San Beda College of Law

Case Analysis on the Different Perspective:

Hegelian, Teleological, Historical and Utilitarian Concepts

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement

In Legal Philosophy

To be submitted to:
Atty. Dacanay

By:
Michael Benjohn N. Nieva
Mario Dexter S. Purugana
Adrian Espiritu

Table of Contents:
I. Utilitarianism
 a. Review of the Concept
b. Facts of the case
Magno v. Court of Appeals
Calalang v. Williams
c. Case Analysis

II. Hegelian Perspective

a. Review of the Concept
b. Facts of the case
Stone v. Mississippi
Ichong v. Hernandez
Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol et al.
c. Case Analysis

III. Teleological
a. Review of the Concept
b. Facts of the case
Navarro v. Villegas
Magno v. Court of Appeals
c. Case Analysis

IV. Historical
a. Review of the Concept
b. Facts of the case
Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan
c. Case Analysis

Bibliography:

Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 (1868)

Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 155 (1957)

Star Paper Corporation v. Ronald Simbol, Wilfreda Comia and Lorna Estrella, G.R. No. 164774,
April 12, 2006

Navarro v. City Mayor Antonio Villegas, G.R. No. L-31687, February 26, 1970

Oriel Magno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96132, June 26, 1992

Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1970)

Villanueva v. CA (427 SCRA 439)

UTILITARIANISM is one of the schools of jurisprudence which espouses the doctrine that what
is useful is good and that determining consideration of right conduct is the usefulness of its
consequences on the greatest happiness of the greatest of the greatest number in the
community. This, to the utilitarian, is the purpose and end of the law.

(Intro. To legal Philosophy by Pascual; 1989 ed. P. 137)

APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT:

Oliver Magno Vs. Court of Appeals

210 SCRA 471

G.R. # 96132 June 26, 1992

Petitioner Magno was in the process of putting up a car repair shop sometime in April 1983, but
he did not have complete equipment that could make his venture workable. He also had another
problem, and that while he was going into this entrepreneurship, he lacked funds with which to
purchase the necessary equipment to make such business operational. Thus, petitioner,
representing Ultra Sources International Corporation, approached Corazon Teng, (private
complainant) Vice President of Mancor Industries (hereinafter referred to as Mancor) for his
needed car repair service equipment of which Mancor was a distributor.

Having been approached by petitioner on his predicament, who fully bared that he had no
sufficient funds to buy the equipment needed, the former (Corazon Teng) referred Magno to LS
Finance and Management Corporation (LS Finance for brevity) advising its Vice-President, Joey
Gomez, that Mancor was willing and able to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS
Finance could accommodate petitioner and provide him credit facilities.

The arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has to put up a warranty deposit
equivalent to thirty per centum (30%) of the total value of the pieces of equipment to be
purchased, amounting to P29,790.00. Since petitioner could not come up with such amount, he
requested Joey Gomez on personal level to look for a third party who could lend him the
equivalent amount of the warranty deposit. However, unknown to petitioner, it was Corazon
Teng who advanced the deposit in question, on condition that the same would be paid as a
short term loan at 3% interest.

As part of the arrangement, petitioner and LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement
whereby LS Finance would lease the garage equipments and petitioner would pay the
corresponding rent with the option to buy the same. After the documentation was completed, the
equipment were delivered to petitioner who in turn issued a postdated check and gave it to Joey
Gomez who, unknown to the petitioner, delivered the same to Corazon Teng. When the check
matured, petitioner requested through Joey Gomez not to deposit the check as he (Magno) was
no longer banking with Pacific Bank.
To replace the first check issued, petitioner issued another set of six (6) postdated checks. Two
(2) checks dated July 29, 1983 were deposited and cleared while the four (4) others, which were
the subject of the four counts of the aforestated charges subject of the petition, were held
momentarily by Corazon Teng, on the request of Magno as they were not covered with sufficient
funds. These checks were a) Piso Bank Check Nos. 006858, dated August 15, 1983, 006859
dated August 28, 1983 and 006860 dated September 15, 1983, all in the amount of P5,038.43
and No. 086861 dated September 28, 1983, in the amount of P10,876.87.

