0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
28 vues3 pages
A good case for me is a Civil Case. It has a lot of interesting issues. If the law is really very deficient we stretch it a little. Personally as a judge and as a teacher it is the "dura Lex Sed Lex" maxim.
A good case for me is a Civil Case. It has a lot of interesting issues. If the law is really very deficient we stretch it a little. Personally as a judge and as a teacher it is the "dura Lex Sed Lex" maxim.
A good case for me is a Civil Case. It has a lot of interesting issues. If the law is really very deficient we stretch it a little. Personally as a judge and as a teacher it is the "dura Lex Sed Lex" maxim.
have ever handled? When the case is similar to the other, it should be resolved by citing the applicable case (Jurisprudence). The only reason why cases go to court is that they feel that there is another interpretation of the law which was not tackled by the case cited so thats one reason. 1.1 Whats a difficult case for you? Difficult cases are very interesting. Sometimes difficult cases are just small cases that are decided by just 2-3 pages. But in cases which there are a lot of issues, a lot of facts, for me, its quite interesting because I try to understand, weave everybody and make it understandable to both parties.
1.2 Whats a good case for you? A good case for me is a Civil Case. It has a lot of interesting issues.
2. Are there statutes that you find very complicated and difficult to interpret? How come?
All statutes are complicated. We cannot resolve cases by Judicial Legislation because that is not allowed. How I deal with that is through Judicial Activism. You apply the law and offer some remedies or amendments which relays to the people involve so that they can do something about that. Basically, if the law is really very deficient we stretch it a little. When the law is made, it doesnt take into consideration all that may happen. Like the Revised Penal Code, our penalties in amounts and the manner which imposes penalties are no longer updated. This is why somehow we stretch a little by asking the prosecutor to cooperate. As a judge we try to stretch in order to assist the accused, not only to assist him but also to help judiciary to declog the doctrines, declog the jails and so that the people who needs to be there are there. 3. Which legal maxim do you find most important or have relied on mostly in the past? Personally as a judge and as a teacher it is the Dura Lex Sed Lex maxim. It is so hard to teach the law and not live the law, how can I convince you to follow the law if I cannot follow the law? The moment I feel that Im no longer qualified, Im corrupt, I violate the law myself then I will leave my profession. The law is hard but thats the law, simple rule.
4. Are there statutes that you find unwise? What are they? The intention is good but sometimes along the way they insert things. Like the Cybercrime Law, it is something thats good because we practically live our life in cyberspace. Thats a very good law but then again they insert things like libel and all those things which have not really defined well. 5. The Law states that the Courts shall administer the law, not as what they think it should be but what the law says it to be. Was there a time that you regretted your judgment or decision? Sometimes you realize youre wrong but then thats already done. When you render a decision with an open mind and you go through tons of papers and missed something, you sort of look back and ask yourself, should I have considered this? Sometimes you do, I have to tell that, Im also a human but Im sure that the major issues were tackled. 6. Was there a time that you had feelings of sympathy or pity for an accused but you had to render him guilty?
Not for an accused but for a victim.
7. What are the main factors that you consider in construing the law?
Constitutional interpretation, Jurisprudence, and Equity. If the issue could be dealt simply by applying the law constitutional and it does well then go down to statutory laws and check if the issues are substantial. You have to identify what are the main and other issues because when you file a case you have to offer a cause of action and the cause of action will dictate what we need to do but sometimes we tend to find some other cause of action and all other remedies just and equitable. Law, Constitutional, Statutory. Sometimes it goes through procedural or other implementing rules and regulations, check for jurisprudence. Sometimes there are exceptions but the law doesnt say that, that it should be included, it should be excluded. If the law is silent we could somehow make interpretations and hopefully some congressmen or senators can pick it up or also someone like you can pick it up and try to amend law by including that. Sometimes when Statutory Law is solid and there is no jurisprudence to apply, you really feel that somehow it is a novel issue that you need to do and that becomes a problem. So you have to balance it with equity. Equity is part of judicial discretion. Being a judge doesnt mean you have to be arbitrary, at the end judicial discretion is used when you apply equity. Discretion and arbitrary, theres a really wide gap between them. 8. Have you tried reporting for an executive clemency in a case? What was your basis for such?
Not yet, no opportunity to do that. Clemency should come from the public attorney, osg, but not from judiciary. If we feel that the law is harsh we could recommend in our decisions the different interpretation but we are only limited to recommendations.