CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY

Christian Law and Family Law

0:00:11 - 0:11:12 DELOS SANTOS, E.

PREMISE:
Christianity underwent a period of prosecution. But it was able to dominate Rome, and eventually
becoming the official religion of Rome. Christianity was appealing to the people of the
Roman Empire because it offered a personal relationship with a God, offered a way to eternal life,
and does not discriminate between the rich and poor Roman citizens. These things brought hope
to those who were oppressed by the Roman Empire as the religion was open to all.

So in connection to that, we’re going to discuss the relationship between the Christian Philosophy
and the Philippine Law. Because, whether we like it or not, regardless of our beliefs, it cannot
denied that Christianity had a significant impact in Philippine History and Philippine Laws.

So now, we will be talking about the relationship of those two things. But before going into the
specifics. Let us first review the question: DOES THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY
TOWARDS THE PHILIPPINE LAWS VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE?

As you know, the 1987 Constitution says on Art III Sec 5:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

It is clear in the Constitution that, no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. However, according to the author, in the Philippines,
religion is still seen as a positive force that shapes society.

CONCEPT OF THEANDRIC ONTONOMY

(In relation to the Separation of Church and State)

The theandric autonomy model(from the Greek word theo or god & andros or man)
weaves together the political and the spiritual fabric of society and regards spirituality and
religion as a positive force in society. Here, law recognized its religious influences and
takes into consideration the people’s religious character.

Filipino culture, like its Asian neighbors, by practice belongs to the theandric ontonomy
model. Deep religiosity is present throughout Philippine History (for even Pre-Hispanic
 Filipinos: Spirits were thought to dwell in nature, saying excuses like, “tabi-tabi” po in
crossing unfamiliar trenches. And the baybaylan had the role of a village priest and healer.

Even during the anti-clerical portion of the Philippine Revolution, the Katipuneros did not
think of separating the Church and State, but of establishing a Filipinized Church, the
Iglesia Filipina Independiente, as proposed by Apolinario Mabini.

P. 174, BERNARDO

To Summarize, Filipinos are so religious,

● That even before Spain colonized us, the Filipinos already have several religious
practices.
● That even if we were being oppressed by Spanish church officials during Spanish
occupation, the Katipuneros did not want to forego Christianity as a whole. They only
wanted a Filipino version of the Church of a Filipinized version of Christianity

Therefore, although there is a separation between church and state, our government or
legislators, cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the Filipinos are very religious. Whether it be
Chirstianity, Islam, or any Pre-Hispanic religion.

This describes the basis for Theandric Ontonomy. It is a recognition that many aspects of human
life where the church and the state intersects. It also recognizes that the church and state would
actually work together hand in hand for the general good.

A good example of this would be the topic of Marriage, Pregnancy and many other aspects of the
Filipino citizens.

That is why, for the author’s opinion, while we have a separation of church and state, we also
practice the theandric ontonomy model, where the church and state often influence each other in
many ways than one, in actuality.
(Take note of these concepts and contrast them with the concept of theandric ontonomy for the
Philippines – no need to memorize, just take a look at the terms themselves)

In order for us to understand a Theandric Ontonomy model is, let us compare it to other models
of Church and State relations:

SACRED HETERONOMY FIRST PROFANE AUTONOMY

The model where spiritual concerns are The model where the government has power
percieved as superior to the material, and over the sacred. The laws of the state become
therefore, religion rules all affairs in life. part of the religious creed.

Religion is superior to law. Law is superior to religion

Religion is highly considered Laws are incorporated into religion

Religion is politicized.
“Sacred”
“Profane”

Ex. Certain Islamic-Arabic Countries Ex. China

(Government appoints the bishops in the
church)

In the Philippines, the State and Religion are equally given importance. That is not saying that
religion is superior than the government, nor is the government superior to religion. There is
balance. That is why the Supreme Court makes distinctions between Ecclesiastical affairs and
Secular matters, as discussed in the previous meetings.

We understand that in the life of the Filipinos, there are areas that are properly regulated by a
state, and some areas are also regulated by religion.

