Universalizability and Philippine Supreme Court Cases :: Criminal Justice

Universalizability and Filipino unequivocal Court CasesABSTRACT The necessary that legal reasoning be universalizable is so unquestioned as a legal doctrine that it is often axiomatic. Recently, 2 Philippine overbearing Court cases have been decided in a manner that plain dispenses with this demand. I discuss these dickens cases in the light of the requirement. I conclude that the requirement, rather than being diminished by the two cases, has actually maintained its axiomatic status on the derriere that the reasoning in the two cases is deficient the first either for inconsistency in treatment or for lack of clear guidance, and the second for the ruin to appear impartial. The requirement that judicial reasoning be universalizable, that the justifying reasons for a stopping point are to be articulated or at least moldiness(prenominal) be capable of being articulated in the form of a universal norm under which the facts of the case are to be subsumed so as to entail logica lly the conclusiveness, (1) is an acknowledged formal legal dominion indispensable to any sound theory of adjudication. Recently, two Philippine Supreme Court Decisions, Alonzo v. IAC (2) and Marcos v. Manglapus, (3) challenged the very indispensability of such a requirement. This paper exit discuss the interaction between and effects of these two decisions on the requirement of universalizability, by determining whether the requirement is indeed seriously challenged by the two cases and, conversely, by assessing and analyzing these two cases in terms of the requirement.These two decisions resolved the issues in the two cases by creating exceptions for the unique sight attendant to the cases, gum olibanum plain dispensing with the requirement. In particular, the Alonzo case heldIn fact, and this should be clearly stressed, we ourselves are non abandoning the Cojenero and Buttle doctrines. What we are doing is adopting an exception to the general rule, in view of the particular deal of the case. (4) In the Marcos case, reference was made to the special circumstances involving President Marcos therefromThis case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a potentate forced out of office and into exile after causing 20 years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and at bottom the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a home by itself. (5)In discussing the interaction between and effects of these two decisions on the requirement of universalizability, the paper pass on first briefly explain the precept behind the requirement.Universalizability and Philippine Supreme Court Cases Criminal JusticeUniversalizability and Philippine Supreme Court CasesABSTRACT The requirement that legal reasoning be universalizable is so unquestioned as a legal doctrine that it is lots axiomatic. Recently, two Philippine Supreme Court cases have been decided in a manner that apparently dispenses with this requirement. I di scuss these two cases in the light of the requirement. I conclude that the requirement, rather than being diminished by the two cases, has actually maintained its axiomatic status on the seat that the reasoning in the two cases is deficient the first either for disparity in treatment or for lack of clear guidance, and the second for the visitation to appear impartial. The requirement that judicial reasoning be universalizable, that the justifying reasons for a decision are to be articulated or at least must be capable of being articulated in the form of a universal norm under which the facts of the case are to be subsumed so as to entail logically the decision, (1) is an acknowledged formal legal ruler indispensable to any sound theory of adjudication. Recently, two Philippine Supreme Court Decisions, Alonzo v. IAC (2) and Marcos v. Manglapus, (3) challenged the very indispensability of such a requirement. This paper will discuss the interaction between and effects of these two decisions on the requirement of universalizability, by determining whether the requirement is indeed seriously challenged by the two cases and, conversely, by assessing and analyzing these two cases in terms of the requirement.These two decisions resolved the issues in the two cases by creating exceptions for the unique circumstances attendant to the cases, thus apparently dispensing with the requirement. In particular, the Alonzo case heldIn fact, and this should be clearly stressed, we ourselves are not abandoning the Cojenero and Buttle doctrines. What we are doing is adopting an exception to the general rule, in view of the particular circumstances of the case. (4) In the Marcos case, reference was made to the special circumstances involving President Marcos thusThis case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing xx years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and at heart the shor t space of three years seeks to return, is in a folk by itself. (5)In discussing the interaction between and effects of these two decisions on the requirement of universalizability, the paper will first briefly explain the rule behind the requirement.