DELA CRUZ, AIRIZ M.

Juris Doctor 1A

LEGAL FORMALISM

Definition
- Any system that stresses on form as the ultimate ground of explanation for any case or
phenomena.
- A theory that law is a set of rules and principles independent of other political and social
institutions.

Legal formalism believes that:

◈ A law consists of rules and principles

◈ These rules can be applied in any particular set of facts or case

Formalist Fiction
A mental construct that believes that the process leading to the enactment of laws had
already included normative or other societal considerations.

Interpretation of the law

“It is the letter that killeth,
but the spirit that giveth life”

A good illustration of this is the hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the
procurator of Judea asked Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing Samson.
Delilah agreed on condition that —

No blade shall touch his skin;

No blood shall flow from his veins.

When Samson was captured, the procurator placed an iron rod burning white-hot two or
three inches away from in front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the man. Upon hearing of what had
happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself with anger, and fuming with righteous fury,
accused the procurator of reneging on his word. The procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade
touch his skin? Did any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying on the
letter, not the spirit of the agreement.

INTENTIONALISM
- It is the legal interpretation which holds that when judges interpret the law they should
refer to its original intent or meaning as it was understood at the time the law was written.

ORIGINALISM

Original Intent Theory Original Meaning Theory

Believes that the law or constitution’s meaning
and interpretation should be consistent with the
meaning held by the people who drafted it.
Believes that the meaning should be based on
what the ordinary and reasonable people living at
the time the law was written, that is, the ordinary
societal understanding of the law at the time it was
framed.
DELA CRUZ, AIRIZ M.
Juris Doctor 1A

RELATED CASES

Cayetano vs. Monsod

G.R. No. 100113 📖 3 September 1991

Facts:
Respondent Atty. Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly
Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as
Chairman of the COMELEC.

Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of

Monsod's nomination, Renato Cayetano filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition praying that
said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on
Elections be declared null and void allegedly because Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners

who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least
thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the immediately preceding -elections. However, a majority thereof, including
the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.

Ruling:

Black defines "practice of law" as:

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles
and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients.

The following records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it has adopted a
liberal interpretation of the term “practice of law.”

We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers who are
employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their
respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for
appointment as members or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on
Audit.

Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law and taking into
consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's
past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor —
verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.

Practice of law is any activity in or out of court which

requires the application of law, legal procedure, training,
knowledge, and experience
DELA CRUZ, AIRIZ M.
Juris Doctor 1A

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Teodoro Padilla

“Practice" refers to the actual performance or application of knowledge as

distinguished from mere possession of knowledge; it connotes
an active, habitual, repeated or customary action. To "practice" law, or any
profession for that matter, means, to exercise or pursue an employment or
profession actively, habitually, repeatedly, or customarily.

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz

It is conceded that he has been engaged in business and finance, in which areas he
has distinguished himself, but as an executive and economist and not as a practicing
lawyer. The plain fact is that he has occupied the various positions listed in his
resume by virtue of his experience and prestige as a businessman and not as an
attorney-at-law whose principal attention is focused on the law.

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Gutierrez, Jr.

The Constitution uses the phrase "engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years." The deliberate choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active
and regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal,
or extemporaneous.

TEXTUALISM
Interprets the law according to the reader’s understanding. It focuses on what the text
would reasonably be understand to mean, rather than upon what it was intended to mean.

Gerona vs. Secretary of Education

G.R. No. L-13954 📖 12 August 1959

Facts:
On 11 June 1955, Republic Act No. 1265 was approved and went into effect. Acting upon
said law, Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8 – Rules and Regulations for
Conducting the Flag Ceremony in All Educational Institutions which provides:

xxx
B. all persons present shall stand at attention and execute a salute.
C. Immediately following the singing of the Anthem, the assembly shall
recite in unison of following patriotic pledge. This is required of all public schools
and of private schools which are intended for Filipino students or whose population
is predominantly Filipino.

Petitioners' children refused to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the
patriotic pledge. Petitioners wrote to the Secretary petitioning that in the implementation of this
flag ceremony, they and their children attending school be allowed to remain silent and stand at
attention with their arms and hands down and straight at the sides and that they be exempted from
executing the formal salute, singing of the National Anthem and the reciting of the patriotic pledge,
giving their reason for the same.

The secretary denied the petition, making it clear that the denial was the final and absolute.

Petitioners commenced the present action to restrain the Secretary of Education and the
Director of Public Schools from enforcing D.O. No. 8 as applied to petitioners and all others of
DELA CRUZ, AIRIZ M.
Juris Doctor 1A

Jehovah's Witnesses for whom this action is brought and to restrain them from excluding from the
public schools the children of the petitioners on account of their refusal to execute such orders.

Petitioners believe and maintain that the Filipino Flag is an image and therefore to salute
the same is to go against their religious belief. They also claim that the flag salute is a religious
ceremony, participation in which is forbidden by their religious belief.

Ruling:

The trial court declare Department Order No. 8 invalid and contrary to the Bill of Rights.
However, the Supreme Court reversed the said ruling of the trial court.

