The Get-Real Theory
26 of the civil
This theory as mentioned by Atty. Bernardo
looks to the law and law practitioners to “get
real” or to consider the often overlooked
human realities present in the practice of law1.
This theory wants the practice of law to be
more realistic, to look into the human
experience as a bridge between the gaps that
the law contains and to apply such connection
in determining what justice is with each case.
Source of the Get-Real Theory
The get real theory stems from legal realism
that states that judges, in deciding cases, are
not simply deducing legal conclusions with
unchangeable, machine-like logic, but are
influenced by ideas of fairness, public policy,
and other personal values.
Realists held two things to be true. First, they
believed that law is not a scientific enterprise in
which deductive reasoning can be applied to
reach a determinate outcome in every case.
Instead, most litigation presents hard questions
that judges must resolve by balancing the
interests of the parties and ultimately drawing
an ARBITRARY line on one side of the dispute.
Second, realists believed that because judges
decide cases based on their political affiliation,
the law tends always to lag behind social
change2.
Proponent
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. “The life of
the law has not been logic, it has been
experience”
Application of the theory in the field of law
Civil law, Criminal law, Elections
Cases
Republic v. Orbecido G.r. no 154380
A case where the wife of the respondent left for
the U.S. where she had herself be naturalized
as a citizen and divorced Orbecido. She married
a foreigner and now Obrecido seeks to marry
1
Bernardo. (2014). PHILAWSOPHIA: Philosophy and
Theory of Law. Rex bookstore. 37-38.
2
(NA).The free dictionary. http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisprudence.
Date of Access, July 6 2016.
again but was denied for Art.
code on its face does not apply to his
circumstance, for his wife first got naturalized
and then married a foreigner thus initially his
petition was denied. He was delared to be still
married to her. The court finally decided that he
was eligible for marriage for if the law was to be
applied in such a way our citizens would suffer
from injustice.
People v. Verzosa G.R. No. 183093
Appellant was given the opportunity to show
the court that AAA was driven by some ill
motive to falsely testify against him. Evidently,
there was none that he could validly impute
against her. As it turned out, his allegation that
he saw AAA being kissed by the alleged lover in
the morning of the rape incident, which, he
claimed, would give AAA reason to file the case
against him, is not true. He himself admitted on
cross examination that he witnessed the kissing
incident in April 2004 long after the rape was
committed in March of the same year. No
woman would want to go through the process,
the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such
a debasing offense unless she actually has been
a victim of abuse and her motive is but a
response to the compelling need to seek and
obtain justice.
Macquiling v.Comelec G.R. No. 195649
An election case where the one who garnered
the most votes in the election is a natural born
Filipino who had himself naturalized and prior
to running for mayor re-acquired his Filipino
citizenship but a few days after such acquisition
he used his U.S. passport 6 times. Such use was
prior to him filling his COC. Initially the court
rules in his favor “The use of a US passport
does not operate to “un-renounce” what he
has earlier on renounced.” But finally the court
decided that “The use of foreign passport
after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is
a positive and voluntary act of
representation as to one’s nationality and
citizenship; it does not divest Filipino
citizenship regained by repatriation but it
recants the Oath of Renunciation required to
qualify one to run for an elective position.”