These three, Theandricbut

Autonomy Sacred Heteronomy, First Profane Autonomy are models of
Ontonomy,
Church-State Relations. Where the Philippines follows Theandric Ontonomy.

0:11:22 - 0:22:42 ALMAREZ

The influence of christianity in how laws are set up does not violate separation of church and
state for as long as no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.
So let’s now go to the christian influence in the Philippines. It says in your book that more than
300 years of Spanish enculturation and 40 years of American protestant evangelization have
made the country a christian stronghold in Asia, wielding influence in the life and thought and
even the politics of the Filipinos.

In fact, if you take a look at the Supreme Court logo, incidentally the symbolic tablets of the Ten
Commandments are incorporated in the official seal of the Philippine Supreme Court. It applyaptly
recognized the fundamentals and values we enshrine in both law and religion.
If you see the tablets there in the picture that’s actually based on the tablets of the Ten
Commandments. Maybe they are going to change the logo in the future. To be more all-
embracing to different cultures. But, as of now, we can see this logo as an implied recognition of
the influence of Christianity in Philippine law.

Well, aside from law, Christianity also and still has a strong influence in the Philippine
Educational system. The earliest universities in the country offering courses on law and
philosophy taught the Scholasticism and Perennial Philosophy of the Dominican Saint Thomas
Aquinas, which has been endorsed by the Catholic Church since the late Medieval ages after
the first universities in Europe were established. Many of the premiere universities today,
including Harvard, Cambridge, and Oxford, started as theology and divinity schools.
Harvard’s original motto was Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae (“Truth for Christ and the Church”). It
is the same religious story for the University of Santo Tomas, which educated Filipino ilustrados,
revolutionaries, and first presidents and which established the first law school in the Philippines
in 1734.

Aquinas lived in a time when church law or canon law, interpreted by ecclesiastical tribunals and
appealable to the Papal Curia, was the only “international law” available as Europe was divided
into kingdoms and petty states with their own feudal laws.
Well, anyway, we’ll go back to this later. So we’re now going to proceed with the topic of how
specific christian philosophers affected the criminal law.

Alright, let’s first go to the relationship between St. Thomas Aquinas and Criminal law and
specific topics under criminal law.

So, first, we’re going to talk about voluntariness and imprudence. Those two concepts. So the
Revised Penal Code says that Article 3, acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies
(delitos).

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
And there is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Article 4 says that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended and by any person
performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate of
ineffectual means.

Alright, so in our jurisdiction, felonies can be committed by deceit (dolo) or by fault(culpa). So

this is discussed in criminal law. How dolo and culpa are different. So if those two are different,
what’s the thing that makes these two concepts the same? So the common element between
these forms of felony is the element of voluntariness.

A person can’t be made liable in both instances of dolo or culpa, for as long as, his act is
voluntary. Voluntariness is the element of choice, being made of a person’s freewill. As opposed
to being made as a result of coercion or duress. So simply put, there can only be guilt when the
act is voluntary or there can only be guilt when there is freedom.

So, very basic example, as you’re operating a motor vehicle and you intentionally hit a person in
order to kill that person, then you are liable for a felony. The felony being murder. So murder is
an intentional felony committed with dolo. If you’re operating a motor vehicle and you
unintentionally hit a person because of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill,
you are also liable for a felony it being for reckless imprudence. So, reckless imprudence is a
culpable felony committed through fault.
In both cases, there is voluntariness and freedom on the part of the accused. It would be
different if you are operating a motor vehicle and someone is pointing a gun at you and as a
result, you are forced to hit a person. Because what is not present in that situation is the
element of voluntariness. And therefore, you are absolved of the liability.

Of course, you already had this discussion on your criminal law. So, but what’s not discussed in
criminal law, is the relationship between this concept of voluntariness and the works of St.
Thomas Aquinas. So, this is taken from his original work, Summa Theologica. So this is the
actual works of St. Thomas Aquinas translated in english.

