Legal Philosophy

Inigo Mathay-Rojas
11691735

Facts Of The Case

This case is an appeal from the decision of the honorable Court of Appeals. The
petitioner herein, is Rodolfo Bombasi, along with his family members. On the other
hand, the respondent herein are Erlinda Pearl Armada, Rodolfo Pangilinan, Antonio
Evangelista , Planters Development bank and Lyceum of Alabang.
Public respondent Erlinda Pearl Armada was then director of DAR Regional
Office IV who issued her controversial order dated April 15, 2014 in substitution of the
Decision dated January 21, 2013 of the 4th division of the court of appeals for CARP
coverage; Public respondent Rodolfo Pangilinan, meanwhile, is the incumbent Director
of the DAR Regional Office IV; Public respondent Antonio Evangelista was then
Regional Director of DAR Regional Office IV who issued controversial “cease and desist
order”, which he failed to implement, and who, instead, allowed the illegal construction
of the building by respondent Lyceum of Alabang, Inc. until its completion, without any
Conversion Order from the DAR Secretary. Private respondent Planters Development
Bank on the other hand, is interested in the outcome of this case being the landowner
and the landlord of the tenants/petitioners Bombasi, et al. Lastly, private respondent
Lyceum of Alabang, Inc. is likewise interested in the outcome of the this case being the
buyer of the landholding in controversy, which was placed under Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program(CARP) coverage.
In the decision of the Court of Appeal, it is significant to take note that the
following occurred, (1) the landholding was declared agricultural and petitioners
Bombasi, et al., were declared dejure tenants. (2) DAR Regional Office granted the
CARP coverage only with respect to 1.4028 hectares which is a portion of the 6.119
hectares subjected. (3)Planters development bank acquired the status of Bombasi et
al., as de jure tenants –the law provides under Sec. 10, RA No. 6389 that, “in case of
the agricultural lessor sells, alienates, or transfers the legal possession of the
landholding, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and
substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor.” (4)Planters Development Bank
filed its opposition to the notice of CARP coverage, (5)Denial of Planters development
Bank’s opposition. (6) Appeal of planters development bank to the office of the DAR
secretary. (7)Appeal to Office of the President, (9)Parenthetically speaking- The
Planters Development Bank forcibly ejected petitioners Bombasi, through their security
guards from the 1.4028 hectares subject matter of the CARP coverage. After their
ejectment came the illegal construction of an unknown edifice at that point in time so
petitioners filed their letter-petition with the DAR Regional Office and Director Antonio
Evangelista issued the controversial cease and desist order.
 Nature Of The Petition
This is a petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
to review the Decision in the case entitled “Rodolfo A. Bombasi et al., petitioners, versus
Erlinda Armada, Rodolfo Pangilinan, et al, respondents, dismissing the first petition of
certiorari and mandamus because petitioners allegedly failed to show that the DAR
Regional Directors acted with grave abuse of discretion when they advised the
petitioners to file a petition fixing of a disturbance compensation instead of implementing
CARP coverage of the subject landholding, and also added that the DAR Regional
Directors may not be compelled by mandamus because their duty is not purely
ministerial in nature.

Philosophy Of Law

Before diving into the critique of the arguments it is also important to take not that
in every legal case that a lawyer is faced with, he also has to keep in mind the concepts
from Philosophy of Law. In the very first sense, a distinction must be made between the
two concepts namely; Philosophy of Law and Legal Philosophy. First, Philosophy of
Law is a branch of philosophy, which ultimately deals with the ideologies and concepts
of Philosophy. While the second concept, Legal Philosophy, is a discipline in law,
essentially having to deal with the law itself. In this sense, Philosophy of Law is broader
in scope than legal philosophy because the latter only focuses on philosophy while the
former dwells into the concepts of law and the daily routine of a lawyer. Legal
Philosophy allows lawyers, such as in this pleading, to be able to come up with legal
arguments that have philosophical and legal basis. “Philosophy” having the meaning of
love for wisdom is ideal for lawyers to be knowledgeable about because the law itself
deals with a very vide range of concepts, thus having the love for wisdom is ideal for
every man who aspires to become a lawyer and also to those already in practice. Legal
theories are used by lawyers because it deals specifically with how institutions and legal
processes are legitimized or justified.

