A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE JUDICIAL ROLE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE THEORY ON JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN THE PHILIPPINE HYBRID

LEGAL SYTEMS

CESAR LAPUZ VILLANUEVA

Submitted to Prof. Arthur Taylor Von Mehren in Satisfaction of the Written Work Requirement of Harvard a! School for the "e#ree of Master of a!

S$rin#% &'(' Harvard )niversity *ambrid#e% Massachusetts

I.

INTRODUCTION A. +ack#round and Sco$e of Pa$er.

Sub,u#ated% *hristiani-ed% and !elded into a nation by S$ain in the &. th century% thereafter #overned as a S$anish colony for more than /01 years until soverei#nty !as ceded to the )nited States at the close of the &' th century% and !ith inde$endence finally bein# #ranted shortly after the Second World War% the Phili$$ines today has a le#al system !hich is a blend on Malay customary la!s of the S$anish civil la! system and the An#lo2American common la! system% !ith the $artial a$$lication of the Muslim le#al system to the 3ili$ino Muslims of southern Phili$$ines.&The unique le#al system resultin# from the blendin# of diverse cultures in the Phili$$ines over the centuries has lar#ely been due to the strate#ic location of the Phili$$ine archi$ela#o as the #ate!ay to and from Southeast and Asia into the Pacific 4cean. 5 The victory of *ommodore "e!ey in the battle of Manila +ay on May &% &('(% follo!ed by the ratification of the Treaty of Paris of &('( !hich transferred the soverei#nty over the Phili$$ines from S$ain to the )nited States% marked the transformation of Phili$$ine le#al system% !ith An#lo2American ,uridical $rinci$les $layin# a very im$ortant role in the evolution of Phili$$ine ,uris$rudence./ The blendin# of the t!o #reat !estern le#al systems durin# the four decades of American occu$ation has #iven the Phili$$ine le#al system the characteristics of elasticity and $ro#ressiveness% yet it en#endered #reat confusions6 there !as fear that the 7cross2breedin# of the *astillian lion and the American ea#le had resulted in the evil birth of a $henomenal creature89: There has been a $ro#ressive desire% even durin# the American occu$ation% !hich #ained momentum after inde$endence% to refashion the Phili$$ine le#al system to conform to the 3ili$ino !ays of thinkin#% his customs% traditions% and tem$erament% and to make it res$onsive nation;s needs.0 ike most develo$in# countries not of the Western civili-ation% the challen#e faced by the Phili$$ines is the im$erative need to evolve a le#al system that is lo#ically and structurally coherent and res$onsive to the com$le< needs of its diverse society. That !ould require strikin# the balance bet!een the im$ortance of anchorin# its la!s in the sociolo#ical and cultural values of its $eo$le and of ada$tin# such la!s to international standards because of the im$eratives for national develo$ment of forei#n trade and relations. The Phili$$ines has been a $olitically inde$endent country for more than :1 years no!6 certainly% the #enius of the Phili$$ine le#al mind has been able to tame the le#al beast left behind by the colonial masters. A study of the Phili$$ine hybrid le#al system offers a fascinatin# settin# for com$aratists to evaluate the effects of the direct blendin# of t!o of the ma,or !estern le#al systems% and to determine !hether the conver#ence is fulfillin# the need for la!s that are 7universal in sco$e and in s$irite.9. To!ards that end% this $a$er !ill study on the effects of the blendin# of the common la! $rinci$les in !hat ori#inally !as an established civil la! system = in the Phili$$ines on its emer#in# theory on ,udicial $recedents% usin# in com$arative analysis the develo$ments in this field in the )nited States and the *ivil la! countries of S$ain and 3rance.
& PAS*)A % TH> >?A S@ST>M 43 TH> PHA APPAB>S = C&'=1D6 See also ?ilmore% Phili$$ine Euris$rudence 2 2 *ommon a! or *ivil a!F &. A.+.A.(' C&'&.2&'&=D6 obin#ier% +lendin# e#al Systems in the Phili$$ines% 5& .G. R>V. :1& C&'10D6 Abreu% The +lendin# of the An#lo2American a! !ith the S$anish *ivil a! in the Phili$$ines% / PHA . R>V. 5(0 C&'&:D 5 See descri$tion in W. *AM>R4B 34R+>S% TH> PHA APPAB> AS AB"S 5'2/1 CHarvard )niversity Press% &':0D. / See ?amboa% The Meetin# of the Roman a! and the *ommon a! in the Phili$$ines% :' PHA . .E. /1:2 /10 C&'=:D. : A)R> % ASS>RTAV> BATA4BA ASM (1 C&'/&D 0 +albastro% Phili$$ine e#al Philoso$hy% :& PHA . .E. ./0% ./.2./= C&'..D . R>B> "AVA"% MAE4R >?A S@ST>MS AB TH> W4R " T4"A@ &= C&'(0D% translated and ada$ted by Eohn >.*. +rierley. = See ?ilmore% loc. *it. note &% at '12'5

+. Stare "ecisis% "octrina e#al% and Euris$rudence *onstante Stability% uniformity% and $redictability are the com$ellin# reasons for the value $laced u$on ,udicial $recedents. 7Althou#h in $ractice the use of $recedents may often be a$$ro<imately similar in civilian and in common la! ,urisdictions% the essential difference lies in the attitude to!ards them and the sanctity !ith !hich they are re#arded9 ( )nder the common la! doctrine of stare decisis% ,udicial $recedents are considered la! de ,ure% !hile in civil la! ,urisdiction case2la!% !hen reco#ni-ed at all% is merely la! de facto.' The variance in the underlyin# $hiloso$hies in the t!o le#al systems are rooted in the role they ascribed to their ,ud#es. An the civil la! system the traditional role of ,ud#es in la!2makin# is very limited%&1 since la!2makin# is considered to be the function solely of the le#islators6 ,udicial decisions must therefore 7develo$ !ithin the frame!ork established by le#islation.9 && An the civil la! system% ,udicial decisions are therefore not traditionally considered as sources of la!. 4n the other hand% the common la! theory on ,udicial $recedents has an o$$osite $remises. The first $rinci$le of hierarchy in the doctrine of stare decisis% that a 7lover court is under a duty to acce$t the $osition held on nay #iven issue by its hierarchical su$erior%9 &5flo!s from the theory in common la! that decided cases are% in their o!n ri#ht% sources of la!. 7The fact that the lo!er court thinks the decision !ron# does not ,ustify its i#norin# the $recedent.9 &/ The second $rinci$le !hich $rovides that a court is bound by its $revious decisions% is not the lo#ical entailment of theory that ,udicial decisions are source of la!% but flo!s from the $olicy of #ivin# the le#al systems structure and coherence in the absence code system% and also because of the considerations of equality of treatment% $redictability% and economy of effort. &: Althou#h the same considerations o$erate in the civil la! system% but because of its traditional vie! that ,udicial decisions are not formal sources of la!% $rior decisions do not en,oy the same standin# in civil la! as they do in the common la!. &0 Althou#h thou#h lo!er courts in the civil la! system 7have at least in theory the freedom to de$art from $revious decisions of hierarchically su$erior courtsH.. as a $ractical mater in the #reat ma,ority of case lo!er court n all systems acce$t the $osition taken by their hierarchical su$eriors%9 for fear of reversal. &. )nder the >n#lish doctrine of state decisi each decision is a bindin# authority !hich Parliament alone may chan#e. This is understandable since >n#land odes not have a ri#id constitution% and Parliament can al!ays remedy a $recedent that has #one a!ry. 4n the other hand% because of the e<istence of a ri#id constitution% and the com$le<ities of the federal and multi2state ,udicial systems of the )nited States% the American $ractice takes into account the nature of the $endin# case in order to !ei#ht the bindin# effect of $rior decisions. &= The $rinci$le follo!ed by S$ain in this ,uris$rudencia !hich evolved throu#h its doctrina le#al&( and by 3rnce in its ,uris$rudence constante% #ive ,udicial $recedents authoritative !ei#ht !hen established by a number of decisions.&'

Tate% Techniques of Eudicial Anter$retation in ouisiana% IIAA A . R>V. =5=% =:/ C&'.5D "a#eett% "aino!% Hebert% and McMahon% A Rea$$raisal A$$raisedJ A +rief 3or the *ivil a! of ouisana% IAA T) . . R>V. &/% C&'/=D &1 Abid. && "AVA"% su$ra note .% at &/. Cunderscorin# su$$liedD. &5 V4B M>HR>B% AW AB TH> )BAT>" STAT>S &0 C&'((D &/ Abid. &: Abid. &0 Abid. &. Abid &= *f. Helverin# v. Hallock% /1' ).S. &1.% .1 S.*t. ::% (= . >d. .1:% &50 A. .R. &/.( C&':1D. &( See "AVA"% su$ra note .% at &:0. &' See oussaouarn% The Relative Am$ortance of e#islation% *ustom% "octrine% and Precedent in 3rench a!% &( A .R>V. 5/0% 50025.1 C&'0(D
'

:
The S$anish doctrine of doctrina le#al allo!s a$$eal to the Su$reme *ourt from a ,udicial decision !hich has violated a ,udicial $ractice based on several decisions of the Su$reme *ourt. 51 The term ,uris$rudencia is reserved to decisions rendered by the Su$reme *ourt or by the other su$erior courts tot eh e<clusion of those rendered by the courts of a$$eal or the lo!er courts. 5& The doctrina le#al e<ists only !hen a decision of the Su$reme *ourt is confirmed by a second decision of the same court involvin# a similar case.55 The underlyin# $rinci$le of ,udicial $recedents in the civil la! and common la! systems have been #reatly influenced by the role $layed by the ,udiciary in the evolution of the le#al system. An the Phili$$ine le#al system% the blendin# of the civil la! and the common la! traditions is no!here more $ronounced than in the evolution of the role of the ,ud#es. An accordance !ith its An#lo2American herita#e% the ,udiciary is re#arded as 7the indestructible citadel of the $eo$le;s ri#hts% the solid bul!ark of their liberties% the hallo!ed re$ository of their accumulated beliefs and collective faiths in the su$remacy of the Rule of a!.9 5/ A ,ud#e in the Phili$$ines is more than a mere 7civil servant9 or 7bureaucrat9 or 7functionary9 of the #overnment% nor are his $o!ers considered to be 7narro!% mechanical% and uncreative.9 5: 4n the other hand% reflectin# the le#al system;s civil la! moorin#s% the ,udiciary itself dee$ly res$ects the $reeminence of the statutory enactments of the le#islature and their $rimacy in the le#al order6 50 nor !ould the ,udiciary im$ose its ,udicial conce$tion of !isdom and $ro$riety u$on the function of the le#islature to le#islate. 5. An its theory of ,udicial $recedents% therefore% the Phili$$ine hybrid le#al system has blended to#ether the underlyin# $hiloso$hies of the $rinci$le of stare decisis of the common la! system% and the evolvin# $rinci$les of ,udicial $recedents of the civil la! systems. This $a$er !ill e<amine the lo#ical consistency and functional cohesiveness of the resultin# amal#am. II. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PHILIPPINE THEORY ON JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS The creative role that the ,udiciary $lays today in Phili$$ine society% and the underlyin# theory on ,udicial $recedents% can $rimarily be traced to five factors that have inter$layed in the history of the Phili$$ine le#al system and continue to influence its develo$mentJ the ado$tion of the American court system6 the constitutional $o!ers vested in the Su$reme *ourt6 the trans$lantin# of An#lo2American $rinci$les in the Phili$$ine le#al system6 continuin# influence of civil la!6 and the cultural% social% and economic demands of the Phili$$ine society% !hich have #ro!n com$le<ity. A. Ado$tion of American *ourt System. An his instruction of A$ril =% &'11 to the )nited States Phili$$ine *ommission Clater desi#nated by *on#ress as 7Phili$$ine *ommission9D% President McKinley% after declarin# amon# other thin#s that due consideration and !ei#ht be #iven to local customs% habits% and conditions in the establishment of the #overnment for the $eo$le of the Phili$$ines% en,oined that 7there are certain #reat $rinci$les of #overnment !hich have been made the basis of our #overnmental systemH..LandM also certain $ractical rules of #overnment !hich !e have found to be essential to the $reservation of these #reat $rinci$les of liberty and la!% and that these $rinci$les and these rule of #overnment must be established and maintained in their islands for the sake of their liberty and ha$$iness% ho!ever much they may conflict !ith customs or la!s or $rocedure !ith !hich

