RATIONALITY OVER LEGALITY Man is, in its very nature, rational.

Centuries have passed since two of the most prominent views regarding the necessity of law were forwarded, namely: natural law and positive law. On one hand, natural law originated from the Greek philosophers as it first appeared in ancient Greece. Heraclitus, one of its pioneers, calls it, the rational harmony and order of divergent things and events (Pascual, 1983). It is the unwritten law encompassing and ruling the whole world, without which the cosmos would be in chaos(Ibid.). On the other hand, positive law is based on the idea of the positivist jurisprudence that there are no moral principles that precede the law. It is based from the implicit notion of sovereignty, with the implied or correlative notion of independent political society thus, positive law or every law simply called, is set by a sovereign person, or a sovereign body of persons, to a member of the independent political society wherein that person or body is sovereign supreme (Coquia, 2005).

Superiority of the Natural Law over Positive Law Every man has the gift of rationality. We, as human beings have the natural inclination to discern what is right and what is wrong, specifically what is moral and what

is immoral. Every creature that God created is given that gift of natural discernment. For many centuries, it has been held, even at the start of the Greek era, the supremacy of natural law over the positivist law or the man-made law. Many of the debates regarding this supremacy say that there can be no positivist law without the natural one, thus positivist law is derived from the natural law. Man-made laws are enacted on the bases of the will of the state. It sets the standards of what is right or wrong within the criteria of the society, within the standards of the superiors who rule the State. Natural law also punishes things that are not punished in man-made laws. Manmade laws failure to encompass all the things in this world makes natural law superior. Natural law relates to every human conduct at all times, whereas man-made laws relate to what is present, to what is urgently needed. Positivist laws relate only to the present condition of the society, to the tangible objects of human conduct, thus they are repealed or amended from time to time to suit the drastic changes in the society. Furthermore, even though positivist law relates to the present state of the society, there are still present avenues left untouched, thus natural law comes into the picture. Mans rationality as the natural law philosophers would say, is all encompassing. Rationality is what sets man apart from any other animals God has created. In the absence of man-made or positivist law, man can still discern what is right and what is wrong. Natural law, although general in nature, relates to every single human conduct and amidst the differences between each individual, common notion of what is right and what is wrong regarding general things makes a harmonious relationship between members of the society. Thus, through reason, man knows that if a good is entrusted to

him for safekeeping, he shall return it to the owner whenever the latter demands for such, without applying the laws regarding implied trust, quasi-contracts and the like. The use of reason makes complicated things easier to comprehend. Rationality enables man to choose what is right and in certain instances to choose, what is wrong without going through the man-made law. Hence, natural law is regarded as that body of universal and perfect precepts inherent in the heart and mind of man which guides him in the exercise of rights, performance of obligations, observance of rules and preservation of order and unity (Pascual, 1983)

Three Essential Elements of Natural Law: Natural Wants, Synderesis and Natural Precepts

I. Natural Wants Natural wants are inherent in every man. These wants are needs created by the natural tendencies or appetites: certain desires and aversions (Estrada, 1970), hence, these natural wants are inseparable with human nature. Man has the tendency to search for an object that will serve as an end for a certain natural want. Every object which will satisfy the natural want will always be considered as good with respect to the natural law. Hence, not all of the natural want of a man will be satisfied because it is anchored to mans rationality and with regards to its effect to the society. II. Synderesis

In synderesis, it forwards the idea that all the natural needs and the appetites that give rise to them, are matters of experience, hence, base on facts (Ibid.). In attaining these natural wants, man should use his natural faculties only and naturally; hence, the principle of synderesis is for man to act naturally. III. Natural Precepts The natural precepts state that the inherent rationality of man arranges the order of the natural wants from the least desirable to the most desirable. The resulting network of this arrangement of the natural wants is the Order of Nature.

Cases: Application of the Superiority of Natural Law over Positive Law

I.

Rutter vs Esteban Facts: On August 20,1941 Rutter sold to Esteban two parcels of land situated in the Manila for P9,600 of which P4,800 were paid outright, and the balance was made payable as follows: P2,400 on or before August 7, 1942, and P2,400 on or before August 27, 1943, with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum. To secure the payment of said balance of P4,800, a first mortgage has been constituted in favor of the plaintiff. Esteban failed to pay the two installments as agreed upon, as well as the interest that had accrued and so Rutter instituted an action to recover the balance due, the interest due and the attorney's fees.

