Harry Eugenio B Ares Jr

2015 – 12859

Sixty Years of Philippine Laws by Perfecto Fernandez

“How did the laws of the land become what it is today,” is a thought provoking curiosity
that have crossed the minds of legal thinkers and common people alike. Fortunately (or
unfortunately), Perfecto Fernandez was eager to satisfy the thirsts of a curious mind with his
essay, Sixty Years of Philippine Law. However, contrary to historical essays (or history in
general), the essay did not showcase pertinent information such as important dates and events
that have occurred; which, admittedly, was the one expected to be reading in this article. But
nonetheless, the author has substantially provided a background of the laws of the Philippines
then, how it changed, and what are the reasons to effect such change: all in a twenty four page
essay that in the view of the author of this essay, seemed like a frustrated historical
philosophical paper from a legal mind.

Sixty Years of Philippine Law did not specifically lay down an outline of what really
happened during the period of sixty years (he only mentioned the words “sixty years” in passing
as well), however, he has provided philosophical or sociological approaches and ideas to
explain how the laws became what it is today. Rarely does a seemingly historical essay does
not provide a more factual approach; the essay focused more on the trend of how mankind and
sociological phenomena brought about and manipulated the legal sphere where Filipinos have
been under the past few years, and ever-changing.

The author of the essay first laid out somehow a political theory of laws. He brought up
the idea that a legal system can trace its source to the will of the people, who were the ones
who also created the fundamental laws of the land: Constitution. Because of the influence of the
people in creating the laws, the individualistic nature of man has also played a role in the
assertion of natural rights and privileges such as the right to due process, among others that
eventually became a part of the Constitution through the Bill of Rights. He has also mentioned
the doctrine of separation of powers, which were brought up by the ideas of John Locke and
Montesquieu. The author has supplemented the curiosity by wondering on the “legislation” of
the other branches of the government; the Executive Branch’s ordinances, executive orders,
and the Judicial Branch’s court decisions that have become part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
 The author draws the idea of how laws were much simpler back then. The people made
laws to fit the status quo: by making laws to protect current statutes from abuse, to repeal laws
that have been detrimental to the people or do not apply to the current situation anymore. The
laws of yesterday have been at its bare minimum, which only includes personal relations (civil),
criminal, etc. The author correctly pointed out that the Philippines have been continuously
expanding their laws because of the creation of mankind as well. He gave aviation as an
example. In 1852, laws on aviation would not have been introduced because of the simple fact
that there’s no use for it. It was only upon the creation of airplanes did the legislation promulgate
such laws. In a sense, the author was successful in pointing out that every progress in culture of
this country entails a set of rules to govern it. This is largely because of the well-known fact that
the laws are anthropocentric; it affects the people and it is made for the welfare of its citizens.

The author also mentions that even though cultural progresses, innovations (changes in
general) are most of the time for the betterment of one’s life, it may also bring evils. So, the laws
or rules are created in order to address these evils and prevent them from happening. However,
since the culture and the country are ever-changing with all the advancements of both the way
of life and ideas, there is no assurance that the laws of today are the same as tomorrow.

The influence of the colonizers has also been acknowledged by the author for shaping
up the laws of the land. It has mentioned that the Spaniards first handed the influence of our
laws through the Civil Code, which was heavily used for matters of personal relations. However,
the author unmistakably reasoned out that the Americans have been the main proponents of
Philippine laws. No matter how the country has become an independent one, the colonization
has been a prevailing influence because, as mentioned by the author, the laws on labor
relations, social insurance, and in general, business laws have originated from American
statutes. In addition, the behavior of Philippine courts is also exhibiting the same pattern as to
its American counterparts. An example would be the use of American jurisprudence by the
judges to supplement their arguments.

The author discussed the theory of Philippine Law. It has stressed the pervasiveness of
the laws because there is little to no scope where laws do not touch. As mentioned earlier, laws
are essentially linked to the passions and practicality of man. Suffice to say, laws are only useful
when it affects a person, or it can be applied in that situation. As said by the author, laws are
being used as a means to an end, not as an end in itself (Kant would say that this is an
unethical use). The author, emphasizing what he calls the core of the legal system of the
country “natural rights philosophy”, and how it generally affected the history of the world, from
the French Enlightenment, to the ilustrados who have an idea of a democratic and liberal ideas
that they have transmitted to the minds of the Filipino people which eventually led to the
independence of the Philippines. These ideas have become part of the philosophies of the
country’s top leaders which eventually became a tool to the laws of the land.

The author then dwelled on natural rights, specifically the rights of life, liberty, and
property. The author argued that justifying one natural right over the other is unnecessary
because it is of “fundamental concern to everyone”, and thus, the society exists to realize these
natural rights through laws. However, the author convincingly argued that it will all be nothing if
it weren’t for the right to liberty because it is because of freedom that humans are able to do all
these things.

