ORLANDO B. BARENG JR.

Republic of the Philippines

CAGAYANS STATE UNIVERSITY
Llb 1A

PRELIM EXAM
PHILOSOPHY OF LAW

I. Discuss in no more than four (4) sentences the following:

1. The relationship of natural law and human law
Answer:
Natural law is nothing else than the rational creatures participation to eternal law. This natural
law is a rule of reason promulgated by God in mans nature, therefore man can discern how he
should act. In the precepts of Natural law, a human reason needs to proceed to the more
particular determination to meet the societys specific circumstances. And these determinations
arrived at by human reason are called human laws.

2. difference between eternal law and divine law.
Answer:
Eternal law is an external aspect of Gods perfect wisdom or his wisdom applied to his creation,
in short. It is a dictates of Gods reason. On the other hand, divine law is that when Gods
reason was laid down to direct human life. In divine law no evil would remain unforbidden and
unpunished

3. The difference between specificatio and determinatio under the natural law theory
of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Answer:
In human laws, there are two(2) ways of determination of human reasons from the precepts of
natural law. They are necessary to clarify the demands of natural law. . St. Thomas Aquinas
identified two (2) ways by which something maybe derived from natural law, Firstly,
Specificacio which is inference to universal concept, wherein general forms are particularize,
second, Determinacio which means details to universal principle wherein conclusions are
drawn.


4. Definition of law according to St. Thomas Aquinas.
Answer:
Aquinas defines law as an ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has
care of the community and promulgated. This system of law is under the direction and authority
of God as the supreme law giver and judge. Law, according to St. Thomas Aquinas has four
(4) kinds; natural law, eternal law ,human law and divine law.

II. Identify at least three (3) critical points of dispute between natural law theory and
positivism. Explain the stand of each school of thought.

Answer:

a. Under the natural law theory, law and morality are intimately connected while legal
positivism states that the law and morality are different. The natural law theory understand
laws as an ordinance of reason and morality involves reason too, which lead to a
conclusion that morality and law are base in reason, therefore they are intimately
connected. On the positivist side, law exist not for its moral or rational underpinnings but
because of the social mechanism that promulgate it.

b. The natural law theory contends that philosophy of law is a branch of moral philosophy
while legal positivism contends that philosophy of law is a philosophy of a particular social
institution. Natural law theory understand law as universally binding because all laws are
base in morality and reason; Under positivist theory, what the law does is regulate only the
behavior of its subjects and resolve conflict between them.

c. Under the natural law, law is an ordinance of reason while in legal positivism law is an
institutional construct. Under Natural law, it is natural for man to reason out and it is unnatural
for him to be irrational, hence, anything reasonable is equivalent to law. On the contrary,
positivists argue that law is not a product of reason but a matter produced by an institutional
construction.



III. After the Second World War, Fukuzume and Yahaza were prosecuted before the
International Military Tribunal (IMT) for crime against humanity. They were adjudged
guilty by the IMT for the said offense. During the trial, however, the accused contended
that the tribunal acted without jurisdiction because the law which punished their act was
not yet in existence. Thereafter, an International Criminal Statute was created defining
and punishing their act. The IMT, nevertheless, affirmed its decision despite the
contention of the accused that the International Criminal Statute was an ex post facto
law.

Was the decision of IMT correct? Support your answer with philosophical basis.
The decision of the IMT is not correct. The rule which is constantly repeated as the underlying
philosophy in the provision of the revised Penal Code is that, penal laws shall be liberally interpreted in
favor of the accused. Justice, which is a principal philosophical concept, explains this in that, the
disadvantaged (in this case the accused) should be given more opportunities than the advantaged. Thus,
the rule of pro reo, which provides that the penal laws should always be construed and applied in a
manner liberal or lenient to the offender.

IV. Is peace a natural condition? Discuss from a philosophical point of view.
Answer:
Peace is a natural human condition because it is produced by ordinance of human reason. It
is natural for man to reason out, therefore, peace, which is a product of human reasons is
natural. Peace is inherent to the existence of man.