I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Flashcards
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Substantive Law vs. Adjective Law
Defines RDO - what can or cant do
Outlines Proc for Enf Subs R/O - the how
Here are three key differences and similarities between substantive law and adjective law:
Differences:
-
Nature and Scope:
- Substantive Law: It DEFINES RDO the rights, duties, and obligations of individuals and entities, as well as the PRINCIPLES governing legal relationships and conduct. Substantive law establishes what people can or cannot do.
- Adjective Law: Also known as procedural law, it outlines the processes and PROCEDURES for enforcing substantive legal rights and obligations. Adjective law governs HOW Legal Cases are CONDUCTED, from initiation to resolution.
-
Focus:
- Substantive Law: It focuses on the substance of legal rights and duties, dealing with the merits of a case and the underlying legal principles.
- Adjective Law: It focuses on the procedures and mechanisms used to enforce substantive law, such as rules of evidence, jurisdiction, pleading requirements, and trial procedures.
-
Effect on Rights and Obligations:
- Substantive Law: It DIRECTLY affects the rights, duties, and obligations of individuals and entities in society. Substantive law determines what is lawful and what is not, and it governs the consequences of actions.
- Adjective Law: While it does NOT directly establish rights and obligations, it ensures that substantive rights are enforced through proper legal procedures. Adjective law safeguards the fairness and integrity of legal proceedings.
Similarities:
-
Interconnectedness:
- Both substantive law and adjective law are interconnected and work together within the legal system. Substantive rights established by substantive law are enforced through the procedures and mechanisms outlined in procedural law.
-
Role in Legal System:
- Both types of law play essential roles in the legal system. Substantive law provides the substance and content of legal rights and obligations, while adjective law ensures that these rights and obligations are effectively enforced through legal procedures.
-
Dynamic Nature:
- Like substantive law, adjective law is subject to change and development over time. Legal systems evolve to adapt to societal needs, technological advancements, and changing perspectives on justice and fairness. Both substantive and adjective law are continually shaped by legislative reforms, judicial interpretations, and societal norms.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
B. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
Consti 3P
In the Philippines, the Supreme Court POSSESSES RMP rule-making power to promulgate rules concerning
a) the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
b) the admission to the practice of law, and
c) the integration of the Bar, among others.
This power is Derived from the Constitution, particularly under Article VIII, Section 5(5), which grants the Supreme Court the authority to promulgate rules concerning PPP pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.
Example:
The Supreme Court exercises its rule-making power by promulgating the Rules of Court, which govern the procedure in civil and criminal cases in all courts in the Philippines. These rules cover various aspects of legal proceedings, such as the filing of complaints, motions, and pleadings, the conduct of trials, the presentation of evidence, and the issuance of judgments. Through these rules, the Supreme Court ensures the efficient administration of justice and upholds the rights of litigants in the legal system.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
C. Hierarchy of Courts;
C r Arranged in HO b on J&A
System of Review
In the study of law, the concept of the hierarchy of courts refers to the S&O JS (structure and organization of the judicial system), where Courts are ARRANGED in a hierarchical ORDER based on their Jurisdiction and Authority. This hierarchy ensures that there is a clear System for the adjudication of legal disputes and that decisions made by lower courts can be reviewed and, if necessary, corrected by higher courts.
Illustration under the Philippines legal system:
- Supreme Court: At the APEX of the judicial hierarchy is the Supreme Court of the Philippines. It is the HIGHEST judicial Body in the country, with authority over ALL other courts. The Supreme Court has the power to REVIEW decisions of lower courts, resolve conflicts between laws and the Constitution, and PROMULGATE rules governing court procedures.
- Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals is the second-highest court in the Philippines. It has APPELLATE jurisdiction over cases decided by lower courts, such as regional trial courts and special courts. The Court of Appeals reviews decisions for errors of law or fact and ensures consistency in the application of legal principles.
- Regional Trial Courts: Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) are the PRIMARY trial courts in the Philippines. They have GENERAL jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases, including cases involving property disputes, family law matters, and serious criminal offenses. Regional Trial Courts serve as the trial courts of original jurisdiction for most cases.
- Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts: These are lower courts with LIMITED jurisdiction, primarily handling small claims, misdemeanor offenses, and cases involving violations of local ordinances. They serve as the entry point for many legal disputes and play a crucial role in providing access to justice at the grassroots level.
- Special Courts: In addition to the regular courts mentioned above, the Philippines has specialized courts to handle specific types of cases, such as family courts, juvenile courts, and Sharia courts in certain regions. These courts have expertise in their respective areas of law and provide focused attention to particular legal issues.
Overall, the hierarchy of courts in the Philippines ensures a systematic and organized approach to the administration of justice, with each court having a defined role and jurisdiction within the legal system.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
D. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court in Administrative Bodies
Using ROC in admin proc QuasiJ
The concept of the suppletory application of the Rules of Court in administrative bodies refers to the practice of USING Procedural Rules established for courts in the conduct of Administrative proceedings WHEM there are GAPS or deficiencies in the rules specifically governing those administrative bodies.
