o Effectivity: The date when a law becomes enforceable, often after publication
in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.
o Retroactivity: Whether a law applies to actions that occurred before its
enactment.

4. Case Law
  Classes of Case Law:
o Case Law Proper: Decisions by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and
other higher courts that set binding precedents.
o Subordinate Case Law: Decisions by administrative bodies and other lower
courts that may not have the same binding effect.
 Parts of a Case:
o Title: The name of the case, indicating the parties involved.
o Citation: The reference number and date of the decision.
o Synopses: A summary of the case.
o Headnotes (Syllabi): Summaries of the legal issues in the case.
o Case History: The procedural background of the case.
o Opinion (Ratio Decidendi): The legal reasoning behind the court's decision.
o Holding (Fallo): The court's ruling.
o Concurring and Dissenting: Opinions written by judges who agree or disagree
with the majority opinion.

5. Classification of Sources of Law

 By Authority:
o Primary Authority: Includes constitutions, statutes, and court decisions,
which are binding.
o Secondary Authority: Includes legal commentaries, treatises, and articles,
which are persuasive but not binding.
 By Source:
o Primary Source: The original text of statutes, regulations, and case law.
o Secondary Source: Materials that discuss or analyze the primary sources, like
textbooks or legal commentaries.
 By Character:
o Statute Books: Collections of laws.
o Case Books: Collections of case decisions.
o Search Books: Resources for finding specific legal rules or precedents.

Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch of the Philippine government is responsible for interpreting and applying
the law. It is composed of various courts, each with specific functions and powers. The
judiciary acts as a check on the other branches of government, ensuring that laws and
executive actions comply with the Constitution.

1. Supreme Court:

 Role: The Supreme Court is the highest court in the Philippines. It has the power of
judicial review, meaning it can declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional if
they violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court also serves as the final arbiter in
legal disputes, and its decisions are binding on all other courts.
 Examples:
 o Marcos v. Manglapus (1989): The Supreme Court upheld the President's
decision to bar the return of former President Ferdinand Marcos to the
Philippines, demonstrating the Court's role in balancing executive power with
constitutional limits.
o Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC (2001): The Supreme Court ruled on the
disqualification of party-list candidates, emphasizing the Court's role in
ensuring compliance with the law.

2. Appellate Courts:

 Role: The appellate courts, primarily the Court of Appeals, review decisions made by
lower courts to ensure that the law was correctly applied. They do not typically re-
examine the factual evidence but focus on legal errors that may have occurred
during the trial.
 Examples:
o If a trial court convicts someone of a crime, the defendant may appeal to the
Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court made a legal mistake.
o In People v. Echegaray (1996), the Court of Appeals initially reviewed the case
before it was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, demonstrating the
appellate process.

3. Trial Courts:

 Role: These courts conduct the initial trial of cases, where they hear evidence, make
findings of fact, and apply the law to those facts. They include the Regional Trial
Courts (RTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and other specialized courts.
 Examples:
o Regional Trial Courts (RTCs): These courts handle major civil and criminal
cases, such as land disputes, annulments, and felonies. For example, an RTC
might hear a case involving a breach of contract where the amount in
controversy is substantial.
o Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs): These courts handle minor cases, such as
small claims, less serious criminal offenses, and local ordinance violations. An
example would be an MTC hearing a case involving a minor traffic violation or
a small debt collection.

