An insane person is a person who has a limited capacity to act and is unfit to be subject of any

legal relations to some extent. Legally, the law treats the insane as an exemption from criminal liability.
The State however intervenes on behalf of the insane on the presumption that the insane has the
inability to control themselves. According to Article 12 par.1 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines, An insane person is an exemption from criminal liability, unless the insane person acted
during lucid interval ( R.P.C, art 12 par 1 chorva). Philippine law uses the absolute category of insanity,
which means, “(w)hen insanity is used as a defense, the burden is on the defense as the
appellant has to prove that the perpetrator is insane immediately before the commission of the
crime or at the moment of its execution. There should be proof that the accused acted without
discernment.” Corollary to this, there would be chances that the insanity plea would just be
overlooked.

Collapsing the assessment of deviant mental behavior into the absolute category of insanity has
several implications. First, it unveils how bare sovereign power is used as the justification for carving out
the insane as a class in itself. Police power and parens patriae are consequently exercised in this regard.
Next, and more importantly, such categorization flows into the different areas of our laws, affecting all
legally relevant aspects of the life of one deemed insane. These areas range from the capacity to enter
into contracts to incurring liability for criminal offenses. As a consequence of this singular categorization
in our jurisdiction, the monolithic pathology of the mentally ill is reinforced.

The threshold of insanity in Philippine law is the loss of one's ability to control oneself. Insane
persons can have legally binding acts only during so called lucid intervals. Individuals afflicted with
mental illness who fall below the required threshold for insane behavior are treated as normal persons
for legal purposes. This paper attempts to unpack the legal category of insanity and argue that there is a
gap in our laws insofar as according rights and treating the legally relevant behavior of persons with
mental illness but fall below the legal threshold of insanity. It examines different areas where the state
of mind of an individual becomes legally critical, such as criminal liability, workmen's compensation, and
the capacity to enter into contracts or execute wills. It mainly argues that laws in this jurisdiction need
to recognize the spectrum of mental illness as scientifically determined and to carve out roles and
exceptions for persons afflicted with such disabilities.

While it seems convenient to use the absolute category of insanity, restricting the definition of
mentally deviant behavior to insanity is inconsistent with its multifaceted understanding. Jurisprudence
is replete with concrete instances where such individuals, presumed to be sane, are placed at a losing
end. This is because the courts refused to recognize behavior symptomatic of other forms of mental
illness other than insanity in the absolute sense. There is thus a gap in assessing the legally relevant
behavior of such persons not falling within insanity proper:

Courts are tasked with evaluating expert testimony in cases where issues related to mental
capacity and mental illness are involved. This entails a process of translating such expert testimony into
a legally appreciable interpretation. Legal standards aid in the translation of medical symptoms into
legal terms.3 As it stands, our present statute books are static in their definition of insanity. They are
divorced from the reality that the cognition of the insane person varies from case to case. A court must
be guided in its interpretation of facts and testimonies to reach an outcome that will first and foremost
produce a just end.

It has been recognized that a person's culpability for his acts can be measured along a spectrum
of objectivity to subjectivity.4 The use of the word "insanity" itself should be put into question. The
denomination of "insane" speaks of a wide range of mental illnesses and conditions. Insanity itself is
more of a legal category than a medical one, and legal constructs have to conform to more
contemporary needs to meet the ends of justice.

This paper aims to address these concerns. It aims to reappraise our laws as to the
categorization of the insane, their rights and obligations, and the overall treatment of mentally ill
persons to recommend potential shifts in policy and legal appreciation of their condition. This paper
interrogates the use of insanity as a catchall categorization. This paper assumes that the use of such a
singular category runs into equal protection problems, since not all those afflicted with mental illness
are similarly situated. Thus, it proposes a more flexible approach to mental illness in the execution of
policies and in the implementation of laws.

The paper is likewise grounded on a growing public health concern gripping the country. The
National Center for Mental Health's statistics project that there are more than 29,000 cases of mortality
due to mental health disorders from the years 2010-2014.5 According to a 2014 report of the World
Health Organization, there were 2,558 cases of suicide in the Philippines in the year 2012 alone.' While
there are international instruments promoting the rights of mental health patients, some are still
subjected to destitute conditions such as in prison sxstems, where they receive little to no psychiatric
care. In this light, there is an imperative to reexamine current legal standards that strike at the very core
of mental health discourse in the country.
 This paper is divided into the following: Part II explores the body of literature on the legal
approaches to mental health and the question of capacity and insanity. Part Ill juxtaposes the domestic
and international regimes on mental illness. Part IV surveys insanity statutes and jurisprudence in the
Philippines, focusing on the areas of criminal law, succession, and workmen's compensation. Part V
examines the past and present legislative proposals addressing mental illness in the Philippines. Finally,
Part VI lays out this study's policy recommendations.