Abid. Abid. 55 Abid. 5/ +ATA*AB% TH> S)PR>M> *4)RT AB PHA APPAB> HAST4R@ : C&'=5D 5: See M>RR@MAB% TH> *AVA AW TRA"ATA4B /( C&'(0D. 50 See Salas v. Earencio% :. S*RA =/: C&'=1D6 Morfe v. Mutuc% 55 S*RA :5: C&'.(D6 Peralta v. *ommission on >lections% (5 S*RA /1 C&'=(D 5. )y *on# >n# v. Trinidad% := Phil. /(0 C&'50D
5&

51

0
the they familiar.95= These !ords $resa#ed radical chan#es in the le#al% as !ell as in the $olitical% institutions then e<istin# in the Phili$$ines% and #reatly influenced the e<$andin# role that has since been $layed by the ,udiciary and ,udicial $recedents in Phili$$ine society. 5( With the S$anish ,udicial system in the Phili$$ines bein# antiquated% corru$t% and venal% 5' the Phili$$ine *ommission reco#ni-ed the demand for a more enli#htened and efficient system of ,udicature% and sou#ht a hi#her standard and more $erfect model as a basis for the or#ani-ation of the courts for the ne! #overnment of the Phili$$ines. /1 A ne! ,udicial system !as installed $atterned after the American model% !ith ,ustice of the $eace courts of limited ,urisdiction in munici$al levels6 courts of first instance of #eneral ,urisdiction in ne!ly created ,udicial districts6 and a Su$reme *ourt at the a$e< as the final arbiter of la! and the *onstitution. The Su$reme *ourt !as or#ani-ed consistin# of a *hief Eustice C!ho !as al!ays a 3ili$inoD and si< associates ,ustices% any five of !hom% !hen convened% constituted a quorum. The concurrence of at least four members of the *ourt !as necessary in order to $ronounce a ,ud#ment. )$ to the time of the common!ealth% the *ourt !as been com$osed of : American ,ustices and / 3ili$ino ,ustices./& ater% under the &'/0 *onstitution of the common!ealth $eriod% the membershi$ !as increased to && ,ustices% /5 !hich could either sit en banc or in t!o divisions. // An that $eriod% an intermediate a$$ellate court% kno!n as the *ourt of A$$eals% !as established to take over the !ork of the Su$reme *ourt of e<aminin# of la! are raised on cases a$$ealed to the Su$reme *ourt./: 4ri#inally com$osed of && ,ustices% the *ourt of A$$eals;s membershi$ increased to 5: in &'.(% to /= in &'/=% and to :0 in &'=(. /0 The court may sit en banc or in &0 divisions of / ,ustices each./. The inherent !eakness of the then e<istin# S$anish $rocedural la!s in the Phili$$ines necessitated their bein# 7entirely s!e$t a!ay9 /= and eventually led to the ado$tion of codes of civil and criminal $rocedures based entirely on American models. /( The Phili$$ine ,udicial system functioned therefore almost entirely in the case and structure of the American system% e<ce$t for the ,ury system !hich !as not e<tended to the Phili$$ines. The effect of this develo$ment !as best described by the Su$reme *ourt in Al-ua v. EohnsonJ/' 7 Ats manifest $ur$ose and ob,ect !as to re$lace the old ,udicial system% !it its incidents and traditions dra!n from S$anish sources% !ith a ne! system modeled in all its essential characteristics u$on the ,udicial systems of the )nited States. At cannot be doubted% therefore% that any incident of the former system !hich conflicts !ith the essential rests% must be held to be abro#ated by the la! or#ani-in# the ne! system.9:1 Thus% in Al-ua% des$ite the rule of civil liability of ,udicial offices as laid do!n the S$anish civil la! systems% the common la! doctrine $ertainin# to the ,udiciary !as made to $revail that 7,ud#es of su$erior and #eneral ,urisdiction are not liable to res$ond in civil action for dama#es for !hat they may do in the e<ercise of their functions !hen actin# !ithin their le#al $o!ers and ,urisdiction.9:&

5= 5( 5' /1 /& /5 // /: /0 /. /= /( /' :1 :&

See Samson% The Eudiciary% 5 PHA . . E. 0' C&'&0D Abid. Abid. See Harvey% The Administration of Eustice in the Phili$$ine Aslands% & PHA . .E. //1 C&'&:D. Abid% at //'. Article VAAA% Section &. Article VAAA% Section 5. See *ommon!ealth Acts / C&'/0D and 50' C&':(D. See *4)RT 43 APP>A S ABT>RBA 4P>RATAB? PR4*>")R>S at / C).P. a! *enter &'='D. Abid% at 0. obin#ier% loc. *it. note &% at :1/. Abid. See also ?ilmore% loc. *it. note &% at '/. 5& Phil. /1( C&'&5D. Abid% at ///. Cunderscorin# su$lliedD. Abid% at /5.2/5'

.
+. *onstitutional Po!er of Eudicial Revie! The castin# of the Phili$$ine ,uridical system in the mold of the American ,udicature% and the trans$lantin# of American constitutionalism in Phili$$ine soil% necessarily brou#ht !ith them the doctrine of ,udicial revie! $redicated u$on the su$remacy of the constitution% in cases of conflict bet!een constitutional $rovisions and le#islative or e<ecutive acts. :5 *hief Eustice 3ernando in one of his books describes the early develo$ment of the $o!er of ,udicial revie! in the Phili$$ine le#al systemJ 7At the time !hen the )nited States acquired the Phili$$ines form S$ain at the end of the L&'thM century% one of the $rinci$les of constitutional la! bindin# on the territorial #overnment established by her in the Phili$$ines !as H LtheM conce$t of ,udicial revie!. At !as natural from American la!yer% !ho !ere admitted to the $ractice in the Phili$$ines% to challen#e the validity of statutes or e<ecutive orders% !henever the interests of their clients so demanded. The 3ili$ino ,ustices and ,ud#es !ho !ith their American brethren administered ,ustice !ere soon made a!are that the $o!er to $ass on the constitutionality of such statutes and e<ecutive orders !as $art of their ,udicial function. The 3ili$ino la!yers vied !ith the American members of the bar in raisin# the question of constitutionality !henever a$$ro$riate. The American $ractice therefore of a$$ealin# to courts throu#h the form of la! suits% decisions reached by either the e<ecutive or le#islative branches of the #overnment became $art of the acce$ted doctrines in the Phili$$ines early in the $eriod of American soverei#nty.9 :/ +y the time of the ado$tion of the &'/0 *onstitution that ushered the common!ealth $eriod% the $o!er of ,udicial revie! !as already a !ell2established $rinci$les in the Phili$$ine le#al system. At !as reco#ni-ed that the $o!er of ,udicial revie! is not solely the $rero#ative of the Su$reme *ourt but all other lo!er courts% and this !as later clearly inferred from constitutional $rovisions !hich conferred u$on the Su$reme *ourt a$$ellate ,urisdiction over ,ud#ments and decrees of lo!er courts in all cases in !hich the constitutionality or validity of any treaty% international or e<ecutive a#reement% la!% $residential decree% $roclamation% order instructions% ordinance% or re#ulation is in question.:: With the $o!er of ,udicial revie!% the Phili$$ine theory on ,udicial $recedents be#an its metamor$hic #ro!th very early durin# the American re#ime in the field of constitutional la!. Similar to its American conce$tion% constitutional la! as understood in Phili$$ine la!% is not ,ust the te<t of the constitution itself% but the body of rules resultin# from the inter$retation by a hi#h court of cases in !hich the validity% in relation to the constitutional instrument% of some acts of #overnmental $o!er have been challen#ed. :0 7The task of the student of constitutional la!% therefore% cannot be reduced to mere e<e#esis of the constitutional t<t LbutM LhMe must $lo! throu#h the thousands of $a#es of courts decisions in order to find the mass of N,ud#e2made; la!s that have #ro!n from the te<t.9:. This $articular conce$t of 7,udicial revie!9 derived from
:5 *onstitutionalism in the Phili$$ines dates back to the ratification of the Treaty of Paris of &('( transferrin# S$anish soverei#nty over the archi$ela#o to the )nited States. Prior to the &'/0 *onstitution% Phili$$ine constitutional la! #re! from a series of or#anic documents enacted by the )nited States #overnment% namelyJ C&D President McKinley;s Anstructions to the Second Phili$$ine *ommission CPublic a!s of the Phili$$ines <iii% 3ebruary 5% &'11D6 C5D the Phili$$ine +ill of &'15 CPublic a!s of the Phili$$ines <iii% 3ebruary 5% &'11D6 C5D the Phili$$ine +ill of &'15 CPubic a!s of the Phili$$ines <iii% 3ebruary 5% &'11. Act Euly &% &'15% ch. &/.'% /5 Stat. .'&D6 and C/D the Phili$$ine Autonomy Act of &'&. C&& Public a!s of the Phili$$ines 5/=. Act Au#ust 5'% &'&. ch. :&.% /' Stat. 0:0D. :/ 3>RBAB"4% TH> P4W>R 43 E)"A*AA R>VA>W &&2&5 C&'.(D :: E.M. Tuason and *o. v. *ourt of A$$eals% &/ S*RA .'.% =1/2=1: C&'.&D6 Vera v. Arca% 5( S*RA /0&% /.&2 /.5 C&'.'D6 see &'(= *onstitution% Article VAAA% Sec. 0C5D CaD6 &'=/ *onstitution% Article I% Sec. 0C5D CaD6 &'/0 *onstitution% Article VAAA% Sec. 5C&D. :0 A +>RBAS% TH> *4BSTAT)TA4B 43 TH> R>P)+ A* 43 TH> PHA APPAB>S vi C&'(=D citin# *4RWAB% *4BSTAT)TA4B 43 TH> )BAT>" STATS 43 AM>RA*A & C&'./D :. Abid.

=
American le#al tradition !as not very far fro the nature of the la!s as treated in civil la! tradition !ith !hich the then 3ili$ino ,urists trained in the S$anish civil la! system !ere familiar. The constitution% even thou#h 7dominatin# the structure9 in common la!% := is le#islation in the Romanist tradition since its $rimary $ur$ose 7is not to resolve dis$utes but to establish #eneral rules of or#ani-ation and conduct for those in $o!er and for #overnment administrators.9 :( The value of ,udicial $recedents as sources of la! the follo!ed an uneven terrain since the establishment of the Su$reme *ourt by the American Military ?overnment in &'11. The castin# of the ,udiciary in structure similar to that of the American ,udicial system% maintenance of a ma,ority of American ,ustices in the Su$reme *ourt for the crucial first /0 years until the establishment of the *ommon!ealth ?overnment% a$$ointment of many American ,urists to courts of first instance% es$ecially the courts of the *ity of Manila% and the assum$tion of the ,udicial $o!er of revie! by the ,udiciary under the constitutional frame!ork early laid out in the Phili$$ine #overnmental system% have all ine<orably contributed to leavin# a clear im$rint on the value of ,udicial decisions as sources of la!. 3rom the creative and a##ressive role that the ,udiciary $layed in constitutional la!% !here its ,ud#ments became 7the la!9 it !as a natural develo$ment for ,ud#es and ,ustices to assume similar creative role in the other fields of la!. Thus% from the very first volume of the Phili$$ine Re$orts% the Su$reme *ourt% even thou#h not referrin# s$ecifically to the doctrine of stare decisis% be#an to rely on rulin#s on earlier of its decisions to resolve $endin# cases. :' Such a develo$ment !as further enhanced by the ri#orous trans$lantin# of An#lo2American statutes in the Phili$$ine le#al systems. 01 *. Trans$lant of An#lo2American a!s and Princi$les. American Eustice Malcolm% in the case of An re Sho$0& after surveyin# the S$anish codes and statutes that !ere allo!ed to remain in force% declared that at the commencement of American soverei#nty in the Phili$$ines 7LtMhere !as no $ro$erly called *ommon a! or *ase a! of S$ain to accom$any and am$lify Lthe S$anishM statutes% althou#h there !ere% of course% the customs of the $eo$le of the Aslands% !hich constituted% in a sense% un!ritten la!. S$anish ,uris$rudence does not reco#ni-e the $rinci$le of stare decisis6 consequently% there could be no *ommon a! in any sense analo#ous to the >n#lish or American *ommon a!.9 05 An addition he held that 7LtMhe S$anish statute la!% as am$lified by S$anish commentaries but !ithout back#round of S$anish $recedents or case la!% !as by the chan#e of soverei#nty% severed from S$anish ,uris$rudence and made effective in this ,urisdiction to the same e<tent as if Othe )nited StatesM *on#ress had enacted ne! la!s for the Phili$$ines modeled u$on those same S$anish statutes. This retention of the local $rivate la! !as merely in accordance !ith the $rinci$le of