Under the Philippines legal system, Administrative bodies often Handle various QUASI-judicial functions, such as Adjudicating disputes, Issuing regulations, and Enforcing laws within their specialized domains. While these bodies may have their own procedural rules, they may not cover every aspect of the proceedings or may lack clarity in certain areas.
In such cases, the Rules of Court, which govern judicial proceedings in courts, serve as a supplement or F2F FALLBACK to FILL in the procedural gaps or provide guidance on matters not explicitly covered by the administrative rules. This ensures that administrative proceedings are conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with due process.
For example, suppose an administrative body tasked with regulating securities transactions encounters a situation where its procedural rules do not specify the process for admitting evidence during a hearing. In this scenario, the body may turn to the Rules of Court, particularly the rules on evidence, to determine the appropriate procedures for admitting and evaluating evidence.
By allowing the suppletory application of the Rules of Court, administrative bodies can maintain consistency and procedural fairness in their proceedings, thereby upholding the principles of administrative law and ensuring that parties appearing before these bodies are afforded their rights to due process and a fair hearing.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
E. Construction of the Rules of Court (Rule 1, sec. 6)
Lib to promote Jsi Dispostn
“SEC. 6. Construction. - These Rules shall be LIBERALLY construed in order to Promote their Objective of Securing JSi a just, speedy and inexpensive Disposition of every action and proceeding.”
Key Points:
- LIBERAL Construction: The rule emphasizes that the Rules of Court should be interpreted LUBERALLY
This means that courts should not interpret the rules too narrowly or strictly but rather With Flexibility and Openness to ensure that justice is served effectively. - Objective: The ultimate goal of the Rules of Court is to facilitate the fair, prompt, and cost-effective FPC RESOLUTION of legal disputes. This objective guides the interpretation and application of the rules.
- Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive Disposition: The overarching aim is to promote fairness, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness in the judicial process. This entails ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case, that proceedings are conducted without undue delay, and that the costs associated with litigation are kept reasonable.
Example:
Let’s consider a situation where a plaintiff files a complaint in court but makes a procedural error in serving the summons to the defendant. Under a strict interpretation of the rules, this error might lead to the dismissal of the case. However, in line with Rule 1, Section 6, the court may choose to LIBERALLY construe the rules to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the error and serve the summons properly. By doing so, the court promotes the objective of securing a just resolution of the case without unduly penalizing the plaintiff for a procedural misstep.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
C. Doctrine of Non-Interference JR
SepofPow = xPolitical Q
C should R fr intrfring w Da of ExcLeg
The doctrine of non-interference, also known as the principle of non-interference or doctrine of JR judicial restraint, is a legal principle that emphasizes the LIMITED ROLE of the judiciary in matters involving POLITICAL questions or POLICY Decisions.
It suggests that COURTS should REFRAIN from interfering with the decisions and actions of the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE branches of government, particularly in areas where the Constitution grants those branches discretion or where there are No Clear legal Standards for judicial review.
Illustration under the Philippines legal system:
In the Philippines, the doctrine of non-interference is an essential aspect of the principle of SEPARATION of POWERS, which delineates the respective functions of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. While the judiciary has the authority to interpret laws and the Constitution, it generally refrains from intruding into matters that are inherently political or discretionary in nature.
For example, suppose the executive branch implements a policy decision that involves national security or foreign relations. In that case, the courts may exercise judicial restraint and defer to the executive’s judgment, recognizing that these areas often require specialized knowledge and expertise that the judiciary may lack.
Similarly, if the legislature enacts a law that does not violate the Constitution and falls within its legislative powers, the courts typically respect the legislature’s authority and refrain from invalidating the law based on policy considerations or disagreement with its substance.
However, it’s essential to note that the doctrine of non-interference is NOT ABSOLUTE.
Courts may still intervene if there are clear VIOLATIONS of constitutional rights, legal standards, or if the actions of the other branches EXCEED their constitutional authority. Additionally, the judiciary plays a crucial role in Safeguarding the rule of law and ensuring that government actions are consistent with constitutional principles and fundamental rights.
Thus, while the doctrine of non-interference guides judicial decision-making, it does not preclude judicial review or oversight when necessary to uphold the rule of law and protect individual liberties.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
C. Judicial Stability
JDec sb cpr 2promte cpr
Precedent
Judicial stability refers to the principle that judicial decisions should be CPR consistent, predictable, and reliable over time to Promote legal Certainty, Public Trust in the judiciary, and the Rule of Law. It emphasizes the importance of Precedent, adherence to established Legal Principles, and respect for the Hierarchy of courts to maintain stability and coherence in the legal system.
Illustration under the Philippines legal system:
In the Philippines, judicial stability is fundamental to the operation of the legal system, which is based on the civil law tradition and the doctrine of stare decisis, or the principle of precedent. Under this doctrine, lower courts are generally bound to follow the decisions of higher courts within the same jurisdiction, ensuring consistency and uniformity in the application of the law.