He says that, I answer that, There must needs be something voluntary in human acts. In order
to make this clear, we must take note that the principle of some acts or movements is within the
agent, or that which is moved; whereas the principle of some movements or acts is outside. For
when a stone is moved upwards, the principle of this movement is outside the stone.
Now in order for a thing to be done for an end, some knowledge of the end is necessary.
Therefore, whatever so acts is moved by an intrinsic principle, that it has some knowledge of the
end, has within itself the principle of its act, so that it not only acts, but acts for an end.

And consequently, since both are from an intrinsic principle, to wit, that they act and that they
act for an end, the movements of such things are said to be voluntary: for the word “voluntary”
implies that their movements and acts are from their own inclination.
So according to St. Thomas, that when you move a stone to another place, the movement does
not come from within the stone but it comes from outside the stone. And the same thing, if a
person is placed under duress or coerced into committing a crime or a felony, the movement
does not come from within the person but outside the person. And an act is voluntary, if the act
comes from the inclination within of a person. And only voluntary acts should create liability.

Okay, so same concept. But why is it that imprudence is punished under Philippine law? This is
also influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas kasi para kay St. Thomas Aquinas, imprudence is
actually a form of a sin or kasalanan sa mata ng Diyos ang imprudence.

He says here, again this is taken from Summa Theologica.

Imprudence is taken as a contrary, in so far as the movement or act of reason is in opposition to

prudence: for instance, whereas the right reason of prudence acts by taking counsel, the
imprudent man despises counsel, and the same applies to the other conditions which require…

0:22:43 - 0:34:03 ANAVISO

...consideration in the act of prudence. On this way imprudence is a sin in respect prudence under
its proper aspect, since it is not possible for a man to act against its prudence, except by infringing
the rules on which the right reason of prudence depends.”

For St. Thomas Aquinas, God gave the human being a reason and therefore laws should be
reasonable. This is one of the core principles of St. Thomas Aquinas that God gave human being
the ability to reason. For imprudence is the failure to exercise like reasoning or as said here, it is
the infringement of the rules on which the right reason of prudence depends. Therefore,
imprudence is actually contrary to God-given reason and therefore imprudence is also considered
a sin. This particular notion or idea is carried over in our Revised Penal Code, and that is one of
the reasons why imprudence is held punishable under the Spanish Penal Code. That’s it for
voluntariness of imprudence. Let us now go to aggravating circumstances or circumstances in
criminal law.

It is also in St. Thomas Aquinas’ idea that there should be aggravating circumstances or
circumstances in law. So, I’ll just briefly flash to you Aggravating Circumstances. No need for me
to discuss this because this is in your Criminal Law and I am sure you have discussed this.
So, let us now go to the words of St. Thomas Aquinas in Suma Theologica.

He says that “for in as acts we must take note of “who” did it, “by what aids” or “instruments” he
did it, “what” he did, “where” he did it, “why” he did it, “how” and “when” he did it. Aristotle in Ethic.
iii, 1 adds yet another, to wit, “about what,” which Tully includes in the circumstance “what”.
The reason for this enumeration may be set down as follows. For a circumstance is described as
something outside the substance of the act, and yet in a way touching it. Now this happens in
three ways: first, inasmuch as it touches the act itself; second, inasmuch as it touches the cause
of the act; and third, inasmuch as it touches the effect. It touches the act itself, either by way of
measures as “time” and “place”; or by qualifying the act as the “mode of acting.” It touches the
effect when we consider “what” is done. It touches the causes if the act, as to the final cause, by
the circumstance “why”; as to the material cause, or object, in the circumstance “about what”; as
to the principal of efficient cause, in the circumstance “who”; and as to the instrumental efficient
cause, in the circumstance “by what aids.”

Again, philosophy is really hard to understand. It is not explicitly mentioned here but the topic is
talking about this ethics. So, how do we judge if the person is good or bad? Or most specifically
if an action is good or bad? According to St. Aquinas, it depends on the circumstances that
surround the action. In considering the goodness or evilness of the action, according to St.
Thomas, you have to consider who did, by what aids, instruments, where, why, how, and when
the action was done. So, in ethics, according to Aquinas, this is how you judge whether an action
is good or evil, or within the gray area of those two – good and evil.

