Utopia 2013 Introduction to Law Primer

  • Published on
    15-Dec-2015

  • View
    42

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

introduction to law

Transcript

<ul><li><p> THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA </p><p>Introduction to Law Primer </p><p>2013 Edition </p><p>SERVICE. SACRIFICE. EXCELLENCE. </p><p>For tomorrow shall cast a myriad of mighty storm that only those with firm determination and Utopian vision do survive. </p><p>www.utopia.com.ph </p><p>FOR SHARING. </p></li><li><p> TABLE OF CONTENTS </p><p>How to Read a Case - 1 </p><p>Recitation Tips - 2 </p><p>Dworkins Interpretative Theory 2 </p><p>Austins Theory of Law 5 </p><p>Hart: Law as Primary and Secondary Rules 6 </p><p>Hart: International Law - 7 </p><p>Parts of a Case - 10 </p><p>Philippine Legal History </p><p>Colonial Setting: Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro </p><p>Comprehensive Digest 12 </p><p>Case Primer 13 </p><p>Recitation Ready Digest 14 </p><p>War Period: Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh </p><p>Comprehensive Digest 14 </p><p>Case Primer 19 </p><p>Recitation Ready Digest 20 </p></li><li><p>2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER </p><p>THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA </p><p>People Power Revolution: Republic v. Sandiganbayan </p><p>Comprehensive Digest 20 </p><p>Case Primer 24 </p><p>Recitation Ready Digest 24 </p><p>Law in Context </p><p>Indigenous Peoples, Ancestral Domain, and the Environment: Cruz v. Secretary of DENR </p><p>Comprehensive Digest 25 </p><p>Case Primer 26 </p><p>Recitation Ready Digest 27 </p><p>Bangsamoro People: Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel </p><p>Comprehensive Digest 28 </p><p>Case Primer 32 </p><p>Recitation Ready Digest 33 </p><p>Definition of Law Terms - 34</p></li><li><p>ACKNOWLEDGEMENT </p><p>The Utopia Academics Team would like to thank Senior Brod Daniel Darvin for the </p><p>guidance and motivation without which this primer would not have materialized. We </p><p>consider his works as cornerstones for this reviewer now in your hands. </p><p>WARNING </p><p>Do not rely solely on the recitation-ready digests of this reviewer. </p><p>This type of digest merely aims to give an overview and </p><p>background of the cases for easy understanding and reference </p><p>during recitation. This digest is not comprehensive. It is advised to </p><p>read the full text of the cases and the comprehensive digests in case </p><p>the professor asks additional questions </p></li><li><p>2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER </p><p>THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA </p><p>1 </p><p>HOW TO READ A CASE </p><p>What are the 3 main parts of a case? </p><p>The (1) facts, (2) issues, and (3) held/ratio </p><p>What are facts? </p><p>Facts are events or circumstances that transpired. They are </p><p>usually narrated at the beginning of the case. </p><p>What is an issue? </p><p>It is the matter in dispute in the case. It is usually in question </p><p>form and begins with the phrase whether or not. </p><p>Give an example of an issue. </p><p>The prosecution argues that the accused is liable for murder </p><p>while the defense contends that the accused is only liable </p><p>for homicide. The issue is whether or not the accused is </p><p>liable for murder or homicide. </p><p>What are the two types of issues? </p><p>(1) Substantive issues and (2) Procedural issues </p><p>What are substantive issues? </p><p>Issues which pertain to the rights of the parties. </p><p>Give an example of a substantive issue. </p><p>Whether or not the accused is liable for murder or </p><p>homicide. </p><p>What are procedural issues? </p><p>Issues which pertain to the method or manner of carrying </p><p>out a legal dispute. </p><p>Give an example of a procedural issue. </p><p>Whether or not the case is ripe for adjudication. </p><p>How many issues are usually given in a case? </p><p>There is usually more than one issue. </p><p>Do we have to read all of the issues? </p><p>No. Read only the issue relevant to the subject matter. </p><p>A police officer, upon mere suspicion that Juans house is a drug den, entered Juans house without a warrant and in the course of the search, inflicted physical injuries upon Juan </p><p>and destroyed his personal belongings. The