For example, suppose the Supreme Court of the Philippines issues a ruling interpreting a provision of the Constitution or a statute. In that case, lower courts are expected to adhere to that interpretation in similar cases that come before them, promoting stability and predictability in the legal system.
Moreover, judicial stability is also reflected in the tenure and independence of judges. The appointment of judges to secure and stable terms, free from undue influence or interference, contributes to the continuity and consistency of judicial decision-making.
Overall, judicial stability in the Philippines legal system fosters confidence in the administration of justice, encourages compliance with the law, and reinforces the rule of law as a cornerstone of democracy and governance.
Hypothetical Scenario:
In the bustling city of Manila, Maria, a tenant, enters into a lease agreement with John, the landlord, for a commercial space to set up her bakery business. Maria’s lease agreement includes provisions regarding the rental amount, duration of the lease, and maintenance responsibilities. However, as time goes by, Maria encounters issues with the condition of the property and disputes arise over the interpretation of certain clauses in the lease agreement. She seeks legal advice to understand her rights and obligations under the lease contract.
Discuss issue as to substantive vs adjective laws
Answer:
In this scenario, the distinction between substantive law and adjective law becomes apparent in resolving Maria’s dispute with John.
Basis:
Substantive law refers to the body of law that defines rights, duties, and liabilities of individuals or entities in their interactions with one another. In Maria’s case, substantive law governs the content and interpretation of the lease agreement between her and John, including their respective rights and obligations as landlord and tenant.
Analysis:
Maria’s rights and obligations as a tenant, as well as John’s duties as a landlord, are determined by the substantive law governing lease agreements. This includes statutory laws, such as the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines concerning leases, as well as any contractual provisions agreed upon by the parties. Adjective law, on the other hand, encompasses procedural rules and mechanisms for enforcing substantive rights or resolving disputes. In Maria’s situation, if she decides to take legal action against John for breach of contract or other related issues, she would navigate the procedural aspects of filing a lawsuit, presenting evidence, and obtaining a judgment. Therefore, while substantive law defines Maria’s rights and obligations under the lease agreement, it is the application of procedural rules, such as those found in the Rules of Court, that enable her to seek redress for any violations of those rights through legal proceedings.
Hypothetical Scenario:
In the province of Cebu, Ana files a complaint for damages against Mark in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging breach of contract. During the proceedings, Mark’s lawyer raises an objection regarding the admissibility of certain evidence based on a technicality in the Rules of Court. Ana’s lawyer argues that the evidence should be admitted based on the spirit of the rules rather than a strict interpretation. The judge is unsure how to proceed and seeks guidance on the construction of the Rules of Court.
Question or Issue:
How should the Rules of Court be interpreted and applied in the context of admitting evidence in court proceedings?
Answer:
The Rules of Court should be construed liberally to promote the administration of justice.
Basis:
Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules “shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” This principle emphasizes the importance of facilitating fair and efficient resolution of disputes over strict adherence to technicalities.
Analysis:
In this scenario, the issue revolves around the admissibility of evidence and whether a strict interpretation of the Rules of Court should prevail over the objective of achieving justice. By applying the principle of liberal construction, the judge can prioritize fairness and efficiency in the proceedings, rather than allowing technicalities to hinder the resolution of the case. Thus, while adherence to procedural rules is essential, they should not obstruct the fundamental goal of administering justice.
Hypothetical Scenario:
In the bustling city of Manila, a land dispute arises between two neighbors, Juan and Pedro. Juan claims ownership of a vacant lot, which Pedro alleges belongs to him based on an old title. Both parties present compelling evidence supporting their claims, but the lower court’s decision is in favor of Juan. Pedro appeals the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), hoping for a different outcome.
Question or Issue:
How does the concept of judicial stability impact Pedro’s appeal to the Court of Appeals?
Answer:
Pedro’s appeal to the Court of Appeals is subject to the principle of judicial stability.
Basis:
Judicial stability is a legal principle that emphasizes the importance of finality and certainty in court decisions. It holds that once a judgment has been rendered by a competent court, it should not be lightly set aside or disturbed to ensure consistency and predictability in the administration of justice. This principle is enshrined in various laws and jurisprudence in the Philippines.
Analysis:
In this scenario, Pedro’s appeal to the Court of Appeals is scrutinized in light of the principle of judicial stability. While Pedro may disagree with the lower court’s decision, he must demonstrate strong legal grounds for the Court of Appeals to overturn it. This is because the judiciary values stability and consistency in its rulings to maintain public trust and confidence in the legal system. Pedro’s appeal will be evaluated based on established legal principles, precedent, and the specific facts of the case. If Pedro fails to meet the stringent requirements for overturning a lower court’s decision, the principle of judicial stability will likely weigh heavily against him, and the lower court’s judgment will stand as final.