For instance in the present case, legal theories were applied by the lawyers in
following the legal processes and how to properly file a case with a real basis for
argument. The concepts of Raymond Wacks, help give a clearer view of the law. He
came up with the Descriptive legal theory, which seeks to explain what the law is, why it
is such, and its consequences. He also mentions the Normative Legal Theory, which is
concerned with what the law ought to be. This theory is what is ideal for the law,
however it is not was is achieved by the legislature. The normative legal theory will
remain a concept that the legislature would like to achieve because it is what is ideal for
the entire society being ruled by laws. As in every case, there are certain instances
when a lawyer would have better ideas in mind regarding the solution of a case
however, such may not be available in the provisions of the law, thus remains to be
normative. Wacks further breaks down the descriptive legal theory into three types, the
Doctrinal legal theory, the Explanatory legal theory, and the Consequential legal theory.
The Doctrinal legal theory seeks to answer questions regarding law that may be
answered by an underlying theory. The second type of descriptive theory is the
explanatory legal theory—such is an attempt to explain why the law is as it is. Thus, it
provides a description for the law and serves as an explanation of the basis of the law.
In applying Doctrinal legal theory in the case at bar, it may be first seen in the
nature of the petition. Hence, this petition for review is filed under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. The lawyer in filing this petition, did not file this specific petition
without any legal basis, in fact, this Is the petition filed under the certain rule, because
according to the doctrines of law, this is the rule applicable to the case. The doctrinal
legal theory serves as the basis of lawyers as to what they may file because it creates a
law that is to be followed and it provides for certain laws that are applicable to the case.
The relationship between petitioners herein, Bombasi et al., and the Planters
Development Bank is governed the law which provides under Sec. 10, RA No. 6389
that, “in case of the agricultural lessor sells, alienates, or transfers the legal possession
of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights
and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor.” The relationship formed
between them is that of a tenancy relationship, as the Planters Development Bank as
the agricultural lessor and petitioners as agricultural lessees.
Raymond Wacks also mentions the two major Schools of thought in Philosophy
of law; Natural Law theory and Legal Positivism. Ultimately, natural law understands law
as an ordinance of reason and intimately connected with morality, which is why the law
must be reasonable and just otherwise it is not law. According to this theory, morality
must be in check with the laws that are enforced against the people. Legal positivism on
the other hand, does not necessarily consider morality when it comes to law. This
theory emphasizes that what the law does is regulate the behavior of its subjects and
resolves conflict between them. Moreover, this school of thought believes that the
sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been
expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political
institution including administrative, executive, legislative and judicial bodies as defined
by the readings of Raymond Wacks. In the present case, it is evident that the laws that
are applicable herein are all coming from legitimate sources of law, thus it falls under
the legal positivist theory, which is the norm to be followed in the Philippine law.
On the other hand, Socrates was a strong believer of morality, however he
believes that we must follow the law. He is famous for the Socrates paradox, which
means that we must be just and obey the law, yet the law itself may be unjust. This may
be applied in the case at bar because as seen through the decision of the Court of
Appeals, they were able to deny the petition based on a mere technicality without
substantively looking into the case. This is precisely why the law may be unjust. Despite
having substantive arguments for the case, the law allows that it be dismissed on a
mere technicality. I believe that there must be a administrative case instead of
dismissing the case as a whole, and it must be treated in a case to case basis.

The assignment of errors/issues in the case at bar are the following:

The Honorable court of appeals seriously erred in deciding the case on mere
technicality, which is contrary to existing applicable laws and jurisprudence specifically
and especially involving agrarian reform controversies;
The honorable court of appeals seriously erred in deciding the case based on different
set of facts which are sanitized by public respondent Erlinda Armada and not based on
the sanitized and/or uncontroverted facts of the case.

Based on the second issue, there is a legal fallacy present in the attack of public Erlinda
Armada’s person. The fallacy herein, in Argumentum Ad Hominem, which means
attacking or praising the person making the argument or defense. This fallacy is also
called poisoning the well. In the case at bar, the argument by the lawyers that Erlinda
Armada is not telling the truth based on the facts she presented is merely an attack on
her person without any true or legal basis. The argument that she sanitized facts she
mentioned are not based on the sanitized facts of the uncontroverted facts of the case
has no basis, or purpose aside from poisoning the well and concluding tha Erlinda is not
telling the truth. To argue that the facts stated are not truthful just because it came from
Erlinda is not the proper way to set up an argument against her.

As for the first issue, the Court of Appeals erred in deciding in deciding the case on
mere technicality, which is contrary to existing applicable laws and jurisprudence
specifically involving agrarian reform controversies. This argument presented by the
lawyers presents a hast generalization fallacy because it is jumping into conclusions.
Not all cases decided on technicalities are wrong, moreover the courts are allowed to
dismiss the case on a technicality. The hasty generalization may also be seen in the
phrase “which is contrary to existing applicable laws and jurisprudence—not all cases
dismissed on a technicality are contrary to jurisprudence because courts are in fact
allowed to dismiss the case due to a technicality.

Conclusion

The case at bar presents the legal system we have here in the Philippines and
shows the process of filing a case or an appeal so the Supreme Court. As John Austin
would like to put it, we are under a sovereign who follows the command theory in that
there is a sovereign state, people who are obedient to that sovereign, and is an
independent political society. Positive Law is set by a sovereign person or body to be
members of the independent political society wherein that person or body is sovereign.
We are under the sovereign of the Philippine government who promulgates laws that we
the society have to obey as citizens of the country, also we have an independent
political society of our own. These laws govern the people who are habitually obedient
to such laws, creating a harmony in the society leading to a political society. As a
Roman Catholic, I cannot help but agree with the perspective of Aquinas, in that rules
are based on God, a command which comes from a personal judgment. This may be
true, however, in the land we live in, we are governed by provisions of law which we
must follow. All these laws created by man through God are there to regulate our
actions and ensure harmony among men for the common good of all. Holmes on the
otherhand makes sense in his theory of the “bad man”, in that we must look at the law
as a bad man in order to fully understand the law. Looking at it is a bad man would
allow us to see the punishment and avoid it as necessary. This way we will be able to
predict the consequences and the actions of the opposing party. This way the lawyers
of the case will be able to see clearly the arguments threw the lense of a bad man and
properly make the case to oppose the counsel of the other party concerned.