It was also mentioned that the society is looked upon as a political organism, however, it
is mostly a few selected people who may exercise public power (the government), which is
tasked to create, repeal, amend, execute, and interpret laws to keep the order of the society.
One might think that the government, given their public power, would be used to oppress and
tyrannize the people. The author argued that this is not the case, because (1) power of the
government is not absolute, (2) power is dispersed, (3) governmental authority could be
exercised only according to the laws of the land, and (4) the highest offices are filled by popular
vote and are held only for definite terms. These “checks” on the government ensures the people
that it is due to their enjoyment of freedom and the continuation of it throughout. The author also
acknowledges the fact that it was not the system that the people should worry about, it is the
antagonization of the fellowmen with the likes of criminals, etc. That is why criminal law is
brought about; for the strengthening the security of the country and each individual person. The
author emphasized the concept of security as it is also a right of each individual person, and the
laws have been created in light of its protection. But along with these rights that we demand, is
the right of others to demand from us and it is of paramount importance that responsibilities
must be fulfilled. It is a give and take situation to ensure the harmony of the society.

The author ends his essay by clinging on the right to security of every individual, and this
carries over to people pursuing opportunities that are available to him/her in order to progress.
By pursuing opportunities, Fernandez meant engaging in businesses and gaining profit for their
own benefit. He pointed out that how the government and society has taken notice and
prioritized the business industry, and, in return, he claimed that a greater bulk of law through the
years have been for businesses. Laws are created to promote business growth, providing
securities for businessmen, and regulation of the economy to ensure the flourishing of business
to benefit the people. The author justified the government’s priority on businesses by stating that
businesses are an important indicator of the growth of the country, and not only that, it also
advances the individual pursuits, which is hitting two birds with one stone. The author
controversially argued that persons cannot always believe that it will always be rainbows and
sunshine; there will come a time that a person will experience a downfall, and that the
Constitution’s language is ideal, and it does not correspond to reality. The author concluded by
saying that even though the expectations that people have in law would not always be fulfilled,
credit must be given because these laws only seek the betterment of the people by giving
opportunities and asserting their rights, especially the right to liberty and security, which the
author said to be “the gift of our law”.

There is disappointment in reading till the last page of this essay. First, the seemingly
confusing title that seemed like it is a history essay to provide its readers some background
knowledge or a timeline of how laws were. Instead, the essay was just a set up to basically say
that the laws are good for realizing the right to liberty of every Filipino, which meant the liberty to
pursue their passions, especially in the field of business. Thus, it is also given the people who
will pursue business a security for them to fully actualize the things that they want to happen in
their business. Unfortunately, like the author mentioned, as he is right that the society as a
political organism is composed of a few people, so is the arena of business.

The author, understandably writing the essay during a different era, fails to contextualize
the situation of the business sector in the Philippines. Sure, the country has given everyone a
right to pursue lawful passions such as starting a business, but people with small start ups
cannot compete with the large corporations. Certain groups of people, some are not even
Filipinos to begin with, are directly in control of businesses and the way the business sector is
situated, Filipinos who are just getting started would not be able to actualize the potentials of
their businesses. Not to mention what these business tycoons have been doing to exploit the
business sector by luring the people in either as customers, or as employees.

The main takeaway in this essay is: what good is a right if one is already at a
disadvantage? What good is joining a race if the opponents have a head start? The government
must find a way to level the playing field between small individuals and big corporations. It is
understood that they did work hard for what they have achieved, but should this privilege be in
expense of others who were just like them when they were starting? The effects of leveling the
playing field will only prejudice those who were already at a big advantage, and in a larger
scale, it shall allow more competition, more importantly, to lessen seemingly monopolized
business industries. That is the ideal picture of capitalism, where people are set in an equal
footing and engaging in competitions and in return, would not yield higher prices for the
consumers.

It is understandable that individuals would want to pursue their individual passions, such
as making money as much as possible, but as rational human beings who belong in a society, I
think it is a just notion that along with pursuing one’s desires, one must also have to think about
the others. These businesses must always think if their actions would be fair to the people
involved. If they cannot do so, then the legislators, voted upon by the people, who shall
represent the people, must take it upon themselves to ensure that abuses would not be
committed. Unfortunately, these legislators, at least most of them, are privileged ones, and
would most likely side with the businesses because it would be counterintuitive to pursue the
opposite of one’s private interest.

To conclude, the essay has exemplified the nature of law and how it was brought up the
way it was today. It has laid down the importance of certain natural rights, particularly liberty; to
express oneself and pursue one’s ventures. Individualism is not inherently evil, it’s natural,
intuitive, no one is blamed for saving oneself. However, it becomes evil if it is in the cost of
innocent persons. When a person acknowledges his privilege, it is right to fight for the little guy.
The world is full of bullies, it won’t do any good to the world if a person opts to be one of them.
Fight for the little guys.