"AVA"% su$ra note .% at ::55. Abid. 7The inter$retation of the American *onstitution is Han e<am$le of the o$eration of some of the more advanced Romano2?ermanic theories of inter$retation bein# ado$ted and used in a *ommon la! country. There !as no hesitation in the )ntied States about re,ectin#% !ith res$ect to the *onstitution% the classical ma<im accordin# to !hich statutes% a series of errata and addenda to the *ommon la!% !ere to be restrictively inter$reted.9 Abid% at ::/. :' See "e Santos% The Phili$$ine "octrine of Precedents% 0 )> ..E. 5/0% 5:525:: C&'./D 01 See ?ilmore% loc. *it. note &% at '/. 0& :& Phil. 5&/ C&'51D 05 Abid. at 55.6 see also MA *4 M% TH> ?4V>RBM>BT 43 TH> PHA APPAB> AS AB"S =1:2=1( C a!yers *o2o$erative Publishin# *o. &'&.D.
:(

:=

(
Anternational a! in that re#ardH.90/ Therefore a hos$itable soil on !hich An#lo2American $rinci$les could take roots. 4utside the fields of constitutional and administrative la!s% for about a decade the Attorney2?eneral and the courts of the Phili$$ines follo!ed An#lo2American $recedents in the nature of common la! !ithout a$$arently considerin# to !hat e<tent those authorities !ere bindin#.0: An the &'1( case of ).S. v. *una% 00 the Su$reme *ourt% s$eakin# throu#h American Eustice *arson% declaredJ 7Beither >n#lish nor American common la! is in force in these Aslands6 nor are the doctrines derived therefrom bindin# u$on our courts% save only insofar as they are founded on sound $rinci$les a$$licable to local conditions% and are not in conflict !ith e<istin# la!.90. ater in Al-ua V. Eohnson 0= the same ,ustice modified the strict $ronouncement in *una and in effect ado$ted the inverse $rinci$le !hen he heldJ 7LWMhile it is true that the body of the common la! as kno!n to An#lo2American ,uris$rudence is not a force in these Asland% Nnor the doctrines derived therefrom bindin# u$on our courts% save only inso far as they are founded on sound $rinci$les a$$licable to local conditions% and not in conflict !ith e<istin# la!; C).S. v. *una% &5 Phil. Re$.% 5:&D6 nevertheless% many of the rules% $rinci$les% and doctrines of the common la! have% to all intents and $ur$oses% been im$orted into this ,urisdiction% as a result of the enactment of ne! la!s and the or#ani-ation and establishment of ne! institutions by the *on#ress of the )nited States or under its authority6 for it !ill be found that many of these la!s can only be construed and a$$lied throu#h the aid of the common la! from !hich they are derived% and that % to breathe the breath of life into many of the institutions% recourse must be had to the rules% $rinci$les and doctrines of the common la! under !hose $rotectin# ae#is the $rototy$es of these institutions had their birth.90( This basic doctrine !as reiterated in subsequent cases !hich directed that An#lo2 American case2la! $resented the authoritative #uide for the $ro$er construction and a$$lication of the terms and $rovisions of statutes borro!ed from An#lo2American models% 0' unless% local conditions !arrant differently%.1 or !hen the situation is covered by e<$ress $rovision of la!. .& The ,udicial $ractice !ent beyond this% since even for the S$anish codes and statutes that remained in force An#lo2American $recedents !ere bein# a$$lied by the courts. .5 +y ado$tin# American statutes% there necessarily develo$ed a Phili$$ine case2la!. ./

0/ Abid% at 55(. See contra ?ilmore% loc. cit. note &% at '5J 7Technically% $erha$s% it may be said that this $er$etuated only the S$anish Statute la! !ithout its back#round of S$anish $recedents or case la! and that by the chan#e of soverei#nty S$anish statute a! !as severed from the S$anish ,uris$rudence !ith !hich it !as surrounded. Practically% ho!ever% this !as not the case. The course of ,udicial history% certainly durin# the first ten years of American occu$ation% clearly indicates that the ,ud#es and la!yers concerned !ith the administration of ,ustice re#arded the e<tension of the S$anish !ritten la! as carryin# !ith it its surroundin# body of ,udicial inter$retation and commentary% even thou#h such inter$retation and commentary !as only of $ersuasive and instructive value. The $rinci$le that the ado$tion of statute for another ,urisdiction carries !ith it the ,udicial inter$retation #iven to it% may reasonably be said to continue% as an accom$animent of the survivin# S$anish statute la! in the Phili$$ines% this surroundin# body or ,udicial inter$retation and commentary. That such !as the case in evidenced by the frequent reference in the earlier Phili$$ine decisions to this material.9 0: See MA *4 M% loc. cit. note 05% at .''. 00 &5 Phil. 5:&. 0. Abid% at 5::. The doctrine !as reiterated in Arnedo v. orente% &( Phil. 50= C&'&&D. 0= 5& Phil. /1( C&'&5D. 0( Abid% at //&2//5 Cunderscorin# su$$liedD. 0' ).S. v. "e ?u-man% /1 Phil. :&.% at :&' C&'&0D6 ).S.% &'0 ).S. &11% && Phil. ..' C&'1:D6 Serra v. Morti#a% 51: ).S. :=1% && Phil. =.5 C&'1=D. .1 *uyu#an v. Santos% /: Phil. &11 at &1= C&'&.D. .& Ru- v. Pahati% '( Phil. =(( C&'0.D. .5 An re ShooL$. :& Phil. 5&/% at 5/'25:5 C&':5D6 also ?ilmore% loc. cit. note &% at &/:. ./ AB Re Shoo$. :& Phil. 5&/% at 5//25/( C&'51D6 see also *uyu#an% 4ri#in and "evelo$ment of Phili$$ine Euris$rudence% / PHA . .EP &'&% 51.25&/ C&'&=D

'
Eustice Malcolm% as $onente is An re Shoo$%.: after renderin# an e<haustive e<$ositional revie! of the Phili$$ine le#al system as it then stood% !ent even further !hen he !roteJ 7H.. A survey of recent cases in the Phili$$ine Re$ort% and $articularly those of the last fee years% sho!s an increasin# reliance u$on >n#lish and American authorities in the formation of !hat may be termed a Phili$$ine *ommon a!% as su$$lemental to the statute la! of this ,urisdiction. An analysis !ills ho! that a #reat $re$onderance of the ,uris$rudence of this ,urisdiction is based u$on An#lo2American case la! $recedents% 22 e<clusively a$$lyin# those statutory la! !hich have been enacted since the chan#e of soverei#nty and !hich conform more or less to American statutes% and Q to a lar#e e<tent in a$$lyin# those and e<$andin# the remnants of the S$anish codes and !ritten la!s. 7< < <. 7The fore#oin# t!o #rou$s of cases in combination% those under the sub,ects covered by S$anish statutes and those under the sub,ects covered by American2Phili$$ine le#islation and effected by the chan#e of soverei#nty% sho! conclusively that An#lo2American case la! ahs entered $ractically every one of the leadin# sub,ects in the field of la!% and in the lar#e ma,ority of such sub,ects has formed the sole basis for the #uidance of this court in develo$in# the local ,uris$rudence. The $ractical is that the $ast t!enty years have develo$ed a Phili$$ine common la!% or case la!% based almost e<clusively% e<ce$t !here conflictin# !ith local customs and institutions% u$on An#lo2American a!. The Phili$$ine common la! su$$lements and am$lifies our statute la!.9 .0 The attitude of the American2dominated Su$reme *ourt durin# that $eriod !as understandable. The Phili$$ine Su$reme *ourt then felt inside bound by rulin#s of the )nited States Su$reme *ourt in construin# and a$$lyin# statutory enactments modelled u$on or borro!ed from An#lo2American ori#inals... +ut even then% it !as reco#ni-ed early on in the case of Eavellana v. Mirasol.= that 7LiMt is to be assumed that our la!makers% !hether Americans or 3ili$inos by nationality% have le#islated !ith kno!led#e of conditions here e<istin#6 and even those la!s !hich have been bodily taken from American sources not infrequently acquire a characteristic colorin# from the chan#e of environment.9 .( An Peo$le v. Vera.' the Su$reme *ourt reco#ni-ed that 7to kee$ $ace !ith H ne! develo$ments of times and circumstances% fundamental $rinci$les should be inter$reted havin# in vie! e<istin# local conditions and environments.9=1 With the establishment of the Phili$$ine Re$ublic on Euly :% &':. and its Su$reme *ourt fully constituted of 3ili$ino ,ustices no lon#er le#ally bound by the $ronouncements of the )nited States Su$reme *ourt% An#lo2American doctrines not other!ise ado$ted by $revious decisions !ere merely treated as $ersuasive. The $ro$osition of a 7Phili$$ine common la!9 did not flourish and is even denied by some Phili$$ine ,urists today. =& +ut the value of ,udicial $recedents had
:& Phil. 5&/ C&'51D at 55025:= .. +ryan v. American +ank% = Phil. 500% at 50= C&'1.D ).S. v. Pico% &( Phil. /(.% at /'( C&'&&D6 see also A T4 >BTAB4% *AVA *4"> 43 TH> PHA APPAB>S ' C&'(:D citin# *uyu#an v. Santos% /: Phil. &11 C&'&.D .= :1 Phil. =.& C&'51D .( Abid% at ==0. .' .0 Phil. 0. C&'/=D. =1 Abid% at &/= =& A PARAS% *AVA *4"> 43 TH> PHA APPAB>S := C&'(:D ?amboa% su$ra note /% &0 /&:.
.0 .:

&1
taken $ermanent roots in Phili$$ine ,urisdiction. The continued borro!in# from American sources $ersists to the $resent time. +ut a subtradition of 7Romani-ation9 that had be#an even durin# the American re#ime% started to manifest itself after the #rant of inde$endence. A #ood illustration is the common la! $rinci$le on citi-enshi$ of ,us soli !hich in a lon# line of cases from the advent of American re#ime !as a$$lied in Phili$$ine ,urisdiction under the thesis that the 3ourteenth Amendment to the *onstitution of the )nited States e<tended here. Althou#h there !as one case =5 in &'/' !hich ruled that the $rinci$le of ,us soli !as not a$$licable in Phili$$ine ,urisdiction because the $rovisions of section 5 of the or#anic Eones a! =/ $rovided other!ise% nevertheless the a$$lication of the $rinci$le $ersisted in Su$reme *ourt decision until the advent of the Second World War. After the !ar and the #rantin# of the inde$endence% the youn# Phili$$ine Re$ublic% throu#h its Su$reme *ourt in Tan *hon# v. Secretary of abor=: discarded the $rinci$le of ,us soli or citi-enshi$ by birth and affirmed the civil la! $rinci$le of ,us san#uinis or citi-enshi$ by bloodJ 7*iti-enshi$% the main inte#rate element of !hich is alle#iance% must not be taken li#htly. "ual alle#iance must be discoura#ed and $revented. +ut the a$$lication of the $rinci$le of ,us soli to $ersons born in this country of alien $arenta#e !ould encoura#e dual alle#iance !hich in the lon# run !ould be detrimental to both countries of !hich such $ersons mi#ht claim to be citi-ens.9 =0 An reachin# the result in Tan *hon# the Su$reme *ourt held that the $rinci$le of stare decisis does not mean blind adherence to $recedents6 that the 7doctrine or rule laid do!n% !hich has been follo!ed for years% no matter ho! sound it may be% if found to be contrary to la!% must be abandon any doctrine or rule found to be in violation of the la! in force.9 =. Althou#h the Phili$$ine doctrine on ,udicial $recedents is no lon#er bound by An#lo2 American common la! develo$ments%== the reality of the situation makes the latter very $ersuasive on Phili$$ine ,uris$rudence.=( 4n this score% a leadin# 3ili$ino commentator has observedJ 7The official theory is that American decisions% bein# e<$ressions of forei#n la!% are not bindin# on our courts% but our ,ud#es% nevertheless% behave as thou#h they !ere. Many an ar#ument has been able to $ush throu#h a $oint across the threshold of ,udicial belief because it is buttressed !ith citation of American authorities. 4ne is led to the sus$icion that by a curious e<tension of the $arty amendment% !hat the American ,ud#es say is in fact taken as the equal of local decisions in authoritativeness. There is much to su$$ort such a sus$icion in the decisions of our Su$reme *ourt.9=' The trend !ill continue lon# into the future mainly because the Phili$$ine le#islature has taken the stance of #rantin# the ,udiciary broad $o!ers of 7la!2makin#9 in various statutory enactments% such as the 7#eneral enablin#9 clauses of the *ivil *ode on An#lo2American doctrines. An ado$tin# the remedy of reformation of instruments% Article &/.1 $rovides that 7LtMhe $rinci$les of the #eneral la! on the reformation of instruments are hereby ado$ted insofar as they are not in conflict !it the $rovisions of this *ode.9 4n trusts% Article &::5 $rovides that 7LtMhe $rinci$les of the #eneral la! of trusts% insofar as they are not in conflict !ith this *ode% the *ode of *ommerce% the Rules of *ourt and s$ecial la!s are hereby ado$ted. 4n esto$$el% Article
=5 =/ =: =0 =. == =( ='