Subsequently, petitioner could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals, thus it pulled out the
garage equipments. It was then on this occasion that petitioner became aware that Corazon
Teng was the one who advanced the warranty deposit. Petitioner with his wife went to see
Corazon Teng and promised to pay the latter but the payment never came and when the four (4)
checks were deposited they were returned for the reason "account closed."

For having issued the four (4) checks that later bounced, petitioner was charged with four (4)
counts of violation of B.P Blg. 22. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment
for one year in each criminal case and to pay complainant the respective amounts reflected in
the subject checks.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in those convictions.

Hence, the present petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner should be punished for the issuance of the checks in questions.

RULING:

NO. the Supreme Court held that by the nature of the "warranty deposit" amounting to
P29,790.00 corresponding to 30% of the "purchase/lease" value of the equipments subject of
the transaction, it is obvious that the "cash out" made by Mrs. Teng was not used by petitioner
who was just paying rentals for the equipment. It would have been different if petitioner opted to
purchase the pieces of equipment on or about the termination of the lease-purchase agreement
in which case he had to pay the additional amount of the warranty deposit which should have
formed part of the purchase price. As the transaction did not ripen into a purchase, but remained
a lease with rentals being paid for the loaned equipment, which were pulled out by the Lessor
(Mancor) when the petitioner failed to continue paying possibly due to economic constraints or
business failure, then it is lawful and just that the warranty deposit should not be charged
against the petitioner.

To charge the petitioner for the refund of a "warranty deposit" which he did not withdraw as it
was not his own account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an
unjust "debt", to say the least, since petitioner did not receive the amount in question. All the
while, said amount was in the safekeeping of the financing company, which is managed,
supervised and operated by the corporation officials and employees of LS Finance.

It is intriguing to realize that Mrs. Teng did not want the petitioner to know that it was she who
"accommodated" petitioner's request for Joey Gomez, to source out the needed funds for the
"warranty deposit". Thus it unfolds the kind of transaction that is shrouded with mystery,
gimmickry and doubtful legality. It is in simple language, a scheme whereby Mrs. Teng as the
supplier of the equipment in the name of her corporation, Mancor, would be able to "sell or
lease" its goods as in this case, and at the same time, privately financing those who desperately
need petty accommodations as this one. This modus operandi has in so many instances
victimized unsuspecting businessmen, who likewise need protection from the law, by availing of
the deceptively called "warranty deposit" not realizing that they also fall prey to leasing
equipment under the guise of a lease-purchase agreement when it is a scheme designed to
skim off business clients.

This maneuvering has serious implications especially with respect to the threat of the penal
sanction of the law in issue, as in this case. And, with a willing court system to apply the full
harshness of the special law (B.P Blg. 22) in question, using the "mala prohibita" doctrine, the
noble objective of the law is tainted with materialism and opportunism in the highest degree.

CASE ANALYSIS:

After characterizing the transaction which gave rise to the issuance of the checks involved in the
case as “Shrouded with the mystery, gimmickry and doubtful legality”, victimizing “unsuspecting
businessmen, who likewise needed protection from the law” and lamenting that “with a willing
court system to apply the full harshness of the special law in question, using mala prohibita
doctrine”, Justice Paras wrote in his decision as follows:
For all intents and purposes, the law (BP #22) was devised to safeguard the interest of the
banking system and the legitimate public checking account user. It did not intend to shelter or
favor nor encourage users of the system to enrich themselves through manipulations and
circumvention of the noble purpose and objective of the law. Least should it be used also as a
means of jeopardizing honest-to-goodness transactions with some color of "get-rich" scheme to
the prejudice of well-meaning businessmen who are the pillars of society.

Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in criminal law, "affirms that the primary
function of punishment is the protective (sic) of society against actual and potential
wrongdoers…xxx"

Corollary to the above view, is the application of the theory that "criminal law is founded upon
that moral disapprobation . . . of actions which are immoral, i.e., which are detrimental (or
dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human
society. This disapprobation is inevitable to the extent that morality is generally founded and
built upon a certain concurrence in the moral opinions of all . . . That which we call punishment
is only an external means of emphasizing moral disapprobation: the method of punishment is in
reality the amount of punishment."

