Universalizability and Philippine Supreme Court Cases :: Criminal Justice

Universalizability and Philippine dictatorial Court Cases epitome The fatality that legal reasoning be universalizable is so unquestioned as a legal doctrine that it is practically axiomatic. Recently, devil Philippine arrogant Court cases have been decided in a manner that patently dispenses with this compulsion. I discuss these ii cases in the light of the requirement. I fill up that the requirement, rather than be diminished by the two cases, has actually hold its axiomatic status on the basis that the reasoning in the two cases is deficient the first either for inequality in treatment or for lack of clear guidance, and the second for the failure to appear impartial. The requirement that juridical reasoning be universalizable, that the justifying reasons for a decision are to be articulated or at least must be capable of cosmos articulated in the form of a universal norm nether which the facts of the case are to be subsumed so as to entail logically the decision, (1) is an acknowledged formal legal principle indispensable to any lead theory of adjudication. Recently, two Philippine autonomous Court Decisions, Alonzo v. IAC (2) and Marcos v. Manglapus, (3) challenged the very exigency of such a requirement. This paper leave alone discuss the interaction surrounded by 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 bizarre circumstances attendant to the cases, thus manifestly 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 prevalent rule, in view of the particular circums tances of the case. (4) In the Marcos case, reference was make to the special circumstances involving President Marcos thusThis case is crotchety. It should not take a crap a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of position and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and fond havoc in the country and within the short space of ternary years seeks to return, is in a class by itself. (5)In discussing the interaction amid and effects of these two decisions on the requirement of universalizability, the paper allow for first briefly explain the rationale behind the requirement.Universalizability and Philippine Supreme Court Cases Criminal JusticeUniversalizability and Philippine Supreme Court Cases diddle The requirement that legal reasoning be universalizable is so unquestioned as a legal doctrine that it is practically axiomatic. Recently, two Philippine Supreme Court cases have been decided in a manner that apparently dispenses with this requi rement. I discuss these two cases in the light of the requirement. I reason out that the requirement, rather than being diminished by the two cases, has actually retained its axiomatic status on the basis that the reasoning in the two cases is deficient the first either for inequality in treatment or for lack of clear guidance, and the second for the failure to appear impartial. The requirement that discriminative 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 at a lower place which the facts of the case are to be subsumed so as to entail logically the decision, (1) is an acknowledged formal legal principle indispensable to any pop off 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 interactio n 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 everyday rule, in view of the particular circumstances of the case. (4) In the Marcos case, reference was make to the special circumstances involving President Marcos thusThis case is unique. It should not develop a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of procedure and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and amic able havoc in the country and within the short space of common chord years seeks to return, is in a class 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 rationale behind the requirement.