In criminal law, this is also how circumstances work. If there are numerous aggravating
circumstances, then we say the action is more evil; if there’s a justifying, it’s actually good; and if
there’s an exempting, the same effect also applies. So, it depends on the circumstance of the
action that determines its goodness or its inherent evil. Also, St. Thomas Aquinas describes a
circumstance as something that is outside the substance of the act yet touching it. A circumstance
is not an element of the crime, but it has influence on the crime.

He classifies this circumstance into three: a circumstance that touches the act itself; a
circumstance that cause of the act; and a circumstance that touches the effect of the act. Of
course, during his time, Revised Penal Code was not invented yet or even the Spanish Penal
Code. However, we can already understand his classifications by relating it with our current
Revised Penal Code.
For example, there is an aggravating circumstance that touches the act itself. For example, when
fraud or disguise is employed, or when there is treachery, it has an influence on the act itself.
There is also an aggravating circumstance that touches the cause of the reason for the act such
as committing a crime with consideration or a price, reward, or promise. There is also a
circumstance that touches on the effects of the act like for example if the effect of the crime adds
ignominy to the victim or the offended party. That is how advanced the thinking of St. Thomas
Aquinas is, that his classifications of circumstance can still make sense even in the present
Philippine context.

Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas says that “A condition of the cause, on which the substance of
the act depends, is not a circumstance; it must be an additional condition. Thus, in regard to the
object, it is not a circumstance of theft that the object is another’s property, for this belongs to the
substance of the act; but that it be great or small. And the same applies to the other circumstances
which are considered in reference to the other causes. For the end that specifies the act is not a
circumstance, but some additional end.”

According to him, for a circumstance to be considered a true circumstance under the law, it must
be an additional condition, because if the substance of the act is dependent on the condition, then
such condition cannot be considered a circumstance. It is the language used that is really difficult.
A more understandable version of this principle is actually incorporated in the Revised Penal
Code. Maiintindihan niyo siguro ito kapag legalese ang ginamit.

According to Art. 62, the effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and
of habitual delinquency, mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall
be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with
the following rules: Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime especially
punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. That is the
Philippine legal version of the point of St. Thomas Aquinas, because according what he posited,
the circumstance cannot be the substance of the act, otherwise it is not a circumstance anymore,
it is an additional end of the act. Identically, an aggravating circumstance cannot be an element
of a crime or it cannot be the substance of the crime, otherwise it is not a circumstance anymore
but it is absorbed or incorporated as the element of a crime. Let’s go to an example found in one
of the cases.

In People versus Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156. November 20, 1981, it says here that “If the
accused herein were charged with the complex crime of murder with assault against an agent of
a person in authority, and not merely murder...”
0:34:04 - 0:45:24 FERIDO

then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank or contempt of or insult to public authority cannot be appreciated as
aggravating because either circumstance is inherent in the charge of assault against a person in authority or an agent of a
person in authority. But in the case at bar, the appellant is accused of murder only, Consequently, either aggravating
circumstance should be considered in the imposition of the penalty.

Direct assault is committed "by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall
attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his
agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance.”

So isang element kasi nung direct assault as you will learn later or as you have already learned is the element that the
offended party must be a public authority, so element na iyong public authority (offended party must be a public authority sa
crime ng direct assault so kung ganyan iyong case hindi na pwede iyong criminal charge na direct assault against public
authority with aggravating circumstance of assault of public authority, because again the element, an element of direct
assault is the person assaulted must be a person in authority, so hindi na pwede i doble iyong aggravating circumstance that
the offended party was a person of authority, so iyan iyong sinabi rin ni St. Thomas Aquinas earlier na “a condition of the
cause on which the substance of the act depends is not a circumstance, it must be an additional condition so given that the
element of public authority is already incorporated in the substance of direct assault then it can not be considered an
aggravating circumstance anymore.

So take note si St. Thomas Aquinas, he was alive around the 1200’s but he already had a conception of aggravating
circumstance and principles relating to aggravating circumstances that still holds true to Philippine law today.