4. Specialized Courts:

 Sandiganbayan: A special court that handles cases involving public officials,

particularly cases of graft and corruption.
o Example: The trial of former President Joseph Estrada for plunder was
conducted by the Sandiganbayan.
 Court of Tax Appeals: Handles cases involving tax disputes between the government
and taxpayers.
o Example: A business disputing the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR)
assessment of taxes would bring their case to this court.
  Shari'a Courts: These courts handle cases involving Muslim personal laws in certain
regions, primarily related to family and inheritance matters in the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

5. Judicial Power:

 Jurisdiction: Refers to the authority given to courts to hear certain types of cases.
For example, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,
public ministers, and consuls.
 Judicial Regions: The Philippines is divided into judicial regions, each with its own set
of trial courts. This division helps manage the caseload across the country and
ensures that people have access to justice in their local areas.
 Internal Rules: These are the procedural guidelines that govern the operation of the
courts. For example, the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules dictate how cases are
assigned and how decisions are made.
 Rules on E-Filing: Courts have adopted rules allowing the electronic filing of
pleadings and other documents, improving efficiency and accessibility in the judicial
process.
 Efficient Use of Paper Rule: This rule mandates the use of paper-saving measures in
court submissions to reduce environmental impact.
 Judicial Affidavit Rule: This rule requires that the testimony of witnesses be
submitted in affidavit form, reducing the time spent on direct examination during
trials.
 Rules on Continuous Trial: These rules aim to speed up the judicial process by
reducing delays and ensuring that trials proceed without unnecessary interruptions.
 Rules on Small Claims: These rules simplify and expedite the process for resolving
small financial disputes (typically involving amounts of up to P400,000), allowing
litigants to represent themselves without the need for a lawyer.

Classification of Sources of Law

1. By Authority:

 Primary Authority:
o Definition: These are the laws themselves—binding legal sources that courts
must follow.
o Examples:
 Constitution: The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the supreme law of
the land, meaning all other laws must conform to it. For instance, any
statute passed by Congress that contradicts the Constitution can be
declared void by the courts.
 Statutes: Republic Acts, such as the Family Code of the Philippines
(R.A. 8535), are laws enacted by Congress.
 Judicial Decisions: Supreme Court rulings, such as in Tañada v.
Tuvera (1986), where the Court ruled on the publication requirement
of laws, create binding precedents that lower courts must follow.
 Secondary Authority:
 o Definition: These are sources that explain, interpret, or analyze primary
authority. They are persuasive but not binding on the courts.
o Examples:
 Legal Commentaries and Textbooks: Books like Dean Sandoval’s
commentary on the Civil Code provide explanations and
interpretations of legal provisions.
 Law Review Articles: Scholarly articles that analyze and critique legal
issues, such as those published in the Philippine Law Journal.

2. By Source:

 Primary Source:
o Definition: Original texts of laws and judicial decisions.
o Examples:
 Constitutional Provisions: Article III, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection of the laws.
 Statutory Laws: The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), which defines
and penalizes criminal offenses.
 Judicial Rulings: Supreme Court decisions like People v.
Echagaray (1999) set binding legal principles.
 Secondary Source:
o Definition: Materials that provide commentary or analysis on primary
sources.
o Examples:
 Annotations: Notes and explanations that accompany legal texts,
such as annotations in the Annotated Rules of Court.
 Legal Encyclopedias: Comprehensive summaries of legal topics, like
the Corpus Juris.

3. By Character:

 Statute Books:
o Definition: Collections of laws, often organized by subject matter.
o Examples:
 Compilation of Labor Laws: A collection that includes the Labor Code,
relevant statutes, and department orders.
 Civil Code of the Philippines: Contains statutes related to civil rights,
obligations, contracts, and family law.
 Case Books:
o Definition: Books containing collections of judicial decisions, often organized
to illustrate key legal principles.
o Examples:
 Philippine Reports: Official collection of Supreme Court decisions.
 SCRA (Supreme Court Reports Annotated): Another comprehensive
resource for Supreme Court rulings.
 Search Books:
 o Definition: Tools or references used to locate specific legal rules, statutes, or
case law.
o Examples:
 Philippine Digest: A summary of cases organized by legal topics.
 Online Legal Research Platforms: Websites like ChanRobles or
LexisNexis that allow lawyers and researchers to search for legal
precedents and statutes.

