1. It is the Critical Legal Theory.

A theory that challenges and

overturns accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice.
Proponents of this theory believe that logic and structure attributed to
the law grow out of the power relationships of the society. The law
exists to support the interests of the party or class that forms it and is
merely a collection of beliefs and prejudices that legitimize the
injustices of society. The wealthy and the powerful use the law as an
instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in hierarchy.
The main proponent of this theory is Karl Marx.
As a university student, Karl Marx (1818-1883) joined a movement
known as the Young Hegelians, who strongly criticized the political and
cultural establishments of the day. He became a journalist, and the
radical nature of his writings would eventually get him expelled by the
governments of Germany, France and Belgium. In 1848, Marx and
fellow German thinker Friedrich Engels published The Communist
Manifesto, which introduced their concept of socialism as a natural
result of the conflicts inherent in the capitalist system.

2. Yes, there is a flaw in Thomas Aquinas premise that there is in

us a natural law. The preposition in is slippery, because one

thing can be in another thing in many different senses. Heat is in
fire differently than light is in the eye. The soul is in the body
differently than the heart is in the chest. Intelligence is in a plan
differently than suspense is in a story. We do in fact speak of the
natural law being in us, but the sense in which any law can by in
us and the sense in which it can be naturally in us are yet to be
analyzed. I agree that the more that man is free, the less he is
under the law because absolute freedom is an illusion and albeit,
a very good one. We can only live peacefully within the bounds of
the law, to exceed that is to allow anarchy to flourish in this
world. To much Freedom without constraints is a destructive
force, similar to a undoused forest fire that burns everything in its
path. To exercise ones freedom is to not encorach upon the
freedom of others, that is what we seek and which the law
provides.
3. The principal premise of Dworkin in attacking Harts version is
that the law is more than explicitly adopted rules. He posits
that a theory of law is how cases ought to be decided and it
begins, not with an account of the political organization of a legal

system, but with an abstract ideal regulating the conditions under

which governments may use coercive force over their subjects.
We do not blindly follow the law because it is the law and we are
mandated to follow it out of fear of rejection and punishment. We
show our obedience because we value what the law represents, it
is a manifestation of our collective norms, customs, beliefs and
ideals. The law did not springforth from nothing, it is but a
product of human experience and knowldege; modified, revised,
altered to suit the needs of the modern world. Yes, there is a
middle-ground between the Positivist theory and Interpretivist
Theory which is jurisprudence;
the embodiment of the
philosophy of law. Judges disagree with the law because it is not
enough to say what the law is or not(as positivists claim) but
there are corrective issues on what the law should
be(interpretaion based on equity, justice or equality). The judge
provides what we call permissible judicial legislation; judges fill
the inadequacies of a law to arrive at a decision that may not be
what the law intended but it is for the common good because
there is no right answer all the time. Not all laws are good laws.
4. The premise speaks of Positive Law, a command is laid down
by the political sovereign whereby it is the duty of the subjects,
who are politically inferior, to follow such command lest they
suffer penalty for disobedience as a form of sanction or
punishment. Austin argues that laws are rules, which he defines
as a type of command. More precisely, laws are general
commands issued by a sovereign to members of an independent
political society, and backed up by credible threats of punishment
or other adverse consequences (sanctions) in the event of
noncompliance. The sovereign in any legal system is that person,
or group of persons, that is habitually obeyed by the bulk of the
population and does not habitually obey anyone else. A command
is a declared wish that something should be done, issued by a
superior, and accompanied by threats in the absence of
compliance. Such commands give rise to legal duties to obey.
5. The law is the product of a national genius, impressed by
cultural beliefs, traditions, customs, temperaments, and the
common experiences and consciousness of a people. T he concept
of the Volksgeist, or the spirit of the Volk, was developed by German
philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder (. The application of Herders
theory to law was made by German jurist and legal historian Friedrich
Karl von Savigny. Herders Volksgeist is a manifestation of the people;

