legal philosophy

Ray John Bangi
I H
Judge Andres Soriano

The truth in law

A is red and B is blue = true then
B is blue and A is red = false

To a colorblind:
A is blue and B is red = true then
A is red and B is blue = false

To a Vilmanian:
Ate Vi is the best actress = true then
Ate Guy us the best actress = false

To a Noranian:
Ate Guy is the best actress = true then
Ate Vi is the best actress = false

To a National Democrat:
Republicanism is key to progress = true then
Communism is key to progress = false

To a Social Democrat:
Communism is key to progress = true then
Republicanism is key to progress = false

In Montenegro v. Castañeda:
Suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a political question = true then
Suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus reviewable by court = false

In Lansang v. Garcia:
Suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a justiciable question = true then
Suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not reviewable by court = false

Come to think of it, is there really a genuine truth? In life, do we really get to unravel a truth or we just come to realize that the false proves to be the truth? In science, do we get to discover new concepts as true or our facts just prove that our theory is false?

Since the time of Aristotle, people believed in Geocentric Cosmology stating that the earth is the center of the Solar System until the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus persuaded the people that the sun and, not the earth, is the center of the universe. In 1986 and beyond we believed that People Power is legitimate cry for reform in this country, but after May 1, 2002, we are starting to believe in the idea that the People is a mob rule. In law, the Supreme Court ruled that the acts of the political departments of the country fall under political question which the court cannot take cognizance of; but in Par. 2 Sec. 1 Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides

Par. 2 Sec. 1 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government,

expanded the power of the judiciary to cover even political questions. And thus in the case of Daza v. Singson the Supreme Court held that the acts of Congress are justiciable questions that are within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the court.
I think that in the first place, there is no genuine ideal truth that is universally adhered thereto by the people, there are only paradigms, which the people tend to hold to and believe dearly, and in the second place, there is paradigm shift every time old paradigm proves to be unacceptable to the people, and thus becoming false.

There are ideas of truth embodied thereto in paradigms. The paradigm of the theists espouses that there is a supreme being that rules the people and judges them according to their deeds, and the paradigm of the atheists, on the other hand, espouses there is no God and that they are the rulers of themselves. Paradigms may prove to be correct to those who adhere thereto and false to those who do not. Therefore it is safe to say that truth is relative.

Notwithstanding the relativity of truth, it may prove not absolute. The theory of falsity provides that people tend to refine their paradigm once they learn new ideas or the existence of new facts, thus altering the old paradigm to make it better. People once saw the United States invulnerable to external hostile attacks, but after 9/11, people now see that somehow, there is a weak point in the security of the US without altering their belief that still the US is invulnerable.

These falsities may refine the paradigm until the falsities refine it into a paradigm distinct paradigm from that of the old, proving it to be false and thus facilitating paradigm shift. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) were once hailed as the two super powers of the worlds. After the regime of Nikita Khrushev productivity in USSR began to lag and the people believed that the USSR is not that powerful after all. The Civil war in Afghanistan, the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev brought changes in USSR and after the failed coup in early 1990’s the Communist union was dissolved into eleven separate states. Due to this, there was a paradigm shift from the truth that there were two superpowers in the world, the USA and USSR, to the truth that the USA is now the only superpower in the world. And in the developments that China is undergoing and its membership with the WTO may prove to be a falsity that there are no other state that can rise into superpower status. In due time, should China sustain its development, there would be another paradigm shift from the truth that the USA is the only superpower in the world, to the truth that China is also a superpower.

The relativity of the concept of truth brings about chaos in the society. I may see sex as a mere erotic genital experience (the contrary is the truth) and I may have carnal knowledge with as many women as I want without bearing the burden of social disapproval. Some may, however, see that sex is a manifestation (this, in reality is what I now believe in) and therefore, it should only be done only with the partner one loves. To these people, casual sex is a social taboo. This is what the law provides, an order midst the chaotic concepts of truth.

Dura lex sed lex, the law may be harsh but it is the law. One’s belief of truth may run aground against what the law say but one may not excuse himself from the law on account of his belief. If I adhere into casual sex I cannot practice it with those who do not share the same belief as mine, and more importantly, I cannot have carnal knowledge with those who do not believe in casual sex and therefore do not consent on such carnal knowledge, otherwise, I may be held liable for violating Article 246-A of the Revised Penal code. What the law says provides order in the chaos; it provides a standard of order in the exercise of the people’s concept of truth. It subordinates the varying concepts to its language for the greater objective of justice and social order.

Law provides the truth that should be acceptable to the people regardless of their beliefs, otherwise, should law be subordinated to the people’s belief, anarchy will result. The principles of communism are not false; one may adhere thereto and may even join the Communist Party of the Philippines on account of such belief. Consequently, he may not be prosecuted for subversion for becoming such a member but he may not, thru overt acts, rebel against the government to substitute his own beliefs, otherwise, he will be held liable for violating Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes rebellion.

However, even in law, the truth may be relative. The Anti-Subversion Act was enacted to punish memberships in subversive organizations such as the CPP-NPA, but it was subsequently repealed by RA 1700 and makes such membership legal. The paradigm of the law may also be proven false and may be subjected to paradigm through amendments, and as far as the Constitution is concerned, amendments and revision; this may be done by the Congress, the Constitutional Convention, or directly by the people. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court rulings are deemed part of the fundamental law of the land, the Supreme Court may subject the application of the law to paradigm shift by overruling the existing jurisprudence; this may be done at the instance of any petitioner asking the court to revisit such jurisprudence. Despite of the relativity of the truth in law, this does not remove the coercive authority of the law over the people.