Thus, it behooves upon a court of law that in applying the punishment imposed upon the
accused, the objective of retribution of a wronged society, should be directed against the "actual
and potential wrongdoers." In the instant case, there is no doubt that petitioner's four (4) checks
were used to collateralize an accommodation, and not to cover the receipt of an actual "account
or credit for value" as this was absent, and therefore petitioner should not be punished for mere
issuance of the checks in question. Following the aforecited theory, in petitioner's stead the
"potential wrongdoer", whose operation could be a menace to society, should not be glorified by
convicting the petitioner.

Clearly, the foregoing pronouncement went into the theory of crime and punishment in their
jurisprudential concepts, which were used by the ponente as the guiding principle in determining
the whether the penal provision of B.P #22 must be imposed.

The traditional concept of offense Malum Prohibitum is that the act is evil because it is
prohibited. (US vs. Look Chaw, 19 Phil 349) an offense Malum Prohibitum is an act made wrong
by the legislator- a forbidden evil. A wrong prohibited; a thing which is wrong because
prohibited; an act which is not inherently immoral but becomes so because its commission is
expressly forbidden by positive law. An illegal act because of the prohibition of law.
Correlating the case to the Teleological Perspective, the much abused theory of Malum
Prohibitum- that the only point of inquiry in this kind of offense is, whether the law has been
violated- was already clearly relegated to the background in favor of the teleological idea of
fairness and justice.

Correlating the case to the Utilitarian Perspective the Supreme Court moved to favor the
accused when the law was used as a scheme designed to skim off business clients. The court
looked into the nature and circumstances surrounding the issuance of checks by the accused,
essential requisites of violation of B.P Blg. 22 is knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of
the check of the insufficiency of his funds. Mere act of issuing a worthless check is a special
offense punishable by the anti-bouncing check law and the offense is Malum Prohibitum.
(People vs. Gorospe, 157 SCAR 154)

The law is intended to protect the banking industry as well as the economy and if the court
moved to favor against the accused, opportunist businessmen will move to abuse the law, as
what happened on the case, thus, affecting the integrity of the banking and the economic
integrity as well the court will fail to enact a decision envisioned by the legislature to protect the
greater good.

Calalang vs. Williams

[GR 47800, 2 December 1940]

First Division, Laurel (J): 4 concur

Facts: The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of 17 July 1940, resolved to
recommend to the Director of Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario Street
extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas Street, from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and along Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad crossing at
Antipolo Street to Echague Street, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., from a period of one year from the
date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. The Chairman of the National Traffic
Commission, on 18 July 1940, recommended to the Director of Public Works the adoption of the
measure proposed in the resolution, in pursuance of the provisions of Commonwealth Act 548,
which authorizes said Director of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use
of and traffic on national roads. On 2 August 1940, the Director of Public Works, in his first
indorsement to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, recommended to the latter
the approval of the recommendation made by the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission,
with the modification that the closing of Rizal Avenue to traffic to animal-drawn vehicles be
limited to the portion thereof extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Azcarraga
Street. On 10 August 1940, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, in his second
indorsement addressed to the Director of Public Works, approved the recommendation of the
latter that Rosario Street and Rizal Avenue be closed to traffic of animal-drawn vehicles,
between the points and during the hours as indicated, for a period of 1 year from the date of the
opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. The Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of
Manila have enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and regulations thus adopted.
Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a private citizen and as a taxpayer of Manila, brought
before the Supreme court the petition for a writ of prohibition against A. D. Williams, as
Chairman of the National Traffic Commission; Vicente Fragante, as Director of Public Works;
Sergio Bayan, as Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications; Eulogio Rodriguez, as
Mayor of the City of Manila; and Juan Dominguez, as Acting Chief of Police of Manila.

Issue: Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the Director of Public Works infringe
upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being
and economic security of all the people.

Held: The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken sympathy
towards any given group. Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism,
nor anarchy," but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces
by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be
approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption
by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying
the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should
be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic
life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the
health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the
greatest number."

Case Analysis

Correlating the case to the concept of Utilitarianism, Mr. Calalangcannot force the road
be opened again just for the benefit of the few but rather it must encompass the greater good
such as the program of the government, through their inherent state powers, to serve the
general welfare. The Supreme Court in making the decision did not essentially recognized the
classification of society who will be benefited in the government program but rather perceived
the program to benefit “all” people, regardless of class, as “general”. By invoking the concept of
“social justice” founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers
and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended
to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of
all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number."