*hua v. Secretary of abor% .( PHl. .:' C&'/'D. Act of )nited States *on#res of Au#ust 5'% &'&.. =' Phil. 5:' C&':=D Abid% at 50=. Abid. ).S. v. *una% &5 PHAl. 5:& C&'1(D. Al-ua v. Eohnson% 5& Phi. /1( C&'&5D 3ernande-% Si<ty @ears of Phili$$ine a!% /0 PHA . .E. &/('% &/'= C&'.1D

&&
&:/5 $rovides that 7LtMhe $rinci$les of esto$$el are hereby ado$ted insofar as they are not in conflict !ith the $rovisions of this *ode% the *ode of *ommerce% the Rules of *ourt and s$ecial la!s. Article /5 #rants a cause of action to an individual to seek dama#es from 7LaMny $ublic officer or em$loyee% or any $rivate individual% !ho directly or indirectly obstructs% defeats% violates or in any manner im$edes or im$airs any of the follo!in# ri#hts and liberties%9 and then #oes on to enumerate $ractically all the civil liberties #uaranteed by the +ill of Ri#hts of the *onstitution. Article //% ado$ted from $rinci$les in An#lo2American ,uris$rudence% $rovides that 7LiMn case of defamation% fraud% and $hysical in,uries% a civil action for dama#es% entirely se$arate and district from the criminal action% may be brou#ht by the in,ured $arty. Such civil action shall $roceed inde$endently of the criminal $rosecution% and shall require only a $re$onderance of evidence.9 An addition% 7#eneral $rinci$les9 are codified in the *ivil *ode% #ivin# ,ud#es #reater ,udicial lee!ay% such as the $rinci$le of 7abuse of ri#hts.9(1 ". Tenacity of *ivil a! Anfluence When soverei#nty over the Phili$$ine Aslands !as transferred from S$ain to the )nited States% there !as already an established civil la! system e<istin# in the colony. Many 3ili$ino la!yers% mostly S$anish mesti-os% !ere $ractisin# la! in Manila. +y then there !as an established la! school in civil la! at the )niversity of Santos Tomas in Manila !hich !as founded in &=/:. The colle#e of a! of the )niversity of the Phili$$ines !as established only in &'&1% !hich follo!ed the American le#al educational system. (& At !as only in &'&. that a $rivate la! school !as established that #ave instructions in >n#lish e<clusively. (5 And althou#h the trend durin# the early decades of American soverei#nty !as the ado$tion of statutes borro!in# An#lo2 American models% the hear of the la! !hich most affected the ordinary 3ili$ino Q the $rivate la!s Q remained the S$anish *ode of &(('. The underlyin# $hiloso$hy of the civil la! system for coherence% structure% and hi#h2level #enerali-ation(/ !as to the 3ili$ino ,urists a tantali-in# feature that could not be #iven2u$ com$ared to the almost ha$ha-ard #ro!th of common la! doctrines throu#h case2la!. The dee$ly2rooted and historically conditioned attitudes about the nature of the la!% and the $ro$er role of le#al actors $ersisted throu#h the le#al system of the Phili$$ine even as it be#an to ado$t many An#lo2American la!s and doctrines. The method of e<e#esis still had its stron# influence in the system #ro!in# out of the 3ili$ino ,urists; underlyin# belief that the startin# $oint for le#al reasonin# should normally take the form of le#islation. +ut similar to the develo$ment in continental >uro$e% and more $ronounced in the Phili$$ines because of the continuin# influence of An#lo2American $rinci$les% le#islative enactments% !hether in the form of codes or s$ecial le#islations !ere reco#ni-ed not to be able to cover all situations. >ven at $resent% Phili$$ine cods still tend to be treated% not as com$lete% but as self2 sufficient% in the sense that they contain com$rehensive body of rules and $rinci$les and embody a system for a$$lyin# these norms too all cases arisin# !ithin the areas they $ro$ose to cover. Bo matter !hat ty$e of $roblem arose% if the te<t failed to su$$ly an ans!er% the ,ud#e !ould fashion a solution derived from the code% from the relation of its $art% from its structure or from its #eneral $rinci$les. The res$ect that 3ili$ino ,urists have for the $rimacy of le#islative enactments even in areas !here the ,udiciary has $reviously ruled u$on has not #iven rise to the $henomenon in common la! ,urisdiction !here the 7codes9 have be considered as not meant to

(1 ART. &'. >very $erson must% in the e<ercise of his ri#hts and in the $erformance of his duties% act !ith ,ust% #ive everyone his due% and observe honesty and #ood faith. ART. 51. >very $erson !ho% contrary to la!% !illfully or ne#li#ently causes dama#e to another% shall indemnify the latter for the same. ART. 5&. Any $erson !ho !illfully cause loss or in,ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals% #ood customs or $ublic $olicy shall com$ensate the latter for the dama#e (& Malcolm% The *olle#e of a! )niversity of the Phili$$ines% & PHA .E. : C&'&:2&0D. (5 +enite-% The Private a! Schools% 5 PHA .E. /&/&= C&'&.D. (/ V4B M>HR>B% su$ra note &5% at /.

&5
abolish% but rather% to consolidate and restate the common la!% and $rovisions thereof 7construed in the li#ht of common la! decisions on the same sub,ect. (: This civil la! tradition finds e<$ression in Phili$$ine case2la! !hen the Su$reme *ourt itself directs that courts should #enerally be cautious in overrulin# le#islative ,ud#ments6 (0 holdin# that it is s!orn duty of ,ud#es 7to a$$ly the la! !ithout fear or favor% to follo! its mandate Q not to tam$er !ith it69(. that courts 7cannot ado$t a $olicy different from that of the la!%9 since 7L!Mhat the la! #rants% the courts cannot take a!ay69 (= that as lon# as the la!s do not violate any constitutional $rovisions% the courts can merely inter$ret and a$$ly them re#ardless of !hether or not they are !ise or salutary% and if such la!s turn out to be un!ise or detrimental% remedy should be sou#ht !ith the le#islature.(( e#al education in the Phili$$ines has no doubt influenced the 7Romani-ed9 develo$ment of the Phili$$ine le#al system. Phili$$ine la! instruction% !hich is #enerally done throu#h lectures and recitation% has the $reoccu$ation 7to #et the students of la! to $as the bar e<aminations.9 (' 7An the Phili$$ines% !hat should merely be a device to measure the fitness and ca$ability of a la! #raduate to ,oin the ranks to the $rofessional la!yers has been transformed into a monster that holds in its viselike #ri$ la! school administrators% $rofessors% students and ,ust about everybody concerned !ith la!. The lifetime #lory and honor it besto! on one !ho emer#es to$notcher and the $resti#e and increased enrollment it can #enerate for a trium$hant la! school are the allurements that obsess both students and institutions.9 '1 The #reat and $erha$s #rave influence of the bar e<aminations% !hich for several involved questions% !hich for several decades involved questions mostly of ob,ective ty$e consistin# of definition of terms and enumerations% has tended to cast the la! curriculum and the manner of instruction #eared to!ards doctrinal e<$osition. '& Althou#h the sub,ects of the bar e<aminations are $rescribed by the Su$reme *ourt% it is the "e$artment of >ducation that $rescribes the la! curriculum that has encoura#ed a rote method of study% since there is little incentive for la! students to undertake le#al e<$loration and scholarshi$ !hen !hat becomes the u$$ermost $re2occu$ation is to 7$re$are for the bar e<amination9 by masterin# le#al $rovisions% doctrines% and $rinci$les.'5 There is an on2#oin# issue on !hether the $ractical skills should be learned !hen one #oes to $ractice or should be tau#ht in the la! schools. Althou#h in recent years there has been e<amination relatin# to Su$reme *ourt decisions% the same has taken a mode of memori-in# the facts and holdin# of $articular decided cases to arrive at the correct ans!ers. >. Socio2>conomic "emand in Modern Phili$$ine Society
SA)V>P ABB>% *4"A3A>" AB" E)"?> MA"> AW &&2&5 C&'(&D6 also "AVA"% su$ra note .% at :01. Rubi v. Provincial +oard of Mindoro% /' Phil. ..1% =&' C&'&'D (. ?overnment of the Phili$$ines v. Anti2*hinese ea#ue% (: Phil. :.(% :=5 C&':'D6 also +arretto ?on-ales v. ?on-ales% 0( Phil. .=% =5 C&'//D. (= Abid. (( Guintos v. acson% '= Phil. 5'1% 5'/ C&'00D (' *ortes% The a! Teacher in Phili$$ine Society% 0 PHA . .E. &% = C&'=.D '1 Romero% *hallen#es to e#al >ducation% 05 PHA .% .E. :(=% :'0 C&'==D. 7)nfortunately% the $o$ular #au#e for ratin# la! schools is the $erformance in the bar e<aminations of their #raduates. Hence% the $aramount concern of $ractically all la! schools is to make a #ood sho!in# in those e<aminations. Any la! school that is an e<ce$tion to this% !ould merely $rove the rule.9 *ortes% The a! *urricular Assessment and Recommendations in the i#ht of the Beed of a "evelo$in# Society% := PHA . .E. ::.% :0= C&'=5D. '& See% abrador% The +ar ><aminations As An Anstrument of e#al >ducation% &5 AT>B>4 .E. /5' C&'./D% comments of aurel% at //5% and edesma% at ///. '5 7When la! e<aminations% for instance% are so #eared to memory and mastery of le#al $rovisions% one be#ins to doubt !hether the e<aminers and $rofessors% one be#ins to be thinkin# men or sim$ly robot memori-ers.9 Euco% The "octrine of Stare "ecisis and the Philoso$hy of a! in *han#in# WorldR&/ AT>B>4 .E. :1% 0& C&'./D
(0 (:

&/
The im$erative of socio2economic develo$ments in the Phili$$ine like!ise has #reatly influenced the evolution of the theory of ,udicial $recedents. The Su$reme *ourt has held that 7LtMhe doctrine Lof stare decisisM% ho!ever% is fle<ible6 so that !hen% in the li#ht of chan#in# conditions% a rule has ceased to be of benefit and use to society% the courts may ri#htly de$art from it. Stare decisis is a $rinci$le of $olicy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decisions% ho!ever recent and questionable% !hen such adherence involves collision !ith a $rior doctrine more embracin# in its sco$e% intrinsically sounder% and verified by e<$erience.9 '/ What is clearly a$$arent !ith both the &'=/ and the &'(= *onstitutions is that more that ,ust bein# trans$lants of the American2ty$e constitution% the Phili$$ine constitutional develo$ments have blossomed from the $eo$le;s e<$erience in the stru##le to build a lastin# re$ublic more attuned to the needs of a develo$in# country. The $eo$le;s ho$es and as$iration for a ,ust and humane society are no! dee$ly enshrined in constitutional $rece$ts and directivesJ the $romotion of 7a ,ust and dynamic of the nation and ensure the $ros$erity and inde$endence of the nation and free the $eo$le from $overty throu#h $olicies that $rovide adequate social services% $romote full em$loyment% a risin# standard of livin#% and an im$roved quality of life for all%9': the $romotion of social ,ustice in all $hases of national develo$ment% '0 declaration of the family as the basic social institution%'. and $rotection of human ri#hts6'= $rovidin# the #oal for a national economy that shall achieve 7a more equitable distribution of o$$ortunities% income% and !ealth6 a sustained increase in the amount of #oods and services $roduced by the nation for the benefit of the $eo$le6 and an e<$andin# $roductivity as the key to raisin# the quality of life for all% es$ecially the under$rivile#ed%9'( mandatin# a com$rehensive rural and a#rarian $olicy% '' and urban land reform and housin#% &11 $rovidin# for the !elfare of indi#enous cultural communities% &1& and $rovidin# for broad $olicy relatin# to education% science% technolo#y% arts% culture% and s$orts.&15 At the forefront of such constitutional mandate is not only the le#islative and e<ecutive branches% but also the ,udiciary% $articularly the Su$reme *ourt% !hich% in the e<ercise of its $o!er of ,udicial revie! and even in resolvin# controversies amon# $rivate $arties in activities considered to be !ithin the $ublic interest% must $romote the constitutional directives !hich have to do less !ith the 7structure9 of #overnment% and more !ith the 7mission9 of the state. The value of ,udicial $recedents can be #leaned from the fact that develo$ment in various fields is e<$ected to #o beyond the lan#ua#e of statutory enactments% but rather in the 7s$irit and direction9 they !ill $ursue% as e<$ressed in decisions of the courts. "ramatic e<am$les over the decade have been sho!n in the fields of investments in $rivate com$anies% labor la!s% a#rarian relations% and other social !elfare le#islations. Another e<am$le !here the ,udiciary has broken ne! #rounds by dra!in# on An#lo2 American doctrines beyond the lan#ua#e of the *ivil *ode% is in the field of torts. The doctrine on quasi2delict has been e<$anded by the Su$reme *ourt beyond the area of ne#li#ent acts to be that 7so lon# as an act or omission had caused dama#e or in,ury to another% !hether done intentionally or ne#li#ently% and !hether $unishable or not% the obli#ation to make #ood the dama#e done obtains.9&1/ )nder this e<$anded doctrine% 7there is no lon#er any substantial distinction left bet!een the civil and the common la! conce$t of tort liability9 &1: in its a$$lication in the Phili$$ines.
'/ A T4 >BTAB4% *AVA *4"> 43 TH> PHA APPAB>S /' C&'/:D citin# Helverin# v. Hallock. &1.% .1 S. *t. ::% (: . >". .1:. ': &'(= *onstitution% Article AA% Sec. '. '0 Abid% Sec. &16 also Article IAAA% Secs. & and 5. '. Abid% Article IAAA% Section &5. '= Abid% Article IAAA% Sections &=% &(% and &'. '( Abid% Article IAA% Sec. &. '' Abid% Section 5&6 also Article IAAA% Sections :% 0% .% =% and (. &11 Abid. Article IAAA% Sections ' and &1 &1& Abid% Section 55. &15 Abid% Article IAV. &1/ SAB?*4% PHA APPAB> AW 4B T4RTS S "AMA?>S :'201 C&'=(D. &1: Abid.