it animates the nation. Every Volk is, as an empirical matter, different

from every other Volk, each nationality characterized by its own unique
spirit. Every people possesses its own cultural traits shaped by
ancestral history and the experience of a specific physical
environment, and mentally constructs its social life through language,
law, literature, religion, the arts, customs, and folklore inherited from
earlier generations. The Volk, in other words, is the family writ large.
Laws, too, must be adapted to the spirit of each nation, for rules
applied to one nation are not valid for another. The only legitimate
governments are those that develop naturally among particular nations
and reflect, in their differences from other polities, the cultures of the
people they govern.
Law is the unique creation of a race, a people, a Volk. Like language or
values, it is the result of collective human action and reason over
generations, not the result of human design. Language and law were
never consciously invented at a specific moment in time. Rather, they
represent slow accumulations, organic emanations of discrete peoples.

6. No. Civil disobedience is an act of active, professed refusal to

obey certain laws, demands, and commands of the government
e.g. peaceful protest against abortion laws. The collective seek to
make public their disdain or disapproval upon pieces of
legislature that are deemed unjust, oppressive or unreasonable.
Civil disobedience is not a crime unlike ordinary offenses, there is
no injured party and there is no wrongdoer. The motivation in
committing crimes is usually for personal gain while in civil
disobedience it is a sincere desire for policy change. In John Rawls
theory of justice, he speaks of the need of social cooperation
from every member of society, our conception of justice is an
associational conception. It is about our relationship between
members of an associaion through which we derive our moral
comprehesive understanding of what is good. It is our moral
resposibility to disobey unjust laws. There are overlapping and
competing values and demands among the individuals and
institutions, such as organizations, communites, movements,
social classess, religions and families. A definitive public policy
must be adopted but particular interests may not be ignored or
denied due process. Justice sometimes contradicts what is right
and sides with the wrong because it serves only one master, the
one who wields it commands it.

7.
Yes. Through the Realist theory(Sociological Approach).
Judges decide cases based upon the recent jursiprudence. They
do not craft the decision merely out of thin air. Judges exercse
their discretion in deciding a case with the guidance of the rule of
law which is most applicable under the surrounding
circumstances. They recognize that there is a law and the need to
enforce such law(positivism) but such law is susceptible of
different interpretations(interpretivist theory), this approach
justifies creativity in decision-making beyond the original intent of
the law, if it will serve good public policy, human rights, and
social interests.

8. Thedefinitionofconscientiousobjectioninhealthcareinvolvestherejectionofsome

actionbyaprovider,primarilybecausetheactionwouldviolatesomedeeplyheldmoral
orethicalvalueaboutrightandwronge.g.morallycontroversial
practicesincludeabortion,sterilization,andprovisionofcertaintypesofcontraception
and reproductive technologies. It works best with the natural theory. Having moral
integrity means being faithful to deeply held religious or moral convictions. This
willingnesstoliveandactaccordingtoaninternallyconsistentsetofbasicmoralideasis
considered a desirable character trait. When individuals act contrary tothese deeply
heldconvictions,thelinkbetweenprinciplesandactionsissevered.Thisselfbetrayal
could lead to loss of selfrespect (e.g., I could not live with myself if I did
that.).Therefore, refraining from participating in cerain medical procedures can be
regardedasanindividualsefforttoprotecthisorhermoralintegrity.

10. The theory behind this statement is The Interpretivist Theory.

A law is not integral when it is not consistent and it goes against
substantial rights and principles. That is why courts are guided by
Stare Decisis, The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles
established by decisions in earlier cases. It is a general maxim that
when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which
is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is
not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to
overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to
principle. Yes. it would seem that foundlings are to be considered
natural born citizens, as there is silence on such matter in our
Constitution. The court have given a preferential treatment for orphans
because the lawmakers at that time did not dwell upon being
discriminative to children born of unknown parentage so as long as

they were born here in the Philippines. The court have adopted to a
more liberal approach in the interpretation of the Consittution,silence
does not mean exclusion so as not to deny Mrs. Grace Poe her Filipino
status. The court also persistently invoked that under international and
customary law, foundlings are to be considered citizens from where
they are born.