So let’s now go to the concept of “Ignoratia Conti Excusat” or Antecedent Ignorance, again taken from Summa Theologica,
St. Aquinas says that ignorance of the circumstances causes an act to be involuntary. involuntariness excuses from sin, the
consideration of which belongs to the theologian. Therefore circumstances also should be considered by the theologian.
Okay so what’s his point noh?

For him ignorance of fact takes away the voluntariness of the act, ignorance of the fact creates involuntariness and
involuntariness excuses from sin, again sin bakit siya nag topic na sin again kasi the christian philosopher noh, where the
lines of theology, philosophy, and law were still very blurry, so mag mix pa silang lahat, so sinasabi niya na “pag nagkasala
ka pero nagkasala ka kasi hindi mo alam iyong kaugnay na bagay o pangyayari at hindi mo sana ginawa iyong kasalanan
kung alam mo iyong bagay na iyon, hindi ka tunay na nagkasala” parang ganon,

so ignorance of the fact also excuses you from sin according to St. Thomas Aquinas, so you can be excused from your sin,
sa iyong kasalanan, if you are ignorant of certain relevant facts so this concept is called Antecedent Ignorance, according to
St. Thomas Aquinas. so parang i excuse ka daw ni God noh kung may kasalanan ka tapos hindi mo naman pala alam iyong
lahat ng relevant facts in relation to your actions.

so, Antecedent Ignorance is itself the cause of the action so that if there had been no ignorance there would have been no
action, so if you’re not ignorant to that fact you would not have committed the crime in the first place, so as discussed in the
book of Bernardo.

“Antecedent Ignorance in Aquinas is in Philippine law akin to the mistake of fact (ignorantia facti), which may excuse a party
from the legal consquences of his conduct. It can also refer to unintended accidents despite dure care, without fault or
intention.”

so the classic case demonstrating a mistake of fact is the old case of United States v. Achiong G.R. No. L5272 March 19,
1910. so in this case Achiong, accidentally stabbed his roommate entering the house in the middle of the night, so Achiong
gave several verbal warnings but despite his warning the roommate did not answer him.
so pag pasok nung roommate niya sige siyang sabi rin na “may tao ba diyan?” or “is there someone there?”, iyong
roommate din niya hindi sumasagot kasi it’s the middle of the night noh, aggravated by the fact that there were already news
spreading around their neighborhood that there are multiple incidents of robbery, so all these circumstances combined,
created an impression on the mind of Achiong that there really was an intruder when in fact it was just his roommate so the
Supreme Court held in that case that

“ On the contrary, the maxim here is Ignorantia facti excusat ("Ignorance or mistake in point of fact is, in all cases of
supposed offense, a sufficient excuse").

A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal
blow alleged in the information in the firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a thief,
from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge;
that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he acted in good
faith, without malice, or criminal intent.”

so basically, he was excused kasi considering all the circumstances it really was a mistake of fact, akala niya magnanakaw
iyong kanyang roommate and napatay niya noh, just as Aquinas believes that ignorance of fact can excuse you from sin, the
Supreme Court also excused Ah Chong of criminal liability, so that is the concept of ignorance of fact

okay let’s now go to the concepts of restitution, reparation, and indemnification.

The Bernardos say:

“Restitution is an act of commutative justice, where equality is re-established by giving back what is taken. Man is bound to
give restitution according to the loss he brought upon another, with damages for what the other could have obtained.
Restitution can be made by repayment of the equivalent or by compensation. When a person violates the law, he or she
violates the civil order and the common good. Retribution through exemplary punishment must restore that
order.”

so, in certain portion of Summa Theologica, iyong topic is about salvation, so how can a person save himself or redeem
himself, of course at this language is used in the context of christianity noh, salvation is one of the many core concepts in
Christianity.

so, taken from Summa Theologica,

“Objection 1. It would seem that it is not necessary to restore what has been taken away. For
that which is impossible is not necessary for salvation. But sometimes it is impossible to restore what has been taken, as
when a man has taken limb or life. Therefore, it does not seem necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken from
another.