1. Natural Law:

 Physical Law: This refers to the universal rules governing the behavior of non-free
and material entities. Examples include the Law of Gravity and the Law of Buoyancy.
These laws are immutable and apply universally, without exception.
 Moral Law: Moral law establishes what is right and wrong based on human
conscience. For instance, the inherent understanding that killing another person is
wrong falls under moral law.
 Divine Law: Divine law is split into two categories: Divine Positive Law and Divine
Human Positive Law. Divine Positive Law, like the Ten Commandments, is believed to
be directly revealed by God. Divine Human Positive Law includes rules created by
religious institutions, such as the requirement for certain attire in churches or fasting
during Holy Week.

2. Human Positive Law:

 Mandatory and/or Prohibitory Laws: These laws must be followed because they
express public policy and include penalties for non-compliance. An example is the
requirement for a marriage license under Article 2 of the Family Code.
 Permissive or Suppletory Laws: These laws allow deviation if desired by the
individual. For example, under Section 18, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution, the
President may or may not call out the Armed Forces in times of need.
 Public Law: This governs the relationship between individuals and the state. It
includes laws like Constitutional Law and Criminal Law, which regulate how the state
interacts with its citizens.
 Private Law: This regulates relationships between individuals. Examples include Civil
Law, which governs contracts, and Family Law, which governs marriage and
inheritance.
 Substantive Law: Substantive laws establish the rights and duties of individuals. For
instance, the Civil Code outlines the obligations in contracts.
 Remedial Law: Remedial laws provide the methods to enforce rights or obtain
redress for their infringement, such as the rules of procedure in court cases.
3. Political Law:

 Political Law is a branch of public law that deals with the organization and operations
of the government, as well as its relationship with the citizens. It includes subjects
like Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Election Law.
 Constitutional Law: Focuses on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which is the
supreme law of the land. Topics include the structure of government, the powers of
each branch, and the rights of individuals under the Bill of Rights.
 Election Law: Governs the conduct of elections, including voter registration, the role
of political parties, and the regulation of campaign practices.

4. Criminal Law:

 Criminal Law defines offenses and prescribes punishments. It is divided into two
parts: Criminal Law 1 (general principles, including the nature of crimes and justifying
circumstances) and Criminal Law 2 (specific crimes, such as theft, robbery, and
murder).
 Crimes Against Persons: Includes offenses like murder, homicide, and parricide, with
distinctions based on intent, the relationship between the offender and the victim,
and the circumstances of the crime.
 Crimes Against Property: Includes theft and robbery, with robbery involving the use
of force or intimidation.

5. Civil Law:

 Civil Law covers private rights and obligations. It includes Family Law, Property Law,
and Obligations and Contracts.
 Family Law: Governs matters like marriage, parental authority, and succession
(inheritance). For example, Article 1 of the Family Code defines marriage as a
contract between a man and a woman.
 Obligations and Contracts: Focuses on the sources of obligations, such as contracts,
and the remedies available for breach of contract.

6. Labor Laws:

 Labor Laws regulate the relationship between employers and employees, covering
topics like employment conditions, labor standards, and the rights of workers to
form unions.
 Employment Conditions: Includes rules on wages, working hours, and the
termination of employment. For example, employees are entitled to benefits like
holiday pay and night shift differential.

7. Commercial Law:

 Commercial Law deals with business and commerce, including Corporation Law and
Negotiable Instruments Law.
 Corporation Law: Governs the formation, operation, and dissolution of corporations.
It outlines the rights and responsibilities of shareholders and directors.
  Negotiable Instruments Law: Covers instruments like checks and promissory notes,
which are transferable and can be used in business transactions.

8. Remedial Law:

 Remedial Law provides the methods and procedures for enforcing rights or obtaining
redress. It includes Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence.
 Civil Procedure: Covers the rules for filing and prosecuting civil cases, including the
jurisdiction of courts and the conduct of trials.
 Criminal Procedure: Focuses on the procedures for criminal cases, from the filing of
charges to the execution of sentences.