&:
An addition% the com$le<ities of the modern !orld have thrust u$on the le#al system a radical restructurin# that has seen the emer#ence of the administrative bodies fusin# to#ether le#islative% ,udicial% and e<ecutive $o!ers to make them more res$onsive to meet the various needs of the society. *andidly% this develo$ment in administrative la! makes a mockery of the $rinci$les of se$aration of $o!ers !hich seems to be the touchstone to 3illi$ino ,urists; $osition that ,ud#es cannot involve themselves in la!makin#. More and more% 7the role of the courts% and the $roblem !ith !hich they are faced% is to accommodate the administrative $rocess to the traditional ,udicial system% to accommodate $rivate ri#hts and the $ublic interests in the $o!ers re$osed in administrative action% democratic safe#uards and standards of fair $lay !ith the effective conduct of #overnment.9&10 The #ro!th in the administrative field is $henomenal% and consequently% the le#al theories to inte#rate it into the #eneral structure of the three #reat branches of #overnment have not fully 7matured9 to crate an inte#rated efficient system. An the Phili$$ines% even $urely $rivate ri#hts are no! !ithin the ,usticiable ,urisdiction of administrative a#encies% such as intra2cor$orate dis$utes !ith the Securities and ><chan#e *ommission% and em$loyer2em$loyee relationshi$ !ith the Bational abor Relations *ommission. A #overnin# structural $olicy is bein# evolved by both le#islature% the Su$reme *ourt in its $recedents% and by leadin# 3ili$ino ,urists. Since the develo$ment of a unifyin# theoretical basis in administrative la! is $iece2meal and em$irical% the $rocess has been rather slo!. 4ne of the !eaknesses of the $resent system is the lack of a national re$orter system of the decisions of administrative bodies% such as those of the Securities and ><chan#e *ommission and the Bational abor Relations *ommission% so as to develo$ a system of administrative $recedents. Since decisions of all administrative bodies% on issues of la! and doctrine% are ultimately a$$ealable to the Su$reme *ourt% the doctrines established by the Su$reme *ourt are everyday $rovidin# a unifyin# structure of $recedents to make the administrative system 7uniform% stable and $redictable%9 instead of 7an endless% dis,ointed% and com$le< rules to be sou#ht in re$ort of case as numerous as the sands of the sea.9&1.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY A. Ado$tion of the Princi$les of Stare "ecisis. Article . of the old S$anish *ode of &((' $rovided that if no 7!ritten la!9 CleyD is a$$licable to a situation% the 7customs of the $lace9 Ccostumbre del lu#arD% and in default thereof% the 7#eneral $rinci$les of la!9 C$rinci$ios #enerales de derechoD% shall be a$$lied.&1= An order to determine the #eneral $rinci$les of la!% S$anish commentator Sache- Roman o$ined that 7,udicial decisions cannot be resorted toHLsinceM a lo!er court of S$an is at liberty to disre#ard the decisions of a hi#her court.9&1( Another S$anish commentator% Manresa% formulates the rule that court are #overned in the follo!in# successive orderJ !ritten la!% customs of the $lace% ,udicial decision% and by #eneral $rinci$les of la!6 &1' and it !as $osited that the 7ur#in# that #eneral $rinci$les of la!% Manresa rather im$lies that the $ractice of the courts is the contrary.9 &&1 As discussed $reviously% the almost unbridled resort by ,ud#es and the Su$reme *ourt to common la! $rinci$les built u$on ,udicial $recedents in the )nited States established early on the $rinci$les of ,udicial $recedents in the Phili$$ine le#al system des$ite Article . of the *ode.
?4BTA >S% A"MABASTRATAV> AW Q A T>IT .2= C&'='D Para$hrasin# Henry in his descri$tion of common la! in Euris$rudence *onstante and Stare "ecisis *ontrasted% &0 A.+.A.E. &&% at &5 C&'5'D &1= See A PA"A A% *AVA *4"> &0 C&'/5D &1( 5 "erecho *ivil% at ='2(&% cited in An re Shoo$% :& Phil. 5&/% at 55= C&'51D. &1' & Manresa% at ==2=' cited in An re Shoo$% ibid. &&1 An re Shoo$% ibid% at 55=.
&1. &10

&0
Aronically% the $rinci$le on ,udicial $recedents found $ermanent anchorin# in a ne! *ivil *ode !hich !as ado$ted in the fourth year of inde$endence in &':'. Article ( of the ne! *ivil *ode $rovidesJ 7Eudicial decisions a$$lyin# or inter$retin# the la!s or the *onstitution shall form a $art of the le#al systems of the Phili$$ines.9 At is ur#ed that by virtue of Article ( of the ne! *ivil *ode% the le#islature intended to incor$orate into the Phili$$ine le#al system the *ommon la! doctrine of $recedents. &&& This is not an accurate statement of the im$lication of Article ( since lon# before its ado$tion the $rinci$le on ,udicial $recedents !as already an established doctrine in the Phili$$ines. The most that the inclusion of Article ( did !as to confirm in statutory from a !ell2entrenched $rinci$le in the Phili$$ine le#al system. +ut !hether it is the doctrine of stare decisis as it is kno!n and a$$lied in the )nited States or >n#land that !as ado$ted in the Phili$$ine le#al system% the $rovision did not settle this issue. Time and a#ain% the Su$reme *ourt has referred to the term stare decisis and acce$ted its a$$licability in Phili$$ine ,urisdiction. &&5 Ho!ever% such $ronouncements on the a$$licability of the doctrine are blunted by other $ronouncements of the Su$reme *ourt that it refuses 7blind adherence to $recedents.9&&/ An Phili$$ine Trust *o. v. Mitchell% &&: the Su$reme *ourt held that the 7rule of stare decisis is entitled to res$ect. Stability in the la!% $articularly in the business field% is desirable. +ut idolatrous reverence for $recedent% sim$ly as $recedent% no lon#er rules. More im$ortant than anythin# else is that the court should be ri#ht.9 &&0 Althou#h the Su$reme *ourt tends to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis% the $remise of !hich is that ,udicial decisions are a source of la!% it declares that its decisions 7althou#h in themselves not la!s%9 are only evidence of !hat the la! means.&&. 4n other hand% the Su$reme *ourt considers its decisions as 7la!9 or !ith the same bindin# effect !hen it declares that 7LiMn effect ,udicial decisions assume the same authority as the statute itself and% until authoritatively abandoned% necessarily become% to the e<tent that they are a$$licable% the criteria !hich must control the actuations CsicD not only of those called u$on to abide thereby but also of those in duty bound to enforce obedience thereto.9&&= At the very least% one can say that Article ( #ive de ,ure standin# to ,udicial $recedents. eadin# Phili$$ine commentators today hold that ,udicial decisions are not to be considered as formin# and inde$endent source of la! in the sense of creatin# ne! la!% as understood in >n#land and other case2la! countries. 7Euris$rudence% in our system of #overnment% cannot be considered as an inde$endent source of la!6 it cannot create la!. A la! established by ,uris$rudence !ould be a ,ud#e2made la!% in !hich there is se$aration of $o!ers% inasmuch as the sole function of our courts is to a$$ly or inter$ret the la!s.9 &&( Thus% ,udicial decisions are considered only to have the function of filin# the #a$s in the la!% clarifyin# ambi#uities% or harmoni-in# a$$arent inconsistencies in it. &&' +ut even as Phili$$ine commentators deny the conce$t of ,ud#e2made la!% they at the same time ackno!led#e the creative role of the Phili$$ine ,ud#e. 7While a ,ud#e cannot create abstract rules of la!% because that !ould be an invasion of le#islative $o!er% he certainly can formulate and declare the la! as a$$lied concretely to the case before him. *ourts are not limited to the automatic and mechanical function of inter$retin# the la!. They have% furthermore%
"e Santos% su$ra note :'% at 5/. >. #. Kuen-le S Streiff v. *ollector of *ustoms% &5 Phil. &&= CsyllabusD6 E.M. Tuason S *o.% Anc. v. Mariano% (0 at S*RA .::% .:= C&'=(D &&/ Tan *hon# v. Secretary of abor% =' Phil. 5:'% at 50= C&':=D. &&: 0' Phil. /1% /. C&'//D. &&0 Abid% at /.. &&. Peo$le v. Eabinal% 00 S*RA .1=% .&5 C&'=:D also Peo$le v. icera% .0 S*RA 5=1% 5=525=/ C&'=0D. >arly in ?ome- v. Hi$olito% 5 Phil. =/5 C&'1/D% the *ourt denied the e<istence of case2la!6 see also Eohnson and Trent% EE. "issents in amb v. Phili$$s% 55 Phil. :0.% 00( C&'&5D. &&= *alte< CPhili$$inesD% Anc. v. Palomar% &( S*RA 5:=% 50= C&'..D. &&( A T4 >BTAB4% su$ra note '/% at /(. See also A PARAS su$ra note =&% at ::6 PAS*)A % loc. cit. not &% at 556 ?amboa% loc. cit. note /% at /&:6 and Euco% su$ran note '5% at :0. &&' PAS*)A % loc. cit. note &% at 55.
&&5 &&&

&.
a double functionJ 3irst% to fill the deficiencies of le#islation and $rovide a rule for the facts of a #iven case for !hich there is neither $ositive $rovisions of la! nor established custom6 and second% to ada$t and ad,ust ri#id and infle<ible $rovision of la!% rendered inadequate by time and circumstances% to the chan#in# conditions of life and society% so that the la! may accom$lish its social mission. +ecause of this% ,uris$rudence must necessarily be fle<ible% ca$able of receivin# im$ressions from !ithout% so that it can be an advance #uard in the equitable a$$lication of la! and an active instrumentality in the $ro#ressive develo$ment of the la!.9 &51 This stance follo!s the conce$t of 7free scientific research9 advocated by 3rancois ?eny in 3rance. &5& Article . of the old S$anish *ivil *ode% !hich $rovided that !hen there !as no statute e<actly a$$licable to the $int in controversy% the custom of the $lace shall be a$$lied% and% in the absence thereof% the #eneral $rinci$les of la!% !as not retained in the draft of ne! *ivil *ode. Anstead a broader $rovision !as included on the sub,ect !hich readJ 7Where there is no la! clearly a$$licable to the $oint at issue% or if the la! is doubtful% ambi#uous or conflictin#% and $revious ,udicial decisions do not thro! li#ht u$on the question% the #eneral or local customs shall #overn. An the absence thereof% the ,ud#e shall a$$ly that the rule !hich he believes the la!makin# body !ould lay do!n but he shall be #uided by the #eneral $rinci$les of la! and ,ustice. The s$irit of analo#ous la!s may be considered. He may bear in mind forei#n le#islation and decisions as !ell as the o$inions of ,urists. He may like!ise take into consideration le#al ma<ims.9 The $ro$osed $rovision !as eliminated by the *on#ress !hen it enacted the ne! *ivil *ode% leavin# no e<$ress $rovision !ith res$ect to su$$letory rules in case of deficiency in the la!. 4n this matter% Tolentino% a leadin# 3ili$ino civil la! commentator% and !ho for a brief $eriod !as a member of the *ode *ommission% holds that 7LiMn s$ite of this% ho!ever% such su$$letory rules must be considered as e<istin#. >ven in countries !here there is no e<$ress enumeration of the rules may be a$$lied in the absence of $ositive la!% custom and ,uris$rudence are al!ays considered as su$$letory rules% contributin# to the evolution of la! and its ad,ustment to chan#in# conditions. The o$inions of ,urisconsults and commentators are also constantly referred to in ,udicial decisions6 they serve to fill #a$s in the a$$lication of the la!.9 &55 Such a conclusion is to be clearly im$lied from the $rovision of Article ' of the ne! *ivil *ode !hich states that 7Bo ,ud#e or court shall decline to render ,ud#ment by reason of the silence% obscurity or insufficiency of the la!s.9 &5/ An addition% Articles && and &5 of the *ivil *ode%&5: !hich re#ulate customs% clearly su$$ort the role that ,uris$rudence must $lay in evolvin# the customary la!s and inte#ratin# them into the le#al system because of the $ositive requirement that 7LaM custom must be $roved as a fact% accordin# to the rules of evidence.9 &50 +. *haracteristics of the Theory