Review on the Hegelian concept

Hegelian evolutionary process appears in a dialectic pattern. This pattern is design in which one
element, called anti thesis, is followed by an opposite aspect, called antithesis, and the struggle
between them is either wholly or partially settled or reconciled by the synthesis of the
contending views.

The usual application of the Hegelian concept is individualism and collectivism, both are
reconciled by means of the principle of identity, the resulting synthesis becomes the
identification or reconciliation of the opposing views or ideas into a concrete concept.

Hegelian held that all concepts are actualized by these dialect movement, that is to say a
concept (thesis) may evoke an opposite idea (antithesis) and out of their reconciliation or
identification emerges a new concept (synthesis). This synthesis shall be the prevailing idea
until it will be subject to another antithesis and that reconciliation will become the new synthesis.

Case application of the Hegelian Concept

Stone v. Mississippi1

Facts:

In 1867, the provisional state legislature of Mississippi chartered the Mississippi

Agricultural, Educational, and Manufacturing Aid Society. The Society was chartered to run a
lottery for the next twenty five years; however, in 1868; a new constitution was ratified by the
people outlawed lotteries in the state. John Stone and others associated with the society were
arrested in 1874 for running a lottery. The Society claimed they were protected by the provisions
of their charter while the state declared that the subsequent enforcement legislation had
repealed the grant.

Issue:

Whether or not Mississippi violate the Contract Clause be repealing the Society’s grant.

Ruling:

All agreed that the Legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a state. No
Legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The People themselves
cannot do it, much less their servants. The supervision of both these subjects of governmental
power is continuing in its nature, and they are to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the
moment may require. Government is organized with a view to their preservation, and cannot
divest itself of power to provide for them.
 The contracts protected in the Constitution are property rights, not governmental rights.
Therefore, one can only obtain temporary suspension of the governmental rights in a charter
which can be revoked by the will of the people.

Case Analysis

In the case at bar, it is a clear circumstance of conflict between the attainment of

individualism and collectivism. The thesis or the individualism in the given case is the validity of
the said society to organize and run a lottery for the next twenty five years as they were able to
obtain a grant from the government of Mississippi. That obtaining a valid grant to operate must
not be interfered by any of legislature. The contractual obligations arises from the charter must
be enforced at all cost.

However, the antithesis or the collectivism is the need for the government to interfere for
the welfare of the general public and not only for the advantage or benefit of a single group or
society. In the given case, lottery is distinguished as a species of gambling and wrong in their
influence.

Thus the synthesis is that the protection of the general welfare must be upheld. Lottery is
considered a species of gambling, and wrong in their influences. They disturb the check and
balances of a well ordered community. Society was built on such a foundation would almost of
necessity bring forth a population of speculators and gamblers, living on the expectation of
what, by the casting of lots, or by lot, chance or otherwise, might be awarded to them from the
accumulation of others. Certainly the right to stop them is governmental, to be exercised at all
times by those in power, at their discretion.

Ichong v. Hernandez2

Facts:

The Congress of the Philippines enacted the act which nationalizes the retail trade
business, Republic Act No. 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business,” prohibiting
aliens in general to engaged in retail trade in our country.

The petitioner is a Chinese national engaged in the retail business in the Philippines.
Petitioner, for and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely
affected by the provisions of RA No. 1180, brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that
said Act is unconstitutional.

Issue:

Whether or not Congress in enacting RA No. 1180 violated the UN Charter, the UN declaration
of Human Rights and the Philippine-Chinese Treaty of Amity.

Ruling:

The UN Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom
of their subjects, and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere
recommendation, or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.
 The treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China
guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals “upon the same terms as the
nationals of any other countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special
rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade.

Supposing, the laws infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to
qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, and the same may never curtail or restrict the
scope police power of the State.

Case Analysis

In the case at bar, the thesis is that retail trade practice, as averred by the complainant
Ichong, must be allowed to all persons whether residents or aliens. For the complainant the
government must have less restrictions or barriers on retail trade and let competition takes it
place to achieve its economic level.

