is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
This article is based on a paper I delivered
(“The Last Battleground: Philippine Social Issues And The Constitutional
Response To Natural Law”; for the full text, see http://www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-last-battleground-philippine-social.html)
at the 19th International Law and Religion Symposium, Brigham Young
University, last Oct. 7-9. 2012. The paper sought to discuss how natural
law worked within Philippine legal history, and how the same can play a
better role in resolving present and future social disputes.
The paper found only three Philippine presidents who didn’t make
any reference to a “higher law” or anything akin to a “natural law” in
their inaugurals. Joseph Estrada focused more on his personal struggles
as allegory to that of the masses. Corazon Aquino did not as well. But
this could be justified perhaps because her swearing in as president
occurred during the uncertain days of the People Power revolution. But
it is interesting that her son, current president Benigno Aquino III did
the same: failing to mention or refer to any higher law and seemed more
intent on extolling the virtues of his “tuwid na landas” (literally the straight path), which is more a political slogan than anything else.
In any event, in judicial declarations the concepts of “higher law,”
“divine law, “natural law” would be repeatedly seen. That the
Philippines refer to a “higher law” is not doubted. It is also clear
that natural law has been recognized consistently through the years.
What is not clear is the identity of such higher law. Do Supreme Court
rulings indicate a Philippine legal system more “fideistic” than is
supposed? If so, such presents certain problems, particularly as to how
such could be worked into the fabric of our constitutional principles.
The initial reaction to this was to conclude that the Philippines is
simply confused in its references to a higher law, mixing up “divine
law” with that of natural law. Hence, the seeming easy
interchangeability with which the judiciary (and to a certain extent our
political leaders) have done on the two seemingly distinct concepts.
But on closer look of our case law, particularly as to our justice’s
opinions surrounding Estrada vs. Escritor, what looked like confusion
becomes actually something else.
That the Philippines involves natural law in its legal thinking is
certain. So does its belief that a “divine” law holds human beings
accountable. However, instead of concluding that the Philippines
simplistically foregoes reason in exchange for a convenient ambiguity
that could justify any decision by making references to a law grounded
on faith than anything else, the better probability is that the
Philippines takes it for granted that, assuming faith has a role to play
in our legal system, such faith is also based on reason. Rather,
therefore, than simply resorting to fideism, the Philippines seems to
have recognized, early on and quite “naturally” (no pun intended), that
matters of faith are “reasonable.” Taking that viewpoint, that faith and
reason go together, complementing each other, the propriety therefore
not only of natural law reasoning but also of religious thought into
judicial determinations, as well as legislation, becomes all the more
appropriate.
The significance of this becomes all the more apparent when one
considers the paper’s title. I called the Philippines the “last
battleground.” And the reason for that is twofold: the Philippines is
the only country left in the Southeast Asian region that still does not
have national legislation legally institutionalizing contraception and
is the only remaining country on Earth (except perhaps for the Vatican)
that still does not recognize divorce. A lot of the credit has to go to
the Catholic Church for courageously keeping to its teachings. However,
if the Philippines is to stand its ground on these two issues, despite
massive funding being given by international organizations,
pharmaceutical companies, and liberal groups, a lot of it will depend on
the Philippines being confident enough that its legal system is not
based merely on a “leap of faith” but is properly anchored on reason as
well.
But there is an even more significant aspect to all this: for a country
of 7,000 islands, hundreds of dialects, varied cultures and religions,
different races and even political beliefs, the one unifying thing that
could be said of the Philippines is its belief that faith, with a
commonality to be found first in natural law, is indeed reasonable. The
other thing that must be considered is the Philippine demographic:
Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population
(with those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years
old). Whoever or whatever captures the soul of this demographic
effectively captures the soul of the nation for many decades to come.
Viewed in that regard, to accept and institutionalize the fact that a
reasonable faith has a proper role in public and political matters, even
perhaps serving as a fundamental and universal normative framework, is
perhaps the real last battleground.