A T4 >BTAB4% su$ra note '/% at /(. oussaouarn% su$ra note &'% at 5:125::% citin# ?>B@ M>TH4"> ";ABT>RPR>TATA4B >T S4)R*>S B> "R4AT PRAV> P4STA3C5" e. &'0:D. &55 A T4 >BTAB4% su$ra note '/% at :&2:5 Cunderscorin# su$$liedD. &5/ Ho!ever% Article ' does not require a court to decide 7each and every question of la! raised by one $arty re#ardless of its materiality to the liti#ation. Bovino v. *ourt of A$$eals% ( S*RA 5='% 5(1 C&'./D. &5: ART. &&. *ustoms !hich are contrary to la!% $ublic order or $ublic $olicy shall not countenanced. ART. &5. A custom must be $roven as a fact% accordin# to the rules of evidence. &50 Article &5% Abid.
&5&

&51

&=
To $ara$hrase ?ilmore as he described the le#al system of the Phili$$ines% 7LtMhe basis of a thin# is usually understood to be the foundation u$on !hich it rests.9 &5. 3rom the fore#oin# discussions one may have the im$ression that there is no unifyin# theory to the Phili$$ine conce$t of ,udicial $recedents6 one cannot even state outri#ht that it is the American version of stare decisis% because the Phili$$ine conce$t seems% as one reads the Su$reme *ourt decisions and commentaries% to re,ect one of its bases that decisions are inde$endent sources of la!. The seemin# $arado< of the $osition of many Phili$$ine ,urists that ,udicial decisions are not sources of la! should not be vie!ed as mere archaic le#al rhetoric% but rather indicates the nuance% if not electric a$$roach% of the Phili$$ine theory on ,udicial $recedents. An understandin# of this a$$arent 7double2talk9 !ould be best be achieved by analy-in# the three other main characteristics that the Phili$$ine $rinci$le on ,udicial $recedents. Aside from the first characteristics already discussed above that the Phili$$ine theory on ,udicial $recedents has found codified e<$ression in Article ( of the *ivil *ode% its other characteristics areJ its a$$lication is hierarchical6 its sco$e is modal6 and its form is doctrinal. These characteristics areJ its a$$lication is hierarchical6 its sco$e is modal6 and its forms is doctrinal. These characteristics #ive the Phili$$ine $rinci$le on ,udicial $recedents more fle<ibility than the doctrine of stare decisis% but achieve the #oals of ,uris$rudence constante for the $re2eminence of statutory la!. &. Hierarchical A$$lication. An &':=% in the case of Miranda v. Am$erial%&5= the Su$reme *ourt declared. 74nly the decisions of this Honorable *ourt establish ,uris$rudence or doctrines in this ,urisdiction. Ho!ever% this does not $revent that a conclusion or $ronouncement of the *ourt of A$$eals !hich covers a $oint of la! still undecided in our ,uris$rudence may serve as ,uridical #uideto the inferior courts% and that such conclusion or $ronouncement be raised as a doctrine if after it has been sub,ected to test in the crucible of analysis and revision% this Su$reme *ourt should find that it has merits and qualities sufficient for its consecration as a rule of ,uris$rudence.9&5( The $rinci$le then that court decisions shall constitute bindin# la! is a$$licable strictly only to the decision of the Su$reme *ourt6 *ourt of A$$eals decisions on issues not covered by the Su$reme *ourt ,uris$rudence served merely as a ,uridical #uide6 and the decisions of all other courts are not considered bindin# $recedents at all. Miranda does not disclose the le#al or historical basis for the doctrine. What becomes readily a$$arent from the hierarchical a$$lication of Miranda% althou#h nothin# at all is mentioned in the decision of this $oint% is that it tracks the structural $attern of the doctrina le#al of S$ain% !here only the Su$reme *ourt establishes bindin# $recedents. &5' Ho!ever% unlike the doctrina le#al structure% the Miranda a$$lication #rants to the decisions of the *ourt of A$$eals $ersuasive ,uridical effect% much like that of ,uris$rudence constante. Subsequently% in &'01% the ne!ly enacted *ivil *ode in its Article ( $rovided !ithout distinction that 7,udicial decisions9 shall form $art of the le#al system of the Phili$$ine6 nevertheless% the hierarchical a$$lication of Miranda stuck. An Albert v. *ourt of 3irst Anstance of Manila&/1 the Su$reme *ourt stressed that 7the Su$reme *ourt% by tradition and in our system of
&5. &5= &5(

?ilmore% loc cit. note &% at '1 == Phil. &1.. C&':=D. Abid% at &1=/. 4ri#inal decision in S$anish6 see translation in A PA"A

A% *AVA *4"> AB44TAT>" :5

C&'=0D.
&5' See Ramos% +ook Revie!% 55 R>VASTA E)RA"A*A "> A )BAV>RSA"A" "> P)>RT4 RA*4 ::5 C&'/0D Crevie!in# H>RT4?% > "R4AT E)RASPR)">BTA> >T > TRA+)BA S)PR>M> >B >SPA?B> L&':5MD. &/1 5/ S*RA ':( C&'.(D.

&(
,udicial administration% has the last !ord on !hat the la! is6 it is the final arbiter of any ,usticiable controversy. There is only one Su$reme *ourt from !hose decisions all other courts should take their bearin#s.9&/& ater% in Tu#ade v. *ourt of A$$eals%&/5 !here a lon# line of *ourt of A$$eals $recedents !ere bein# $ressed u$on the Su$reme *ourt% it declaredJ 7At is the Tribunal% not res$ondent *ourt of A$$eals% that s$eaks authoritatively.9&// Why this hierarchical a$$lication of the first $rinci$le of the stare decisisF That the hi#hest court in the land !ould have the 7last !ord9 is not denied6 but !hy !ould the Su$reme *ourt !ithhold the a$$licability of the doctrine to decisions of other courts on the ne<t lo!er echelon of the hierarchy% such as the *ourt of A$$ealsF Andeed it has been e<$ressed that lo!er courts% !hen necessitated by the chan#in# demands of the times and $ublic $olicy% should be allo!ed to de$art from decisions of su$erior tribunals as a 7direct !ays of $rovokin# a re2 e<amination of an im$ortant le#al question% and #ivin# the *ourt of last resort an o$$ortunity of either reaffirmin# the old doctrine or abandonin# it% and ado$tin# a ne! one.9 &/: The case of +arrera v. +arrera&/0 e<$lains the rationale of the hierarchical a$$lication of the bindin# effects of ,udicial $recedentsJ 7The delicate task of ascertainin# the si#nificance that attaches to a constitutional or statutory $rovisions% an e<ecutive order% a $rocedural norm or a munici$al ordinance is committed to the ,udiciary. At thus dischar#es a role no less crucial than that a$$ertainin# to the other t!o de$artments in the maintenance of the rule of la!. To assure stability in le#al relations and avoid confusion% it has to s$eak !ith one voice. At does so !ith finality% lo#ically and ri#htly% throu#h the hi#hest ,udicial or#an% this *ourt. What is says then should be definitive and authoritative% bindin# on those occu$yin# the lo!er ranks in the ,udicial hierarchy. They have to defer and to submit.9&/. The im$lication of the +arrera rationale is that althou#h the $o!er of ,udicial revie! of $ossessed by a lo!er court% its determinationa are at best de facto and may at most constitute the a! of the case9 and bind only the liti#ants6 no $recedential !ei#ht is #iven to such decisions% e<ce$t in the case of the *ourt of A$$eals !here its determination is $ersuasive to lo!er courts. At may be ar#ued that the doctrine !ould #ive the rise to inconsistency of rulin#s in the lo!er echelons of the ,udicature and an uneven or unequal dis$ensation of ,ustice for $arties !ho may be similarly situated. This seems more a$$arent than real% since in the ordinary course $arties !ould eventually #o u$ to the Su$reme *ourt on issues of constitutionality and validity of le#islative and e<ecutive acts. This may seem to encoura#e a$$eals% but the Phili$$ine ,udicial system is the four2tier system% !hich follo!s the modern vie! that a$$ellate ,urisdiction should be assumed on a discretionary basis in accordance !ith the $rinci$le that liti#ants !ould not be accorded that one a$$eal as a matter of ri#ht.&/= )nder the Revised Rules of *ourt% a revie! by the Su$reme *ourt of decisions of the *ourt of A$$eals 7is not a matter of ri#ht% but of sound ,udicial discretion% and !ill be #ranted only !hen there are s$ecial and im$ortant reasons therefore.9 &/( The #rounds #iven for revie! by the Su$reme *ourt areJ

Abid% at '.& Cunderscorin# su$$liedD. (0 S*RA 55. C&'=(D. &// Abid% at 5/1. See also 3on# *hoy v. Re$ublic% 50 S*RA 5:% 50 C&'.(D6 Ansular ife Assurance *o.% td. >m$loyees Association v. Ansular ife Assurance *o.% td.% /= S*RA 5::% 5=' C&'=&D &/: *f. Euco% su$ra note '5% at 0120& citin# dissent in Peo$le v. Santos% &1: Phil. 00&% 0.1 C&'0(D. &/0 /: S*RA '( C&'=1D &/. Abid% at &1= Cunderscorin# su$$liedD. &/= Puno% Annovations and Reforms in the Eudicial System% (0 S*RA <<vii% at <<i< C&'=(D. &/( Rule :0% Section :.
&/5