However, the antithesis is the State indeed has valued the importance of retail trade in
the economy and thus finds reason to support it. During those times the players in the retail
trade industry were mostly and almost to the brink of total domination of foreign nationals.
Foreign nationals who are owners of retail trade would most likely serve only their personal
interest and not of the country as a whole. Therefore the government then sees to protect the
vital part of retail trade in the economy.

The synthesis is that RA NO. 1180 is a valid exercise of police power to achieve not only
its economic purpose but of the national interest as well.

Star Paper Corporation v. Ronaldo Simbol, WIlfreda Comia and Lorna Estrella3

Facts:

The case at bar is a petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals
in the case CA-G.R. SP No. 73477 reversing the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioner Star Paper Corporation (the company) is a corporation engaged in trading –

principally of paper products. Josephine Ongsitco is its Manager of the Personnel and
Administration Department while Sebastian Chua is its Managing Director.

The respondents Ronaldo D. Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia and Lorna E. Estrella were all
regular employees of the company.

Simbol was employed by the company on October 27, 1993. He met Alma Dayrit, also an
employee of the company, whom he married on June 27, 1998. Prior to the marriage, Ongsitco
advised the couple that should they decide to get married, one of them should resign pursuant
to a company policy promulgated in 1995: 1)New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in
case he/she has a relative, up to third degree of relationship, already employed by the company,
2)In case of two of our employees developed a friendly relationship during the course of their
employment and then decided to get married, one of them should resign to preserve the policy
stated above.

Simbol resigned on June 20, 1998 pursuant to the company policy.

Comia was hired by the company on February 5, 1997. She met Howard Comia, a co-
employee, whom she married on June 1, 2000. Ongsitco likewise reminded them that pursuant
to company policy, one must resign should they decide to get married. Comia resigned on June
30, 2000.

Estrella was hired on July 29, 1994. She met Luisito Zuñiga, also a co-worker. Petitioners
stated that Zuñiga, a married man, got Estrella pregnant. The company allegedly could have
terminated her services due to immorality but she opted to resign on December 21, 1999.

The respondents each signed a Release and Confirmation Agreement. They stated
therein that they have no money and property accountabilities in the company and that they
release the latter of any claim or demand of whatever nature.

Respondents then offer a different version of their dismissal, they averred that they did
not resign voluntarily; they were compelled to resign in view of an illegal company policy.
Respondents later filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, constructive dismissal, separation
pay and attorney’s fees. They averred that the aforementioned company policy is illegal and
contravenes Article 136 of the Labor Code. They also contended that they were dismissed due
to their union membership.

Issue:

Whether or not the company’s employee policy was illegal and unconstitutional.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage policy/regulation is violative of the
constitutional rights towards marriage and the family of employees and of Article 136 of the
Labor Code.

The 1987 Constitution states our policy towards protecting labor under the following
provisions:

Article II, Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect
the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

Article XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

The Civil Code likewise protects labor with the following provisions:

Art. 1700. The relation between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so
impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore,
such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and
lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.

Art. 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed
in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.

Article 136 of the labor code provides protection to women employees that none of them
shall be terminated from employment by any reason in relation to their marriage.

Case Analysis

In the case at bar, the thesis is the policy governing individual employees that states
whoever is married to a co-employee, one shall terminate his employment with the company.
This agreement with the employees of Star Paper Corporation shall prevail. While the antithesis
is that the policy is violativeof laws and of the constitution. The relationship of the capital and
labor are not merely contractual but they must be impressed with the common good such as
may be provided by labor unions. Here, the antithesis is that the promotion of employees’
welfare is best handled by a labor union. The synthesis is that the interest of individual
employee is best achieved through the promotion of the common good of all workers by the
labor union.

Review on Teleological Perspective

On the application of the teleological perspective in the jurisprudence, the juristic

approach by modern teleological jurisprudents, Josef Kohler and Sidney Hook, consider a
knowledge of right and wrong or good and evil that is relative to the changing conditions of time,
place and people.

Another is the Ethical Relativity factor, Joseph Kohler agreeing with historical
jurisprudence that the national oblutiacs cannot be ignored, however he felt that they cannot be
sole relied upon either. In Koler’s own words, “there is no ideal absolute or absolute ideal.” By
this is meant that there is no absolute formula to determine the different aspects of legal
ordering of society.

