Comments on: Limits of legality in RP

By: Primer

Primer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:48:56 +0000

HR 1109 has been one such orgy legalizing immoral acts, would that be correctly said?

What then will Hyden prescribe, if any, knowing that one president upon another are nothing but corrupt politicians?

By: Hyden Toro

Hyden Toro — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:54:08 +0000

Legality and morality are gray areas as subjects. The trouble with
us is we have too many politicians. But no good leaders. We debate
too much for such legality or morality. Yet, our leaders dont
practice morality. They legalize their immoral acts by being in
power. Marcos did everything legal according to his terms. He
considered himself as a moral leader also. So is Gloria Arroyo and
the rest of our corrupt politicians.

By: Ding Gagelonia

Ding Gagelonia — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:08:47 +0000

I do, Prime.

By: Primer

Primer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:02:21 +0000

You can find me in the same page, ding.

By: Ding Gagelonia

Ding Gagelonia — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:48:23 +0000

I think given that in the Philippine context laws are ‘distortedly’ considered ‘optional’, morality is indeed a better determinant.

I’ve heard it said more than once that Philippine society would be a better placed if we had more law biding men respecting the letter and spirit of the law, than laws crafted to cater to the privileged rather than the marginalized.

I believe that while Magsaysay said “those who have less in life should have more in law” are, in today’s milieu, victimized, nay opporessed by immoral laws.

By: Primer

Primer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:54:56 +0000

Randy David, in his column of Jan. 17,2009 entitled “Morality in fragments” had this to say –

“We can no longer assume the a general moral code can be applied with equal clarity to the different social spheres in which we participate”.

As there are limits in morality, there too are limits of legality. And of course, Joe is right in saying that laws are in fact, not written for attorneys.

By: Joe America

Joe America — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:30:34 +0000

Getting it to a practical level, do Senators and Reps have robust legal staffs or thin? Is there not a constitutional watchdog (I guess not)? Actually, I think the Constitution itself suffers a bit from rambling over too much particular law, thereby diffusing the emphasis on the profound. Just a neutral independent view . . . I’m no attorney, nor is the Constitution written for attorneys . . . is it?

Joe

By: Primer

Primer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:27:31 +0000

I have been reading this paper, Legality without legalism by Zenon Bankowski where this question was asked – “should the rules of law be adopted as part of a personal moral position and commitment?”

I would rather grant that Sen. Pimentel must have taken care of this concern not just from the point of view of a trained legal mind but more as a moral metrician on the end the law really serves, if enacted.

By: Primer

Primer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:19:26 +0000

That view very well extends to the crafting of the controversial HR 1109 which not only tested the limits of morality but it did, in effect, ‘bastardized’ the usual norm of morality.

Maybe indeed, law is taught in various law schools either one of two ways – badly and very badly.

By: blackshama

blackshama — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:52:56 +0000

That’s the classic rationality assumption. However there are some legal scholars that would dump that. Human behaviour isn’t always rational they say. If this is the case, then a Darwinian explanation may be handy.

But surely badly crafted laws reflect how bad the law is taught in law school. What do you think counselor?

Methinks a better title for your post is the Limits of Morality in Philippine Law