&/&

&'
7 CaD Where the *ourt of A$$eals has decided a question of substance% not theretofore determined by the Su$reme *ourt% or has decided it in a !ay $robably not in accord !ith la! or !ith a$$liacable decisions of the Su$reme *ourt6 7 CbD When the *ourt of A$$eals has so far de$arted from the acce$ted and usual course of ,udicial $roceedin#s% or so far sanctioned such de$arture by a lo!er court% as to call for an e<ercise of the $o!er of su$ervisions.9 &/' Pursuin# the $oint further% it is true that even !ithout the Miranda hierarchal a$$lication% the same $ractical result !ould be achieved because of the fear of lo!er courts of reversal. Ho!ever% the Miranda hierarchal a$$lication has the effect of makin# the $recedential mechanism in the Phili$$ine le#al system 7efficient9 in the sense that the le#al community !ould not have to sort throu#h the caco$hony of diver#ent ,udicial $ronouncements at the lo!er level of the ,udiciary. >ven at the *ourt of A$$eals level% only $recedents from a lon# line of decisions tend to be $ersuasive% es$ecially !hen said court s$eaks !ith 7several voices9 havin# &0 divisions. This really makes a lot of economic sense for a country and its le#al community that does not have lar#e financial resources. There has never been a consistent re$orter system of decisions of *ourt of A$$eals and other decisions of courts of first instance of !hich there are :5/ salas throu#hout the archi$ela#o. The Miranda hierarchal a$$lication actually becomes a self2enforcin# mechanism that brin#s le#al issues throu#h the hierarchical mechanism. The role of the *ourt of A$$eals !hich s$eaks !ith &0 divisions therefore becomes a 7!eedin# out9 $rocess so that only im$ortant issued ultimately reach the Su$reme *ourt. +y #ivin# the decisions of the *ourt of A$$eals the character of $ersuasive $recedential value the Miranda hierarchical a$$lication $rovides a 7testin# #round9 for le#al issues to be clarified and ventilated in the 7crucible of analysis and revisions.9 +y the time the issues shall have reached the Su$reme *ourt there !ould have been a solid ,udicial back#round to lay do!n $roven doctrines. The set2u$ adds $liability to ,udicial $recedents similar to that achieved in the doctrine of ,uris$rudence constante !here a sense of de facto sta#e is reached at the *ourt of A$$eals level by a line of decision tendin# to u$hold a common doctrine% from !hich the le#al community may dra! ,uridical #uide% !ith fore2kno!led#e that 7doctrines may still be chan#ed% de$endin# u$on the final determination of the Su$reme *ourt. +eyond the $o!er of ,udicial revie!% the *onstitution itself has sanctified the $recedential value of the decisions of the Su$reme *ourt !hen it $rovides that 7no doctrine or $rinci$le of la! laid do!n by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in a division&:1 may be modified or reversed e<ce$t by the court sittin# en banc.9&:& 4utside the e<ercise of their $o!er of ,udicial revie!% the creative role of ,ud#es is not lost. Eud#es% !ho cannot be in a#reement !ith every decision of the Su$reme court% are not required 7to kee$ locked u$ !ithin their breasts their o!n vie!s and in fact should not be discoura#ed% for the $ro#ress of the la! may very !ell de$end on a more searchin# inquiry as to the continuin# validity of certain assum$tions and re2su$$ositions uncritically acce$ted.9 &:5 The $ro$er route is for lo!er courts to e<$ress in the o$inion $ortion of the decision their vie!s on matters they disa#ree !ith in Su$reme *ourt doctrines% but must still render ,ud#ment in accordance !ith the Su$reme *ourts $recedents.&:/
Abid. )nder Article VAAA% Section : C&D of the &'(= *onstitution% the Su$reme *ourt com$osed of the *hief Eustice and &: Associate Eustices may sit en banc or% in its discretion% in divisions of three% five or seven members. &:& &'(= *onstitution% Article VAAA% Section :C/D. &:5 +arrera v. +arrera% /: S*RA '(% &1. C&'=1D. &:/ Abid6 Peo$le v. Santos% &1: Phil. 00&% 0.1 C&'0(D.
&:1 &/'

51
With the constitutional #rant to the Su$reme *ourt of control and su$ervision over all inferior courts% the doctrine that Su$reme *ourt decisions are bindin# $recedents over all other courts is further reinforced% es$ecially !hen the Su$reme *ourt is #ranted the $o!er 7to disci$line ,ud#es of lo!er courts% or order their dismissal%9 &:: !hich $o!er the Su$reme *ourt has e<ercised in instances !here ,ud#es have by their decisions sho!n 7#ross incom$etence or #ross i#norance of the la! or #ross misconduct.9&:0 Therefore% if one is to oversim$lify the matter% insofar as decisions of the Su$reme *ourt are concerned the first $rinci$le of hierarchy of the doctrine of stare decisis has been ado$ted in the Phili$$ine ,urisdiction% under the mechanism of doctrine le#al of the S$anish civil la! system. The $rinci$le of ,uris$rudence constante $ermeates the decisions of the *ourt of A$$eals. 5. Modal Sco$e. The Phili$$ine doctrine on ,udicial $recedents has certainly been much influenced by the second $rinci$le of stare decisis that 7a court is bound by its o!n $revious decisions%9&:. but more in accord !ith America tendency to de$art from $recedent !hen !arranted by $olicy considerations. The Su$reme *ourt has decreed Q 7The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the $rinci$le that once a question of la! has been e<amined and decided% ti should be deemed settled and closed further ar#umentH. The $rinci$le of stare decisis does not mean blind adherence to $recedents. The doctrine or rule laid do!n% !hich has been follo!ed for years% no matter ho! sound it may be% if found to be contrary to la!% must be abandoned. The $rinci$le of stare decisis does not and should not a$$ly !hen there is conflict bet!een the la! and the $recedent. The duty of the *ourt is to abandon any doctrine or rule found to be in violation of the la! in force.9 &:= An the Phili$i$ne le#al set2u$% the $o!er to inter$ret la!s is strictly construed to be a ,udicial $o!er. Becessarily% the le#islature cannot bind courts to a $articular construction of an e<istin# la!. An >ndencia v. "avid% &:( the Su$reme *ourt heldJ 7We have already said that the e#islature under our form of #overnment is assi#ned the task and the $o!er to make and enact la!s% but not to inter$ret them. This si more true !ith re#ard to the inter$retation of the basic la!% the *onstitution% !hich is not !ithin the s$here of the e#islative de$artment. Af the e#islature may declare !hat a la! means% or !hat a s$ecific $ortion of the *onstitution means% es$ecially after the courts have in actual case ascertained its meanin# by inter$retation and a$$lied it in a decision% this !ould surely caused confusion and instability in ,udicial $rocesses and court decisions. )nder such a system% a final court determination of a case based on a ,udicial inter$retation of the la! or of the *onstitution may be undermined or even annulled by a subsequent and different inter$retation of the la! or of the *onstitution by the e#islative de$artment. That !ould be neither !ise nor desirable% besides bein# clearly violative of the fundamental $rinci$les of our constitutional system of #overnment% $articularly those #overnin# the se$aration of $o!ers.9&:'

&'(= *onstitution% Article VAAA% Section &&. Peo$le v. Valen-uela% &/0 S*RA=&5 C&'(0Dl *athay Pacific Air!ays v. Romillo% Er.% &:5 S*RA 5.5 C&'(.D. &:. V4B M>HR>B% su$ra note &5% at &0. See also "AVA"% su$ra note .% at :/02/.. &:= Tan *hon# v. Secretary of abor% and am S!ee San# v. *ommon!ealth % =' Phil. 5:'% 50( C&':=D citin# Prall v. +urckhart% 5'' AAA. &'% &/5 B.>. 5(1. &:( '/ Phil. .'. C&'0/D &:' Abid% at =112=15.
&:0

&::

5&
The le#islature is% ho!ever% allo!ed to define the terms it used in a statute% said definitions bein# considered as $art of the la! itself. &01 This is o$$osite the develo$ment in 3rance !here inter$retative function !as to be e<ercised by the le#islature itself throu#h the system of refere li#islatif% !hich system has fallen into disuse because of the #reat difficulties and delays involved.&0& An situations !hen lon#2established $recedents !ould be overtuned% the Su$reme *ourt has ado$ted the doctrine of qualifyin# the effect of the chan#e of stance by $rovidin# that the ne! doctrine !ould a$$ly only $ros$ectively to future cases. This is the Su$reme *ourt has done even !hen the overturnin# of $recedent $ertains to the inter$retation of a statute% not!ithstandin# its $revious declaration that its inter$retation of a stature 7constitutes $art of the la! as of the date it !as ori#inally $assed% since this *ourt;s construction merely establishes the contem$oraneous le#islative intent that the inter$reted la! carried into effect.9 &05 What remains uncovered by the doctrine are those situations not covered by the $rinci$le of res ad,udicate sim$ly because no action has risen% and yet% the $arties have arran#ed their affairs or transacted their business relyin# u$on the uniform decisions and rulin#s of the Su$reme *ourt as to the correct transaction of the la!. &0/ There is no sim$le ans!er to this issue6 even !ith statutory enactment% there is al!ays no vested ri#ht by citi-ens that the la! !ill not be chan#ed. Ho!ever% even the le#islature !hen it enacts a ne! la! chan#in# the old order usually $rotects vested interests6 or allo!s an interim $eriod for $arties to read,ust their transactions or relations. +ut in criminal cases the attitude of the Su$reme *ourt has been more solicitious to!ards the defendant. The doctrine laid do!n by the Su$reme *ourt in criminal la! is deemed to constitute a $art of the la! as of the date it !as ori#inally $assed% but a reversal of that doctrine is also considered a $art of the inter$reted la! on the date the la! !as $assed. &0: CThus% theoretically the la! can have as many inter$retation on the date it !as $assed as many times as the Su$reme *ourt should chan#e its inter$retationD. To illustrate% in &'0( in Peo$le v. ucero&00 the Su$reme *ourt held that a civilian !ho has been a$$ointed a#ent by $rovincial #overnor !ith !ritten authority to carry firearm !ould not violate the la! #overnin# ille#al $ossession of firearms. The doctrine !as reaffirmed in &'0' in Peo$le v. Macarandan#.&0. An &'.=% in Peo$le v. Ma$a%&0= the Su$reme *ourt abandoned the doctrine and affirmed the conviction of defendant Ma$a. An &'=:% the Su$reme *ourt in Peo$le v. Eabinal%&0( acquitted the defendant Calthou#h he !as in the same $osition of Ma$a of carryin# a firearm $ursuant to his a$$ointment as s$ecial a#ent by the $rovincial #overnorD% on the #round that !hen he !as a$$ointed a#end in &'.5% the $revailin# doctrine on the matter !as that laid do!n in Macarandan# C&'0'D and ucero C&'0(D and the reversal of the doctrine came only in &'.= in Ma$a6 since the Macarandan# arrested in &'.5 he should benefit from such doctrine6 the Ma$a doctrine can only be #iven $ros$ective effect and 7should not a$$ly to $arties !ho had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof.9&0' The reliance doctrine !as also a$$lied subsequently in Peo$le v. icera.&.1 There is no doubt that the 7reliance9 doctrine of the Su$reme *ourt is ,ust and equitable% but it !as a$$lied uneven2handedly6 Ma$a became the sca$e #oat since iat the time of his a$$rehension the $revailin# doctrine !as also the Macarandan# doctrine and he relied on it ,ust as in the case of defendant Eabinal and icera.
&01 &0& &05 &0/ &0: &00 &0. &0= &0( &0' &.1

A PARAS% su$ra note =&% at :=. oussaouarn% su$ra note &'% at 5/'. Senarillos v. Hermosisima% &11 Phil. 01&% 01: C&'0.D. >.#.% dissent in Phili$$ine Trust *o. v. Mitchell% 0' Phil. /1% :& C&'//D. See Peo$le v. Eabinal% 00 S*RA .1= C&'=:D &1/ Phil. 011 C&'0'D. &1. Phil. =&/ C&'0'D. 51 S*RA &&.: C&'.=D. 00 S*RA .1= C&'=:D. Abid% at .&5. .0 S*RA 5=1& C&'=0D.

55
The $rinci$le of reliance discussed above has been a$$lied y the Su$reme *ourt in situations !here relations or transactions !ere established $ursuant to a state or e<ecutive order that is unconstitutional $rior to the time the same is declared void by the courts. &.& The Phili$$ines as in the American tradition% ado$ts the orthodo< vie! that an 7unconstitutional act% !hether le#islative or e<ecutive % is not a la!% confers no ri#hts% im$oses no duties% and affords no $rotection.9&.5 Ho!ever% this orthodo< vie! has been qualified by the Su$reme *ourt !ith the 7o$erative fact9 doctrine #ivin# le#al effect to a le#islative or e<ecutive act !here theoretically none e<istJ 7The #ro!in# a!areness of the role of the ,udiciary as the #overnmental or#an !hich has the final say on !hether or not a le#islative or e<ecutive measure is valid leads to a more a$$reciative attitude of the emer#in# conce$t that a declaration of nullity may have le#al consequences !hich the more orthodo< vie! !ould deny. That for a $eriod of time such a statute% treaty% e<ecutive order% or ordinance !as in Nactual e<istence; a$$ears to be indis$utable. What is more a$$ro$riate and lo#ical that to consider it as an o$erative fact.9&./ An the area of $rocedural la!% the Su$reme *ourt has% in the interest of $ublic $olicy or ,ustice% !aived its o!n rules of $rocedure.&.: An interestin# $oint that has arisen in connection !ith the adherence of the $rinci$le that decisions of the Su$reme *ourt are bindin# $recedents% and therefore constitute 7la!9 is the doctrine that ,udicial $recedents only have $ros$ective effect and cannot be made to o$erate restro$ectively.&.0 Such doctrine !ould contradict directly the stance that a court;s inter$retation of a la! constitutes $art of the la! as of the date it !as ori#inally $assed since the court;s construction merely establishes contem$oraneous le#islative intent that the la! carried into effect.&.. The $ros$ective effect bein# $laced u$on ,udicial $recedents in not by itself a clear reco#nition of the $ro$osition that thy create ne! la!s% but rather is borne out by the necessity of carryin# the $ublic $olicy that there must be an end to $articular liti#ationJ the 7la! of the case9 doctrine or res ad,udicata&.= 7There !ould be no end to a suit if every liti#ant to criticisms on their o$inions% or s$eculate of chances from chan#es in its members. An itch to reo$en questions foreclosed on a first a$$eal !ould result in the foolishness of the inquisitive youth !ho $ulled u$ his corn to see ho! it #re!.9&.( )nder the $rinci$le of of res ad,udicate% a subsequent reinter$retation of the la! is a$$licable $ros$ectively only to ne! cases% !hether civil or criminal% but not to old ones that have finally and conclusively been determined. &.' 7Public $olicy and sound $ractice demand hat at the risk of occasional errors% ,ud#ments of courts should become final at some definite date fi<ed by the la!. The very ob,ect for !hich courts !ere instituted !as to $ut an end to controversies.9&=1