issues </p><p>presented in the case are whether or not the police officer </p><p>(1) conducted a valid search, (2) is liable for physical </p><p>injuries, (3) is liable for damages for destroying Juans property. Which issue should be studied? </p><p>If the subject is Constitutional Law, study only the first issue </p><p>since it deals with the Bill of Rights. If the subject is Criminal </p><p>law, study only the second issue. And if the subject is Civil </p><p>Law, study only the third issue. </p></li><li><p>2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER </p><p>THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA </p><p>2 </p><p>What if the subject matter is unknown? Which issue will we </p><p>study? </p><p>In subjects such as introduction to law, where the subject </p><p>matter is general and unknown, it is advised to focus on the </p><p>substantive issues. </p><p>What is the held/ratio of the case? </p><p>The courts decision on a particular issue. It includes the legal basis of the decision, analysis of facts, and conclusion </p><p>of the case. </p><p>RECITATION TIPS </p><p>1) Hold your ground and be polite. Remember, each </p><p>recitation is a test not only of your knowledge, but of your </p><p>composure and how well you keep your cool despite the </p><p>stress. Never attempt to make jokes while reciting. There is </p><p>always a chance that the professor might take this as a form </p><p>of disrespect. Law school has a serious atmosphere. </p><p>2) Nothing beats preparation. So make sure you read all the </p><p>cases and can provide a summary of the readings from the </p><p>top of your head. Try to dramatize the facts in your head to </p><p>easily recall the flow. </p><p>3) When you are inevitably called, observe good posture </p><p>and be confident. Do not dance around your spot. Make </p><p>an impression on the professor, and build on the fact that </p><p>you have prepared beforehand. Look at the professor </p><p>straight in the eye. Failure to observe this might give the </p><p>professor an impression that you came unprepared for </p><p>class. </p><p>4) It is best to frame your answers this way: </p><p>a) Be responsive first, meaning answer yes or no, or </p><p>true or false, etc., when it is called for. </p><p>b) Then provide the source for your answerwhether </p><p>its a law or a case. Discuss the case or the law briefly, </p><p>then apply to the situation at hand. </p><p>c) Provide a short conclusion. </p><p>DWORKINS INTERPRETATIVE THEORY </p><p>In Dworkins Interpretive Theory, what role will morality play if legal interpretation play if properly carried out? </p><p>Morality will exercise some significant influence over the </p><p>way rules are to be understood. </p><p>According to Dworkin, what does the law consist of? </p><p>The law consists of the 1) explicitly adopted rules plus 2) the </p><p>best moral principles that can be understood to lie behind </p><p>those rules. These principles serve as a legitimate basis of </p><p>legal decisions, as well as help guide the interpretation of </p><p>legal rules in hard cases in which the right legal answer is </p><p>unclear. </p></li><li><p>2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER </p><p>THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA </p><p>3 </p><p>What are the two degrees of fit between some proposed principle and the rules? </p><p>Fit as a matter of logical consistency and Fit as a matter of </p><p>helping one justify or provide a rational for the rules. </p><p>What does fit as a matter of logical consistency mean? </p><p>Any viable candidate for an underlying principle must be </p><p>logically consistent with most of the rules. Total consistency </p><p>is not required, only a high degree. </p><p>I. Fitting the Fourth Amendment: Privacy </p><p>Can the government search your house without a warrant or </p><p>probable cause? </p><p>The fourth amendment states, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, so, no, the government cannot search it without a warrant or probable </p><p>cause. </p><p>II. Olmstead and beyond. </p><p>Should laws be interpreted while keeping in mind modern </p><p>technology even though these said technologies did not </p><p>exist during the time of those who wrote and ratified the </p><p>laws? </p><p>Yes, modern technology should be considered while </p><p>interpreting laws. </p><p>What happened in the Olmstead case? </p><p>The Supreme Court decided that because wiretapping was </p><p>not an act of physical intrusion and confiscation, the fourth </p><p>amendment rule did not apply to it. </p><p>What was Dworkins approach to a case like Olmstead? </p><p>He would look at the moral principle that fits the Fourth </p><p>Amendment rule against unreasonable searches and </p><p>seizures. </p><p>Using Dworkins framework, would wiretapping be covered by the fourth amendment? </p><p>Yes, because according to Dworkin, privacy has two </p><p>aspects: 1) physical space and 2) informational aspect. The </p><p>Olmstead case ignores the informational aspect. </p><p>III. The Role of Morality </p><p>What happens when in using Dworkins method, there happens to be several competing privacy principles that fit </p><p>the fourth amendment rule? </p><p>Then one must decide which of them can be a legitimate </p><p>basis for legal decision making. </p><p>What is the right way of understanding the law in order for </p><p>us to find the right legal answers to cases in which the </p><p>explicit rules do not provide a single clear answer? </p><p>Dworkins solution is to look to morality. The law consists of the rules explicitly adopted by the political community plus </p><p>the best principles that fit those rules. </p></li><li><p>2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER </p><p>THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA </p><p>4 </p><p>How does one reconcile the fact that each person may have </p><p>a different opinion on what is morally best? </p><p>People will, of course, disagree over what is morally best, </p><p>but each person decides for him or herself what is morally </p><p>best. According to Dworkin, a judge who will make a good-</p><p>faith effort to determine what is morally best is fully </p><p>authorized to make her legal decisions. </p><p>IV. The Challenge of Skepticism </p><p>What is External Skepticism? </p><p>These are the questions about moral obligations which have </p><p>no right answer because there is nothing objective in the </p><p>world that can make a statement about our moral obligations </p><p>true or false. </p><p>How does Dworkin counter external skepticism? </p><p>Dworkin claims that external skepticism rests on the false </p><p>premise that moral judgment must correspond to </p><p>perceivable facts in order for us to reasonably assert that </p><p>some such judgments are right and others are wrong. </p><p>However, he fails to come to grip with the fact that there are </p><p>many different, conflicting ways of conducting moral </p><p>arguments. </p><p>What is Internal Skepticism? </p><p>This theory views our legal system as fundamentally unjust </p><p>and oppressive. It states that the system promotes the </p><p>interests of the wealthy and privileged at the expense of the </p><p>rest of society. It holds that there is no consistent set of </p><p>moral principles that underlies our laws. </p><p>V. Assessing Dworkin </p><p>What is a problem of Dworkins interpretive version of natural law? </p><p>His theory posits an important and necessary connection </p><p>between law and morality, but avoids the problems </p><p>afflicting the approaches of Aquinas and Fuller. </p><p>What is the difference between Dworkins theory and Aquinas theory? </p><p>Unlike Aquinas theory, Dworkins theory does not hold that unjust rules are invalid laws. </p><p>What is the difference between Dworkins theory and fullers theory? </p><p>Unlike Fullers theory, it does not hold that the principles of legality are by themselves sufficient to create a prima facie </p><p>moral obligation to obey the rules of any system of positive </p><p>law. </p><p>Is Dworkin right in saying that judges can decide based on </p><p>their own moral judgments? </p><p>No, because judges should refer to widely accepted </p><p>judgments in society as well. </p><p>Legal Positivism: Overview </p><p>What is Legal Positivism? </p><p>This theory rejects the natural law idea that genuine law is </p><p>necessarily just law and also rejects the links between </p><p>positive law and morality posited by Fuller and Dworkin. </p></li><li><p>2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER </p><p>THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA </p><p>5 </p><p>Austins Theory of Law (Legal Positivism) </p><p>According to Austin, what are Rules? </p><p>Rules are a species of command. Laws are rules laid down </p><p>by superiors to guide the actions of those under them. </p><p>What is Positive Morality? </p><p>Positive morality is a set of moral values and rules informally </p><p>accepted by a given society. (no punishment/enforced by </p><p>general opinion) </p><p>What is Positive Law? </p><p>It consists of general commands laid down and enforced by </p><p>the sovereign. </p><p>How does Austin view the sovereign? </p><p>In his view, the sovereign is defined solely in terms of </p><p>power, not in terms of justice or any other moral concept. </p><p>The power that makes some person or group of persons </p><p>sovereign has no moral qualifications whatsoever attached </p><p>to it. </p><p>What are some of the key differences in Positive Law vs. </p><p>Positive Morality? </p><p>1.) It is What is the law? vs. What ought to be the law. and 2.) There is no necessary connection between legal and </p><p>moral obligation. </p><p>So does Austin mean that there is no connection between </p><p>positive law and morality? </p><p>No, in fact, Austin believes that positive morality is an </p><p>important source of positive law: the general commands of </p><p>the sovereign often reflect the rules of positive morality. </p><p>Are moral obligations imposed by Gods commands the same as legal obligations imposed by the commands of a </p><p>political sovereign? </p><p>No, the two must never be confused. </p><p>What is Austins stand regarding international law? </p><p>Austin rejects the idea that international law is a properly </p><p>understood law because there is an absence of a global </p><p>sovereign to issue and enforce commands </p><p>According to Hermann Jahrreis (lawyer for Nuremberg </p><p>defendants); what is the legal obligation of the individual? </p><p>It is to obey the dictates of the sovereign, notwithstanding </p><p>international or natural law. </p><p>II. Assessing Austin </p><p>What is Austins approach to the law? </p><p>Austins approach presents a clear and systematic alternative to the natural law approach. </p><p>What are some problems with Austins approach? </p><p>1.) He avoids the question, Is a rule enforced as a law by the courts a valid law if it is contrary to natural law or </p></li><li><p>2013 INTRODUCTION TO LAW PRIMER </p><p>THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF UTOPIA </p><p>6 </p><p>morality? and 2.) Austins argument that traditional natural law theory invites anarchy is questionable. </p><p>What are some of the criticisms of Austins version of positivism? </p><p>Some say that Austins account of law in terms of the general commands of the sovereign is fundamentally mistaken. </p><p>Hart: Law as Primary and Secondary Rules </p><p>I. Types of Legal Rules </p><p>Why does Hart say that Austins command theory of law fails to account for important aspects of a legal system? </p><p>Certain types of legal rules cannot be adequately </p><p>understood as commands. Thus, some legal rules do not </p><p>prohibit or require but rather empower individuals to do </p><p>things that would otherwise be impossible for them to do. </p><p>(not all laws are prohibitions or mandatory rules). </p><p> What are power-conferring rules? </p><p>Legal rules that empower individuals, e.g. contract law </p><p>empowering individuals to enter legally binding </p><p>agreements. </p><p>What is a command? </p><p>A command seeks to alter the world by getting someone to </p><p>do something. A power-conferring rule seeks to alter it by </p><p>empowering persons to do things that they would otherwise </p><p>be unable to do. </p><p>II. Legal Obligation: Government and Gunman </p><p>Why does Hart say that Austins analysis that an individual risks having some sanction inflicted on him should he fail to </p><p>comply to some general command of the sovereign is </p><p>defective? </p><p>Hart argues that this analysis makes it impossible to </p><p>correctly distinguish a government from a gunman. The </p><p>gunmans threat Your money or your life forces an individual to obey with the use of undesirable </p><p>consequences should he fail to comply. Hart points out that </p><p>being obliged to do something is not the same as being </p><p>obligate...</p></li></ul>