THE PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM As Cesar Lapuz Villanueva explained in his Comparative Study of the Judicial Role and

its Effect on the Theory on Judicial Precedents in the Philippine Hybrid Legal System, the Philippines today has a legal system which is a blend of Malay customary laws, Spanish civil law and Anglo-American common law, with the partial application of Muslim law to the Filipino Muslims of southern Philippines. In which a study of the Philippine hybrid legal systems offers a fascinating setting for the evaluation of the effects of the direct blending of two of the major western legal systems, namely: 1.) the implications of the confluence of common law principles on what originally was an established civil law system and 2.) the emerging theory on judicial precedents. Nonetheless, the creative role that the judiciary plays today in Philippine society and the underlying theory on judicial precedents, are attributable to 5 factors: 1) the adoption of the American court system; 2) the constitutional powers vested in the Supreme Court; 3) the transplant of Anglo-American principles in the Philippine Legal System; 4) the continuing influence of civil law; and 5) the cultural, social, and economic demands of Philippine society. LAW AS PROCESS According to Roscoe Pound, the law can only be scientific to a certain extent. Law is scientific in order to eliminate so far as may be the personal equation in judicial administration, to preclude corruption and to limit the dangerous possibilities of magisterial ignorance. Law is not scientific for the sake of science. Being scientific as a means toward an end, it must be judged by the results it achieves, not by the niceties of its internal structure; it must be valued by the extent to which it meets its end, not by the beauty of its logical processes or the strictness with which its rules proceed from the dogmas it takes for its foundation. As illustrated in the Path of the Law of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the only force at work in the development of the law is logic. It was further explained that you may imply a logical form in the law especially in making a judgment or conclusion. LAW AND LOGIC In that Nature of the Judicial Process, Cardozo is concerned with the sources of common law: how do judges decide cases; what counts as justification for decisions that rest uneasily, if at all, on precedent and that are not required by a written text. He considered it sufficient to explain and classify the various methods courts use in reaching decisions. (Source: As cited by Harry H. Wellington, The Nature of Judicial Review) This can be viewed as the nature of legal reasoning of law. As explained by Sunstein, the analogical reasoning can provide meaning to an assessment of whether a case is rightly decided. It works when an incompletely theorized judgment about one case is invoked to come to terms with another which bears lack of judgment in common with the former. Thus, you must be able to have a legal basis which must be a specific provision of the law or an explicit case in order to prescribe your answer in a particular case of law.

Page 2

While in determining the Ratio Decidendi of a case as explained by Arthur L. Goodhard that a precedent in conclusion is a judicial decision which contains a principle, the underlying principle which therefore forms its authoritative element is often termed as ratio decidendi. LAW AND LANGUAGE

The law is a profession of words. David Mellinkoff

As introduced by Sanford Schane in his Language and the Law, by means of written language national constitutions come into existence, laws and statutes are enacted, and contractual agreements between private individuals take effect. Spoken language is just as indispensable to the legal process. LAW AND LITERATURE According to the definition in the legal dictionary, it is an interdisciplinary study that examines the relationship between the fields of law and literature, with each field borrowing insights and methods of analysis from the other wherein the law and literature studies are separated into three areas. The first area involves LAW IN LITERATURE. This area focuses on the legal themes depicted in novels and other literary works. The second area involves law as literature. This area studies the educational aspects of actual trials that involve recurring legal disputes over issues such as race relations. While, the third area focuses on law and literature. It compares and contrasts the analytical tools each discipline employs when interpreting a particular text, whether it be a constitution, a statute, a judicial precedent, or a work of literature. THE HACIENDA LUISITA CASE (As illustrated by the wordpress.com) During the Spanish Period, the Hacienda Luisita was once owned by the Compaa General de Tabacos de Filipinas, also known as Tabacalera, founded in November 1881 by Don Antonio Lopez y Lopez, a Spaniard from Santander Cantabria, Spain. Lopez acquired the estate in 1882, a year before his death, and named it Hacienda Luisita after his wife, Luisa Bru y Lassus. Lopez was considered a financial genius and the most influential Spanish businessman of his generation. Luisita was just one of his haciendas. Tabacaleras incorporators included the Sociedad General de Credito Immobiliario Espaol , Banque de Paris (now Paribas), and Bank of the Netherlands (now ABN-AMRO). Luisita was a sugar and tobacco plantation. In August 1957, the Philippine government facilitated the Cojuangcos takeover of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac by: 1.) Providing Central Bank support to help the Cojuangcos obtain a dollar loan from the Manufacturers Trust Company in New York for the purchase of the sugar mill (Central Azucarera de Tarlac). The Central Banks interventions was done under the condition that Cojuanco would also acquire Hacienda Luisita, not just the sugar mill, with a view to distributing the hacienda to small farmers. 2.) Granting the Cojuangcos a peso loan through the Government Service Insurance Sytems (GSIS) to purchase the hacienda. On November 25, 1957, the GSIS approved the loan made by the Cojuangcos amounting to P5.9 million, on the condition that Hacienda Luisita would be subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions. Jose Cojuangco, Sr.s company, the Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO) became the new owner of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac.