So itong objection, hindi ito iyong point ni St. THomas Aquinas noh, ang objections in his work are ideas thrown by Aquinas
himself or his students during his lectures, so this is one example of an objection, so let’s try to give it some context, so St.
Thomas Aquinas is lecturing his students about the topic of salvation. So para ding classroom,
0:45:24 - 0:56:55 DENILA honor due to God and our parents, as the
Philosopher states. Wherefore when that which
Objections in his work are ideas thrown by has been taken cannot be restored in equivalent,
Aquinas himself or his students during his compensation should be made as far as possible:
lectures. So, this is one example of an objection. for instance, if one man has deprived another of
So, let’s try to give it some context: a limb, he must make compensation either in
money or in honor, the condition of either party
Saint Thomas Aquinas is lecturing to his being duly considered according to the judgment
students about the topic of Salvation. One of his of a good man.”
students raises his hand and says, “It is
sometimes impossible to restore what has been
taken, and therefore it does not seem necessary
for salvation to restore what has been taken
from one another. Will God still forgive me if I am
in a situation where I cannot restore what I have
Reply to Objection 1
taken away?”
“Compensation should still be made as far as
Here’s another example: The student asks, in the possible in money or in honor.”
context of interpersonal relationships, “What is
the point of trying to gain someone’s trust back
St. Thomas answered his student’s concern by
when you know you can never fully get that trust
saying that in that particular case, compensation
back? When you violate someone’s trust, what’s
should still be made as far as possible in money
the point of trying to earn it back when you know
or in honor. So, if you’ve done something wrong
you can never restore it? For example, if you’ve
and its effects are irreversible, you should still do
wronged someone and you regret it afterwards,
your best to compensate for your wrongdoing or
no matter how much you regret the action
to compensate the people you’ve hurt.
afterwards, you can never restore it back to what
it was before.” If you look at that with a strictly Christian
perspective, this means salvation can still come
So that was the issue St. Thomas Aquinas’
to a person who did an irreversible fault for as
student had trouble with.
long as he repents and restores things as much
as possible. Just because your sin has an
Objection 1 irreversible effect does not mean salvation is
“Can salvation be achieved if our sins have forever deprived from you.
irreversible effects?”
Also, if you want a more interpersonal
perspective, just because you can never gain a
In the same book, St. Thomas answered (his person’s trust back does not mean you should
reply): stop trying your best to regain that person’s
trust.
“When it is impossible to repay the equivalent, it
suffices to repay what one can, as in the case of
That is the concept of compensation or
reparation. You might never be able to restore
something to its original order, but you can still
do your best to repair the damage that was
done. Just as you cannot fully cleanse the effects
of your sin means that you can still do your best
to make up for them.
The discussion might sound like a homely(?) but
that’s because it’s from a Christian philosopher.
Of course, St. Thomas Aquinas’ discussion goes
way deeper. If you are interested, do read his
work as seen in the citation.
Restitution, Reparation, and Indemnification in
the Revised Penal Code
Alright so let’s go back to Philippine Law. This
concept of compensation, restitution,
reparation, is also carried over in our Revised
Penal Code.
So, what I want you to take note is what is similar
and what is different from these concepts. They
are all similar because they are all forms of civil
liability that arise from the commission of a
crime. But they have different definitions.
First, when you talk about restitution, it basically
means to return the thing itself. If your crime
was stealing a cell phone, restitution means part
of your liability means you give the cell phone
back.
Now, if the returning of the thing itself is
impossible (for example, the cell phone you stole
also got lost), then reparation comes into effect.
Reparation basically means paying the amount
equivalent to the thing itself. Since you cannot
return the actual object lost, you should
therefore pay the monetary equivalent of the
cell phone.
Finally, there is indemnification which means
paying for the other consequences related to the
crime. I am sure you will discuss this in Criminal
Law so let’s not dwell on that too deeply.
Kintsugi (金継ぎ)
Do you know Kintsugi (金継ぎ)? Kintsugi is the
Japanese art of repairing broken pottery by
mending the areas of breakage with lacquer. I
think this is a good visual representation of
reparation. I think you’ve seen images like these
on the Internet.
You can never fully restore the thing to its this is a wonderful visual representation of the
original state, but that does not mean that you concept of reparation and compensation.
should just leave the damage be. You have to
make an effort to restore things, a semblance of Well anyway, that’s also an influence by St.
their former state. I just pointed this out since Thomas Aquinas these concepts of
compensation, restitution, and indemnification.
0:56:56 - 1:07:28 FERNANDO
Influences of St.Thomas Aquinas. There are many areas in Criminal Law that are
credited to him and those are the only areas
1. Concept of Reparation and Restitution what will be discussed.

