In Hans Kelsens Pure Theory of Law, Normativity is considered fiction:
That which relates heavily on ideals and on what man thinks is good, normal, and the correct way of doing actions based heavily on what society deems fit. It is fiction because it is grounded on aged beliefs and do not totally agree with the present times and the present perspective of a modern man. Couple this with Dean Roscoe Pounds notion that law is based on Social Engineering: That there is a difference between law in books and law in action that one is bounded on interpretation and the other on realism. According to Pound, there are social rules or conventions which determine certain facts or events that provide for the modification, annulment, or even revision of legal standards. That is, what a person reads in books should not be taken literally and interpretation relating to present times is imminent. Furthermore, the acts of man should be taken from a more modern perspective and interpreted to a law which directly relates to such acts. In the Obergefell vs. Hodges case, the United States Supreme Court expounded on the fact that we may not see the true extent of injustice in our own times but it will be bound to further interpretation and clarification in the future. What is prohibited and shunned in the past may now be freely accepted or practiced and even be introduced to modern norms.
As such, Normativity of Law is the nature of a Law which urge men to
do what they ought to do is right but at the same time is bounded by Laws accepted in the present time. John Finnis take on Natural Law relates to this as Laws extend morality and norms to the realm of Legality. That there is something to be said about human good when talking about norms where Laws are based. Normativity may be adapted from history but history alone cannot make Laws relevant thus there exists the basis of morality. Believing that Laws are normative, people tend to think as naturalists with the belief that Laws are directly related to morality and following the Law means following the moral standards set by natural law. People tend to become natural lawyers where they believe that any Law cannot become legally valid unless it passes a certain threshold of morality while also maintaining that morality and merits on socially accepted norms forms a part of a test where a Law should be considered as valid or not. B. In the case of Imbong vs. Ochoa the Supreme Court decided that the Reproductive Health Law be implemented in full undermining the age old generally accepted norm in the Philippines of religious origin that artificial birth control is against the will of God. With the passing of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act back in 2012, a Law has thus been extending from its past normativity with the Supreme Court acknowledging the burden of mothers who cannot anymore give sustenance to their children or to the other problems that may be cured by proper family planning and artificial birth control. Indeed, overpopulation and poverty has opened our doors to further accept norms that are alien to us before. In the case of Estrada vs. Escritor, the Supreme court gave distinction to public and secular morality and religious morality. The Supreme Court stated that it only has jurisdiction over public and secular morality and ay interference to religious morality may undermine the Free Exercise Clause. This fact alone suggests that the Court is willing to undermine generally accepted norms by not using religious importance but, instead, realistically expounds on some freedoms that may be considered as long as it does not promote public indecency ignoring, however, that the practice may be indecent to the perspective of Catholics. The Supreme Court remanded the case to be further examined if the religious sincerity therein is genuine as such a factor is considered important and not the fact that it may be offensive to some other religion. In the case of Obergefell vs. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage giving a divisive opinion among the international community. While others criticized the judgement as immoral, others saw the same as a revolution from the past norm. In the Philippines, the reception of the general public is overwhelmingly positive and may open the country to abolish the norm of marriage exclusivity to that of only a man or a woman. The positive reception alone is an indication of the readiness of Filipinos alone to adopt the newly established law of the United States. 2) The current administrations take on suppressing further criminality in the country is divisive at best. Different opinions emerge if President Rodrigo Dutertes ways are indeed lawful or much less constitutional. Clearly, there is no deprivation of life from the perspective of law as all protocols are followed in the way these drug pushers or other criminals are being taken down. What is important here is the recognition of Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes concept of a bad man. That following the law does not make one good. A bad man may exploit the law to achieve his end notwithstanding the injustice that it may do unto others. The bad man will do no good even if he follows the Law as his thinking is delved in how to avoid the harsh consequences of the Law whilst still doing unlawful acts. Our President is a Lawyer and it is not unusual for Lawyer to adopt the qualities of a bad man to salvage his client from the prosecution. As such, as a Lawyer, Duterte knows of the Laws abhorrence to Extrajudicial Killings. There is an opinion that these killings are being done yet it is not so. The harsh suppression of these criminals spread around the country are done using proper protocols. Never mind the fact that it may be simulated as any kind of allegation would be hearsay until proven by evidence. Which is why there is exploitation of the Law being done. According to Finnis, the increasing indifference between Law and Morals have led the way to easy manipulation of the Law in favor of doing immoral acts such as abortion and euthanasia. Laws may cause harm but this does not mean that the person who utilized the same will be punished. As long as a person may follow and utilize these Laws as a bad man he may use it to gain his end. Our President has a good cause to be a bad man and he is utilizing fire to fight fire. For him this is the most efficient way to rid this countrys everlong problem on criminality especially the multi-billion earning business that is illegal drug trade. 3) In the case of Estrada vs. Escritor the Supreme Court stated the importance of Religious Freedom as espoused by the rights enumerated in Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution aptly named The Bill of Rights. One of the rights is the Freedom of Religion which is enumerated into two sets of beliefs: Freedom to believe which is an absolute right and Freedom to act on ones belief which is a limited right. This fact alone gives people knowledge that the Law recognizes merely belief that is on the mind and interferes only when such belief is acted upon and endanger society. A person may believe in Satanism but he cannot practice human sacrifice under the scrutiny of our laws. As a Catholic, my opinion relates to how the Law treats of the various religion in the country. I see religion as some form of thought instigating various people to do what they think is right. However, this thought and instigation is limited depending on how my will power to act on my belief can take. Various outside factors may still influence me to do the wrong thing. Going back to the issue of beliefs, I do agree with the fact that religion still has a great influence on the acts of man. Especially in promoting good will and providing benefit for the social order. Without religion, there would nothing to suppress animalistic desires. With religion begets stronger conscience and a greater push to do the right thing because we believe that by doing the right thing we will benefit from the same as we believe that good things come to a good Samaritan. Hence, I believe that religion aids in influencing us to do human conduct that will benefit to society but only to an extent. We can still be influenced by several factors from several circumstances. We cannot be ruled by religion alone that is why there is our constituted Law that separates itself from morality and natural law. This Law keeps us in check no matter how much religion has an influence inside all of us.