Under the word "image" this comment is given by Webster: "Image, in modern usage,
commonly suggests religious veneration. The flag is not an image that requires religious
veneration but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, an emblem of national sovereignty, of
national unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty and the flag is utterly devoid of any
religious significance. Saluting the flag consequently does not involve any religious ceremony.
The singing of the National Anthem speaks only of love of country, of patriotism, liberty and the
glory of suffering and dying for it.

Further, the determination of whether a certain ritual is or is not a religious ceremony must
rest with the courts. It cannot be left to religious group or sect, much less to a follower of said
group or sect; otherwise, there would be confusion and misunderstanding for there might be as
many interpretations.

In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute, the State through the Secretary
of Education was not imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on said students. It
was merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all alike whether
Christian, Moslem, Protestant or Jehovah's Witness.

Balbuna vs. Secretary of Education

G.R. No. L-14283 📖 29 November 1960
Facts:
Petitioners raise the new issue that that Department Order No. 8 has no binding force and
effect, not having been published in the Official Gazette as allegedly required by Commonwealth
Act 638, Article 2 of the New Civil Code, and Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Republic Act No. 1265 is unconstitutional and void for being an undue delegations of
legislative power, "for its failure to lay down any specific and definite standard by which the
Secretary of Education may be guided in the preparation of those rules and regulations which he
has been authorized to promulgate.

Ruling:

The assailed Department Order, being addressed only to the Directors of Public and Private
Schools, and educational institutions under their supervision, cannot be said to be of general
application.

Department Order No. 8 does not provide any penalty against those pupils or students
refusing to participate in the flag ceremony or otherwise violating the provisions of said order.
DELA CRUZ, AIRIZ M.
Juris Doctor 1A

Further, the Legislature did not specify the details of the flag ceremony is no objection to
the validity of the statute, for all that is required of it is the laying down of standards and policy
that will limit the discretion of the regulatory agency.

To require the statute to establish in detail the manner of exercise of the delegated power
would be to destroy the administrative flexibility that the delegation is intended to achieve.

Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent

G.R. No. 95770 📖 1 March 1993
Facts:

These are two (2) consolidated cases. In Ebralinag, the petitioners are 43 high school and
elementary school, all minors, they are assisted by their parents who belong to the religious group
known as Jehovah's Witnesses. In Amolo, the petitioners are 25 high school and grade school
students whose parents were Jehovah's Witnesses.

All the petitioners in these two cases were expelled from their classes by the public school
authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic
pledge as required by D.O. No. 8.

Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national
anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are “acts of worship” or “religious
devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God“. They
feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols.

The children were asked to sign an Agreement promising to sing the national anthem, place
their right hand on their breast until the end of the song and recite the pledge of allegiance to the
flag but they refused to sign.

The District Supervisor ordered the "dropping from the rolls" of students who "opted to
follow their religious belief which is against the Flag Salute Law" on the theory that "they forfeited
their right to attend public schools."

Ruling:

The idea that one may be compelled to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite
the patriotic pledge, during a flag ceremony on pain of being dismissed from one's job or of being
expelled from school, is alien to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut
their teeth on the Bill of Rights which guarantees their rights to free speech, and the free exercise
of religious profession and worship.

Religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority and the amplest protection
among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator. The right to religious
profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's
belief. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second
is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.

The expulsion of members of Jehovah's Witnesses from the schools where they are enrolled
will violate their right as Philippine citizens, under the 1987 Constitution, to receive free education,
for it is the duty of the State to "protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education .
. . and to make such education accessible to all.
DELA CRUZ, AIRIZ M.
Juris Doctor 1A

If they quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony while their classmates and
teachers salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we do not see how
such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave and present danger of a serious evil
to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State
has a right (and duty) to prevent.

In requiring the petitioners to participate in the flag ceremony, the State has declared ex
cathedra that they are not violating the Bible by saluting the flag. This is unwarranted intrusion
into their religious beliefs, which tell them the opposite.

Every individual is entitled to choose for himself whom or what to

worship or whether to worship at all. - Justice Cruz

Estrada vs. Escritor

G.R. No. 95770 📖 1 March 1993
Facts:
Complainant Alejandro Estrada requested for an investigation of Soledad Escritor, a court
interpreter, for living with a man not her husband, and having borne a child within this live-in
arrangement.

Estrada believes that Escritor is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the
court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the court
condones her act.

Respondent admitted that she started living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit
of marriage more than twenty years ago when her husband was still alive but living with another
woman.

She also admitted they have a son. But as a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, respondent
asserted that their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs and has the
approval of her congregation. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed a “Declaration
of Pledging Faithfulness.”

For Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Declaration allows members of the congregation who have
been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. Escritor and Quilapio’s
declarations were executed in the usual and approved form prescribed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses
approved by elders of the congregation where the declarations were executed, and recorded in the
Watch Tower Central Office.

Issue:
Whether or Not the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement.

Ruling:
No. The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of
religion. The free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in
our Constitution.

Further, benevolent neutrality is inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause as far as it
prohibits such exercise given a compelling state interest. It is the respondent’s stance that her
conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise
DELA CRUZ, AIRIZ M.
Juris Doctor 1A

protection. Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free
Exercise Clause, the Court’s action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to
religious freedom. The court cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondent’s claim of
religious freedom, but must instead apply the “compelling state interest” test. The government
must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of
demonstrating the state’s compelling interest which can override respondent’s religious belief and
practice.