Sidney Hook then posited another view that the problem “of what is right and what is
wrong is to be conceived as the equilibration of interests and their adjustments to environment.
The relativity of our ethical beliefs areprima facie evidence that good and bad depend upon our
primary desires, and these change he qualities of good and bad change.”
 Joseph Kohler’s “ideal tendencies” and Sidney Hook’s “primary desires” set the trend in
modern teleological thinking and analysis in matters pertaining to the legal order away from the
“ideal absolute or absolute ideal” towards the notion that all law, good, right, are relative to other
transitory values and conditions.

Application of Teleological Perspective

Navarro v. Villegas4

Facts:

The case at bar is a petition for mandamus to compel the mayor of Manila to issue a
permit to enable certain group of students to hold a public rally, again at the Plaza Miranda.
However the respondent mayor denied claiming that such activities could ignite turbulence with
the crowd. The petitioner student then claimed that his constitutional right to freedom to
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of government. They stated the
case of Primicias v. Fugoso, where the denial of issuance of a permit to have a meeting in Plaza
Miranda is unconstitutional. That the respondent could only regulate and not prohibit the use of
public places for the purpose indicated.

The lower court then affirmed the denial of permit by the city mayor.

Issue:

Whether or not the denial of permit to assemble to the students unconstitutional.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied he petition of the petitioner students. There was a clear and
present danger for fear of public disorder as a result of the speeches delivered at the intended
meeting.

Case Analysis

In the given case compared to Primicias v. Fugoso case was that during the Navarro
case was a turbulent stage of the government and the student activist movement was at its
height and sometimes bloody and violent. There is a reasonable clear and present danger for
the respondent mayor to protect the interest of his subordinates. The Supreme Court in both
ruling having of the same situation adjusted to the environment and time of occurrence. There is
no absolute ideal to solve these both case of similar situation. What was made as the basis is
the occurrence of a valid clear and present danger. It is the environment that decided whether
an act shall be violativeof the law or not.
1Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 (1868)

2Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 155 (1957)

3Star Paper Corporation v. Ronald Simbol, Wilfreda Comia and Lorna Estrella, G.R. No. 164774,
April 12, 2006

4Navarro v. City Mayor Antonio Villegas, G.R. No. L-31687, February 26, 1970

Historical Perspective

A community or society of men which has advanced up the ladder of socio-political

development cannot be pure, racially or otherwise. One group may have come, for long or short
period, under the guidance of another nation. It is obvious then that colonial, commercial, religious,
and other contacts with other groups have had a great deal to do with the resulting uniformities in the
legal orders of different peoples. There are many folkways that have been incorporated into the
positive legal system of the Philippines. One attitude is the system of maybahay which pertains to the
management of the household affairs by the wife. In a case wherein there’s an insufficiently to
overcome the presumption, under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage,
the presumption is that they are conjugal. Also, the attitude of pagmamagulang is now legally
expressed in Philippine positive law. In People v. Taliman, et al., where award of actual damages for
funeral expenses is deleted because the claim is not supported by any receipt. The rule is that any
pecuniary loss must be established by credible evidence before it may be awarded.

Also in a case of Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, cases of unexplained wealth are similar cases of
bribery or dereliction of duty and no reason why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from
the rule-making bank deposits confidential – and, undoubtedly cases for plunder involve unexplained
wealth.

In Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, to be convicted of violation of sec.3(b) of RA 3019, as amended,

the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements: a. the offender is a public officer b. who
requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage; c. on behalf of the offender or any other
person; d. in which the public officer, in an official capacity under law, has the right to intervene. The
Sandiganbayan is vested with jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379, entitled "An Act Declaring
Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public
Officer or Employee and Providing For the Proceedings herefor." What acts would constitute a
violation of such law? A reading of R.A. No. 1379 establishes that it does not enumerate any
prohibited act the commission of which would necessitate the imposition of a penalty. Instead, it
provides the procedure for forfeiture to be followed in case a public officer or employee has acquired
during his incumbency an amount of property manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public
officer or employee and to his lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property. Section
12 of the law provides a penalty but it is only imposed upon the public officer or employee who
transfers or conveys the unlawfully acquired property; it does not penalize the officer or employee for
making the unlawful acquisition. In effect, it imposes the penalty of forfeiture of the properties
unlawfully acquired upon the respondent public officer or employee.