Legal Philo on Functional Jurisprudence

8/10/2019 Legal Philo on Functional Jurisprudence

1/3

March 2013

Legal Philosophy

MANIQUIS, Alkaid M.

On Functional Jurisprudence

As it was presented, the fundamental focus of functional jurisprudence is the

analysis of the characteristic action of the law in the solution of conflicting wants in

terms of the interests of the society. Otherwise stated, the thrust of this perspective is to

determine the role of the social interests in adjusting and reducing the conflict in

peoples claims, demands and expectations.

The influence of societal interests in the legal system is pervasive as its

manifestations could be readily gleaned in the various organs of the State. This is also

true as to the policies and programs of the government in several policy areas and

sectors of the society.

The courts of justice, for one, are ever engaged in resolution of conflicts and

issues of all sorts. However, it is indispensable that such issues be first brought before

the court in order that it could take cognizance of such an issue and make appropriate

rulings therefor.

The executive posts also take part in the matter. This is by creating different

programs which are, supposedly, reflective of the peoples claims and responsive to the

peoples needs. It could create various programs to address and regulate the overlapping

or conflicting interests of several sectors of the society.

The legislature is also involved in the realization of the thrust of this perspective.

It does so by creating laws which are responsive, supposedly, to the claims and needs of

the people, who are, in the first place, the principals to whom the agent (elected

representatives) should answer to. It could recognize the interests of several sectors of

the society, provide protection therefor, and transform and elevate them into rights or

entitlements, with or without corresponding duties or conditions, by creating a law

providing such an effect.

Finally, the people themselves realize the thrust of this school, too. This is not

only seen in their resolution, whether amicably or otherwise, of the disagreements

among them, but also in their voicing out of the popular clamor, or at least that which


2/3

appears to be so from one sides viewpoint, through various means e.g. coercing,

influencing, relaying, publishing, picketing, lobbying, voting, etc.

In the personal level, I seem to be inclined to take this school as having

precedence over the others not only because I was a part of the group which presented

the subject, but also because I personally hold that the interest of the society should besubservient to nothing. As a graduate of Political Science, I had years of exposure to

issues and conflicts, its sources, nature and resolution. It appears that conflicts would

always arise between people, given the fact that they cannot be expected to share the

same interests. One mans priority could be anothers garbage. As conflicts are

inevitable, so too shall conflicts resolution be.

We can find the relevance of this legal philosophical perspective in view of the

major events and issues that are presently upon us. One of such issues is the Sabah

question, a time-enduring issue between the Philippines and Malaysia.

From the looks of things, it appears that there currently are three sides involved

in the conflict, namely, the Sultanate of Sulu, the Government of the Philippines and the

Government of Malaysia.

The Sultanate of Sulu upholds its proprietary interest in Sabah, it being given

that it has both historic and legal title to the territory. The Malaysian Government is said

to have been paying lease or rental fees for the Sabah state to the Sultanate. However, in

asserting its interest, the Sultanate resorted to coercive means, by occupying Sabah by

force.

The Malaysian Government, in upholding its sovereignty, reacted with retaliatorymeasures. It is now purging the area of the remaining members of the Royal Army of the

Sulu Sultanate (who refused to leave and are still engaged in guerilla warfare, upon

orders of the Sultan of Sulu).

The Philippine Government on the other hand maintains a more or less

indifferent stand, presumably in the interest of preservation of diplomacy and peace.

This has but invited criticisms from the people. Some claim that it should have

supported the Sultanate. Others hold that it should have had not issued threats of

prosecution against the Sultanate and the members of its Royal Army.

However, I am of the opinion that the Government can only do so much. The

Government tried to resolve the conflict and be diplomatic about the issue. It has

engaged itself into talks with the Sultan as well as with Malaysia. It was constrained to

make a judgment call. With efforts to persuade the Sultanate to withdraw its forces at

the onset having proved futile, it cannot be expected to jump in and drag us into a battle


3/3

that we know we cannot sustain. To do so would expose the Filipinos to a war, which, as

many would agree, is an ugly business.

However, amidst all this overlap and confusion of interests, a very important

point was missed out. A fourth party is missing the Sabahans. After the opinions of all

of the supposed parties involved have been aired with prominence, the interests of theSabahans remained unheard, whether inadvertently or not. The opinion of this party is

obviously the most important. Whether the Sultanate triumphs in physically annexing

the territory; whether the battle becomes protracted or; whether diplomacy will hold in

the end, it is the people of Sabah who certainly would be affected. From the discussions

of Atty. Rene Saguisag, he stated his opinion to the effect that it is such a shame that us,

Filipinos, who have been subjects of various colonial powers through time, stand

oblivious, or even apathetic, to the plea of the inhabitants of Sabah. The Sultanate and

the Governments of Malaysia and of the Philippines should first consult the opinion of

the Sabahans, whether they would like to be under our export-quality of governance or

not.

Relating back to functional jurisprudence, with the various parties and their

respective claims and interests having been established (except for those of the

Sabahans), this school of thought shall prove valuable in determining how to resolve the

conflict. Whether or not all the claims could be compromised with equity; whether one

should prevail over all the others or; maybe, not one of the contending interests should

be satisfied, all depends upon its effects, the base of beneficiaries that a decision might

give advantage to and the damage it might cause.

This dilemma, therefore, calls for a fair appraisal of the advantages and dangersof every possible move that the parties might make. Also, the deliberation and

resolution could be made by and between the parties involved or better yet, by a

competent and uninterested third party.

By way of conclusion, it is imperative that it be reiterated that as long as there is

man, it is with certainty that conflict will thrive, and, as such, conflicts resolution is very

important. Hence, this particular legal philosophical perspective is equally significant.

Documents

Legal Philo on Functional Jurisprudence