Page 3

During the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos, the The 10-year window given by the Philippine government for the Cojuangcos to distribute the land elapsed with no land distribution taking place. Then, farmers began to organize into groups to push for land distribution. The Cojuangcos, however, insisted that there were no tenants on the hacienda, hence no need to distribute land. The Marcos government filed a case before the Manila Regional Trial Court (MRTC) to prod the Cojuangco-owned TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that the land could be distributed to the farmers at cost. In view thereof, the Manila Regional Trial Court ordered TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. While, eleven months into the Cory Aquino presidency, thousands of frustrated farmers marched to Malacaang demanding land reform and the distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. In a violent dispersal, 13 protesters were killed in what has gone down in history as the Mendiola Massacre. Then, Cory issues Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order No. 229, outlining her agrarian reform program, which covers sugar and coconut lands. The outline also includes a provision for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO), a mode of complying with the land reform law that did not require actual transfer of the land to the tiller. On March 17, 1988, the government under Cory Aquino withdrew its case against the Cojuangcos. Corys appointee, Solicitor General Frank Chavez, filed a motion for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the civil case the Marcos government filed and won at the Manila Regional Trial Court against the Cojuangcos. The same case was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. President Aquino signed into law Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. A clause in the agrarian reform program included SDO, which allows landowners to give farmers shares of stock in a corporation instead of land. At some point in Fidel Ramos presidency, out of the 3,290 reclassified hectares, only 500 hectares were approved for conversion by the Department of Agrarian Reform. On October 14, 2003, workers from the Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated (HLI) supervisory group petitioned the DAR to revoke the Stock Distribution Option (SDO), saying they were not receiving the dividends and other benefits earlier promised to them. Wherein another incident happened eventually became known as the Luisita Massacre on November 16, 2004. Considering the same, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) issued Resolution No. 2005-32-01, ordering the revocation of Luisitas SDO agreement and the distribution of the haciendas land to farmer beneficiaries. On February 1, 2006, the Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated (HLI) asked the Supreme Court to prevent the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) from enforcing the resolution. Through the Noynoy Aquino P-Noy presidency, Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated (HLI) and factions of farmers groups sign a compromise agreement giving the farmers the chance to remain as HLI stockholders, or receive their share of Hacienda Luisita land. Many voted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they got minuscule amounts. On July 5, 2011 which is after almost nine (9) months of waiting, the Supreme Court issued a repeat decision of ordering a referendum.

Page 4

For the period of November 24, 2011, which a 14-0 vote, the Supreme Court ordered the distribution of the 4915 hectares of land to the 6,296 farmerbeneficiaries in the original master list of 1989, with corresponding just compensation to the Cojuangco-Aquino. Furthermore, it also ordered the Cojuangco-Aquino, the payment of 1.33 Billion pesos, to the farmworker beneficiaries, as payment to lands that have been subjected to conversion at had been sold without permission, knowledge and benefit to the farmworker beneficiaries. The Cojuangco-Aquino filed a Motion for Reconsideration further delaying the finality and implementation of the November 24, 2011 decision. In consequence thereto, The farmworkers filed a petition to claim all 4,915 hectares of Hacienda Luisita, including 184 hectares previously sold by the Cojuangco-Aquino family to the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC). The farmer beneficiaries wants the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to reverse its earlier order converting the classification of the land sold to RCBC from agricultural to industrial land. On January 10, 2012, the farmworkers filed their response on the December protest and motion for reconsideration filed by the Cojuangco-Aquino. It remains to its stand to insist the immediate and without delay free distribution of the longpromised land. CONCLUSION (HACIENDA LUISITA CASE) There are many battles fought in regard to this case due to the possession of the hectares of land. Much as to the dismay of both parties, there is still a pending resolution from the Supreme Court to end all of these disputes. We will never know who will win this race of was as this well be judge in the hands of our justices. As stated in the facts of the case, the process of the legal system rules wherein every decision of granting and revoking of the agreements were decided by the proper institutions. Any hindrances related thereto are being raised to the high Courts for proper interpretation as to what decision must prevail. The basis of whatever decision will transpire is subject to judgment which bears specific provision of our law and the previous precedents connected thereto. There could still be new emergence in the judiciary as to the determination of the Philippine societys needs and demands that will be equally appropriate to everyone. As cited by Chief Justice Corona in his dissenting opinion in the said case, Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated v. PARC, et al., G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011, the decision of the Court in this case decision of the Court in this case today should promote the constitutional intent of social justice through genuine and meaningful agrarian reform. This is imperative because the framers of the 1987 Constitution themselves recognized the importance of Hacienda Luisita in the implementation of agrarian reform in the Philippines. Thus, this case is of transcendental importance as it is a test of the Courts fidelity to agrarian reform, social justice and the Constitution.