The complaint also contains a prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged in accordance with law. Esteban claims that this is a prewar obligation contracted and that he is a war sufferer, having filed his claim with the Philippine War Damage Commission for the losses he had suffered as a consequence of the last war; and that under section 2 of RA 342(moratorium law), payment of his obligation cannot be enforced until after the lapse of eight years. The complaint was dismissed. A motion for reconsideration was made which assails the constitutionality of RA 342. Analysis: In this case, there is obviously a clash between the natural law and positive law. When a man borrowed money from another, it is but natural for him to return such to the creditor, such is also the case, when a man bought a property from another, he must pay for its full amount since he has in his possession the entire property and not just a part of it corresponding to his payment. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 342, provides that all debts and other monetary obligations contracted before December 8, 1941, any provision in the contract creating the same or any subsequent agreement affecting such obligation to the contrary notwithstanding, shall not due and demandable for a period of eight (8) years from and after settlement of the war damage claim of the debtor by the Philippine War Damage Commission; and section 3 of said Act provides that should the provision of section 2 be declared void and unenforceable, then as regards the obligation affected thereby, the provisions of Executive Order No. 25 dated November 18, 1944, as amended by Executive

Order No. 32, dated March 10, 1945, relative to debt moratorium, shall continue to be in force and effect, any contract affecting the same to the contrary notwithstanding, until subsequently repealed or amended by a legislative enactment. Hence, from the wording of the law, any person including the herein respondent is not obliged to pay their indebtedness contracted prior to the World War, for a period of 8 years from and after the settlement of the war damage claim of the debtor by the Philippine War Damage Commission. The enactment of RA 342, clearly prejudices the creditors and a clear violation of the natural law that a debtor must pay for his debt at the time it becomes due and demandable but because of the said law, the due period was suspended for 8 years from and after settlement of the Philippine War Damage Commission. The court ruled that In the face of the foregoing observations, and consistent with what we believe to be as the only course dictated by justice, fairness and righteousness, we feel that the only way open to us under the present circumstances is to declare that the continued operation and enforcement of Republic Act No. 342 at the present time is unreasonable and oppressive, and should not be prolonged a minute longer, and, therefore, the same should be declared null and void and without effect (Rutter vs Esteban, 1953). Thus, the natural law wins over the positive law (RA 342) due to its unreasonableness and violation of the natural law.

II.

Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines vs Executive Secretary

Facts: The Office of the Executive Secretary issued Executive Order No. 46 which grants the Office of the Muslim Affairs the exclusive right to issue Halal certifications. The petitioner however contends that EO 46 is unconstitutional for impairing their right to religion since it is the petitioner who has affiliation to some national Islamic Organizations and an active member of international organizations which accredited the petitioner to issue Halal certifications in the Philippines. The respondent however contends that EO 46 is issued for the welfare of the Muslim communities so that the foods that are certified as halal are secured free from meat contents or any of its derivatives. Analysis: In this case, EO 46 was enacted in violation of the natural right of the Muslim Community to decide what is good for their community. Halal certifications are secured by the herein petitioner to every food product, certifying that such food has complied with the Islamic standards regarding the contents of the food, beverages and the like. EO 46 was passed without asking the opinion of the Islamic community, hence, their right to issue halal certifications for their own welfare was infringe. The court declared EO 46 as violative of the right to exercise the freedom of religion of the Islamic community, in doing the necessary religious practices in accordance with the teachings in their Quran to bless food, beverage and issue a halal certification for such, hence, the natural law is superior to positive law (Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines vs Executive Secretary, 2003).

Bibliography:

Aquino, R. (2006). A Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy. Quezon City: Central Book Supply, Inc. Coquia, J. (2005). Readings in Legal Philosophy and Theory: Text and Comments from Plato to McDougal. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company. Estrada, A. (1970). The Philosophy of Law. University Book Supply. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888 (Supreme Court July 9, 2003). Pascual, C. (1983). Introduction to Legal Philosophy. Manila: Premium Printing House. Rutter vs Esteban, G.R. No. L-3708 (Supreme Court May 18, 1953).