&.& Article = of the *ivil *ode $rovides that 7When the courts celare a la! to be inconsistent !ith the *onstitution% the former shall be void and the latter shall #overn.9 &.5 E. 3ernando concurrin# in 3ernande- v. *uerva% 5& S*RA &1'0% &&1. C&'.=D citin# Borton v. Shelby *ountry C&((.D &&( ).S. :50% ::5% /1 .>d. &=(% . R.*. . &&= C&((.D. &./ Abid% at &&1.6 also Manila Motor *o. v. 3lores% '' Phil. =/( C&'0.D6 de A#bayani v. Phili$$ine Bational +ank% /. S*Ra :5' C&'=&D. &.: >.#.>.#. 4rdovesa v. Raymundo% ./ Phil. 5=0. &.0 Peo$le v. Pinuila% &1/ Phil ''56 Pomeroy v. "irector of Prisons% &1= Phil. 01. &.. Senarillos v. Hermosisima% &11 Phil. 01&% 01: C&'0.D6 see also% A T4 >BTAB4% su$ra note '/% at /(2/'. &.= Peo$le v. 4larte% &' S*RA :':% :'' C&'.=D. &.( Tarate v. "irector of ands% /' Phil. =:= C&'&'D. &.' Peo$le v. 4larte% &' S*RA :': C&'.=D. &=1 ayda v. e#as$i% /' Phl. (/% at C&'&(D6 "y *ay v. *rossfield S 4;+rien% /( Phil. 05& C&'&(6 *ontrera v. 3eli<% =( Phil. 0=1 C&':=D.

5/
Thus% in the case of Tan *hon#%&=& !hen after a lon# line of decisions coverin# several decades% the Su$reme *ourt abandoned the $rinci$le of ,us soli on Phili$$ine citi-enshi$% it decreed that its ne! doctrine 7is not intended or desi#ned to de$rive% as it cannot divest% of their 3ili$ino citi-enshi$ those !ho had been declared to be 3ili$ino citi-ens% or u$on !hom such citi-enshi$ had been conferred% by the courts because of the doctrine or $rinci$le of res ad,uciata.9&=5 /. "octrinal Treatment of Precedents. e#al education in the Phili$$ines is eclectic in the sense that there is a dual em$hasis on the e<$osition of #eneral $rinci$les from !hich the results in concrete cases are derived by a $rocess of deductive reasonin#% best enunciated throu#h the lecture method of instruction and the rote method of class $artici$ation by students. At the same time% the im$ortance of decision2takin# $rocess of $olicy and factual consideration is also #iven im$ortance by study of the various decisions of the Su$reme *ourt as they a$$ly% am$lify% or e<$and the meanin# or covera#e of the la!6 in this $rocess a modified case2method is em$loyed by lecturers. +ut even in the latter $rocess% the study of the decisions of the Su$reme *ourt tends to follo! method of evolvin# the decisions into #eneral $rece$ts% much like the function of the codal $rovisions6 consequently% althou#h the factual settin# are im$ortant% they are not vital because the !hole $ur$ose of the 7story tellin#9 of the facts is to ans!er the queryJ 7What lesson does the case teachF9 "ecisions by Phili$$ine courts follo! the American style of elaborate statements of the facts and discussions of $recedents6 in colle#iate courts such as the Su$reme *ourt and the *ourt of A$$eals% the name of the author of the o$inion Cthe $onenteD is #iven% as are the names of other ,ustices6 dissentin# and concurrin# o$inions are frequent. The decisions of the Su$reme *ourt are $ublished in official and commercial re$orters. &=/ There are various di#estin# services.&=: +ut !hat !ill be $eculiar is the similar effort for le#al !riters and scholars to 7fit9 and systemati-e the ratio decidendi Cand even obiter dictaD of Su$reme *ourt decisions into 7a$$ro$riate9 codal or statutory $rovisions. The e<istence of code systems makes its irresistible for facts of cases to be #lossed over as the doctrines they establish are 7fitted9 into a$$ro$riate codal sections. The systemati-ation $rocess is therefore more doctrinal. Althou#h it !ill not be admitted% there is less em$hasis on the 7e<actitude9 of the cited $recedents to the facts of the case bein# ar#ued. An this res$ect% the doctrine of a $recedent is treated much the same !ay the method of e<e#esis em$loyed in the lan#ua#e of the statute for a$$lication to a set of facts involved in a $endin# case. The techniques em$loyed !hen ar#uin# from ,udicial $recedential doctrines often are by !ay of analo#y% reasonin# a fortiori% or a contrario. Eudicial $recedents are therefore thou#ht to serve the same 7constitutional9 function as codes% so that a !hole body of doctrine may% as in the case of codes% be 7treated% althou#h not com$lete% but as self2sufficient% in the sense that they contain com$rehensive body of rules and $rinci$les and embody a system for a$$lyin# these norms to al cases arisin# !ithin the areas they $ro$ose to cover.9 &=0 As a consequences% the Su$reme *ourt has rather become fle<ible in its treatment of $recedents. This $uts an element of sur$rise into the $rinci$le of ,udicial $recedents% !hich is contrary to stability. Adeally% a hybrid le#al system% such as that of the Phili$$ines% is better able to co$e !ith the !eaknesses inherent in% and be able to dra! from the stren#ths offered by% both the civil la! and common la! systems. +oth systems have $hiloso$hical mechanisms to $romote certain im$ortant but contendin# and often conflictin# aimsJ $redictability by the doctrine $f stare decisis% and fle<ibility and #ro!th by the rules of equity and the techniques for limitin# and distin#uishin# $recedent in the common la! system6 !hereas% in the code systems of civil la!% $redictability and
=' Phil. 5:'% 50( C&':=D. Abid. &=/ The 7Phili$$ine Re$orts9 and the 7Su$reme *ourt Re$orts Annotated9 &=: >.#. % S*RA AB">I% Phili$$ine Re$orts "i#est% Re$ublic Re$orts "i#ests. Annual 7sSurveys9 of the Su$reme *ourt decisions in im$ortant fields are $ublished yearly by various le#al and la! school $ublications. &=0 *f. ? >B"4B% ?4R"4B S 4SAKW>% *4MPARATAV> >?A TRA"ATA4BS &5.2&5( C&'(5D
&=5 &=&

5:
stability are assured by the 7!ritten la!9 of the codes% !hile fle<ibility and #ro!th are $ermitted% internally% by #eneral clauses tem$erin# ri#id rules% and e<ternally by inter$retation% made more su$$le by the absence of a formal rule of stare decisis.&=.

IV. REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The $resent ambivalent theoretical $rece$ts in Phili$$ine le#al system of the $o!er of the ,udiciary in 7la!makin#9 has lead to an irre#ular terrain that can only be e<$lained by the le#al $redilections of individual ,ud#es !ho may or may not choose to !ield the $o!er% and leadin# commentators% mostly civilists% !hose dra!back to some of the archaic $rinci$les of civil la! does not take into consideration the clear tends in leadin# civil la! countries such as S$ain% 3rance% and ?ermany !hich have ado$ted radical $rinci$les as to the $ro$er role of ,udicial $recedents as formal sources of la!. The lack of a clear2out le#al $hiloso$hy on this matter in a le#al system breeds only inconsistent results and leads to the dan#er $ointed out by Rene "avid that !ithout the #uidance of a clear underlyin# le#al $hiloso$hy% !hat becomes the essential factor is the !illin#ness% or hesitation% of each ,ud#e to admit that distinctions may be dra!n% or !hether he considers himself bound by an archaic $rinci$le% or !hether he is even a!are of the need that the la! should evolve and !hether he is to be #uided by $ro#ressive or conservative ideas. &== The elements of a more vi#orous and innovative le#al system $unctuated by a clearly2 defined $rinci$le of ,udicial $recedents are all $ractically e<istin# in the Phili$$ines. Many 3ili$ino ,urists reco#ni-e and a$$ly the various $arts of the $rinci$les. +ut !hat is lackin# is a unified system does in fact e<ist. )nless the clear outlines of this theory are reco#ni-ed de ,ure% then the best of the Phili$$ine le#al minds continue to !ork in the shado!s of outmoded $rinci$les. There should be a redefinition of the $rinci$le of 7se$aration of $o!er%9 at least insofar as la!makin# $o!er is concerned% to one that em$hasi-es more the 7se$aration of $rimary res$onsibility9 rather that the e<ercise of such $o!er. &=( At the very least such a doctrine should dis$ense !ith the notion that courts and administrative a#encies never $ut anythin# into the la! !hich !as not there at the time they use it and that all they do is a$$ly the received rule. &=' The 3ili$inos do not have the 3rench history !here the le#islators mistrusted the ,ud#es and have !ithheld from the latter any $artici$ation in la!makin#. Andeed the $resent le#al set2u$ has been the $roduct of entrustin# unto the ,udicial safe#uard the very fundamental la! of the land QQ the *onstitution. +y and lar#e the ,udiciary has acquitted itself rather !ell. As these $a$ers has sho!n% the Phili$$ine le#al system has straddled the main features of the $rinci$les of stare decisis% doctrina le#al% and ,uris$rudence constante in evolvin# a com$osite doctrine on ,udicial $recedents. What has clearly emer#ed from the be#innin# of this century is a Phili$$ine $rinci$le of ,udicial $recedents that has the follo!in# structural characteristicsJ CaD )nity and stability% achieved by the com$ulsory rules that a sin#le decision of the Su$reme *ourt is sufficient to establish a le#al rule or doctrine bindin# on lo!er courts throu#hout the archi$ela#oJ bD Predictability% achieved by the $ractice that such doctrines are #enerally follo!ed by the Su$reme *ourt in subsequent cases6 and CcD 3le<ibility and #ro!th%
&=. &== &=(

Abid% &/'2&:1

"AVA"% su$ra note .% at :/= The e<istence and seemin# indis$ensability of administrative a#encies e<ercisin# all three of the #reat #overnmental $o!ers is the clearest indication of the necessity of redefinin# the $rinci$le of se$aration of $o!er to $erha$s t!o tier $rinci$leJ structural and constitutional coherence on he first tier coverin# the e<ecutive% le#islative% and ,udiciary branches6 and a com$osite and fle<ible structure on the second tier% !hich is to #overn administrative a#encies% and $erha$s even lo!er courts. +ut the discussion of such doctrine !ould constitute a se$arate $a$er alto#ether and cannot be covered here. &=' See contra 3ernande-% Si<ty @ears of Phili$$ine a!% /0 PHA . .E. &/('% &/'& C&'.1D

50
achieved by the rule that the Su$reme *ourt !ould not feel bound to abandon a doctrine if it determines its falsity or im$racticality% but that in instances !here it must abandon a doctrine% the Su$reme *ourt 7mana#es9 or 7qualifies9 the adverse effects to do ,ustice to those !ho have relied u$on the doctrine $rior to its abandonment. )nder$innin# this eclectic $rinci$le is the res$ect and $rimacy that the Su$reme *ourt #ives to statutory enactments by le#islature. An areas in !hich the le#islature has laid do!n its $olicies% ,udicial decisions are seen to develo$% but are not confined% !ithin the le#al frame!ork established by le#islation. +ut in areas or situations !here there is le#islative lacunae the ,udiciary in effect becomes the 7la!maker9. This is en#endered by the 7#eneral $rinci$les9 clauses in the *ivil *ode and other statutory enactments !hich allo!s #reater discretion on the $art of the ,udiciary to develo$ the la!. The !eak link in the Phili$$ine ,udicial system is the middle $art of the chain involvin# the *ourt of A$$eals and other hi#h courts% includin# the administrative a#encies% since there is no reliable re$orter system coverin# their decisions. A develo$ment of a stron# re$orter system in this field !ill encoura#e a system of ,uris$rudence constante on that level of the ,udicial system. This is necessary% for often the Su$reme *ourt cannot find the time to address all issues im$ortant in the lives of $eo$le% es$ecially !hen it can only act on the basis of ,usticiable controversies. Transactions and lives cannot $ause to a!ait the slo! #rind of the Su$reme *ourt decisional $rocess6 evolvin# a reliable system of $recedents in the u$$er middle level of the ,udicial echelon !ould facilitate commercial% economic and social develo$ments.