Is it correct to attribute to St. Thomas Aquinas

these areas of Criminal Law?

“Ano naman kinalaman niya sa Criminal Law?

Baka naman kasi.. ay baka nagkataon lang na
similar yung teachings ni St. Thomas Aquinas
and Philippine Law..so you know.. ano talaga
kinalaman ni St. Thomas Aquinas sa Criminal
Law?”

How does St. Thomas Aquinas influence the

Thomas Aquinas and Criminal Law
Criminal Law?

Article 106 of the Revised Penal Code.

First, who is St. Thomas Aquinas?
Reparation; How made: The court shall
determine the amount of damage, taking into
He is an Italian Philosopher, Theologian, and a
consideration the price of the thing, whenever
Jurist.
possible, and its special sentimental value to
the injured party, and reparation shall be made
“If ganyan yung description niya, so ano yung
accordingly.
tatlong disciplines niya?”

Article 107 of the Revised Penal Code.

St. Thomas Aquinas Fields:
Indemnification; What is included:
Indemnification for consequential damages
Philosophy, Theology, and Law.
shall include not only those caused the injured
party, but also those suffered by his family or by
What kind of Theology?
a third person by reason of the crime.
Christian Theology.
Influences of St. Thomas Aquinas to Philippine
Law:
What kind of Law is he fluent at?

1. Concept of Voluntariness
Roman Law.
2. Concept of Imprudence
3. Concept of Aggravating Circumstances
“Kasi diba last meeting we discussed about
4. Concept of mistake of facts
Roman law.. Asan ba naka locate ang Rome?
5. Concept of restitution and reparation
Diba sa Italy.. In fact, Rome is the capital of
Italy. So St. Thomas is Italian.. so meaning
meron talaga influence yung Roman Law sa
kanyang education and Philosophy..no?”
Eventually, the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas
became so influential in Europe that his
teachings were used as a basis in some of the
first universities around the world.
Let’s focus on the particular portion of Europe
relevant to Philippine history.
Let’s focus on Spain.
“Connect niyo yung last discussion na.. ang
Spain and Italy.. how are they connected?”
The country known as Spain was part of the
Western Roman Empire.
For example, the university in this picture.
This is the University of Salamanca in Spain. The
third University established in the world. The
core teachings of Salamanca were centered
around St. Thomas Aquinas. In turn, many
universities followed so.
What were the prominent subjects in this
school?
Again, following St Thomas Aquinas, the
prominent subjects are Christian Theology,
Philosophy, and Roman Law. These three
subjects are the height of Spanish education.
“Basically.. during their time no.. Brayt ka
talaga if magaling ka sa tatlong subject
nato..Not just in the university of Salamanca but
also in many Spanish universities..”
St. Thomas Aquinas really shape the universities
in Spain on what are the subjects are on. How
the course is thought.
“So ganyun yung Spanish education during that
time.. so, eventually.. several generations
later..”
The teachings of St.Thomas Aquinas of Law and
Philosophy shape the education of the two
persons we see in the picture.
“So yung ano.. philosophy ni St. Thomas Aquinas
and his opinion about the law..reached this to
persons. So .. kinsa mani silang duha no? What
do they have to do with our topic”
The guy on the upper portion is Felipe Sanchez
Roman Y Gallifa, also known as Sanchez
Roman.
And the guy on the lower portion is Jose Maria
Manresa Y. Navarro.
“Because they are Spanish, they are educated
by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.. and it
is not just them.. Also, Spanish drafters, lawyers,
jurist that time really have an influence of St.
Thomas Aquinas”
“Although nandiyan yung picture ni Sanchez
Roman and Manresa.. my point is St. Thomas
Aquinas shaped how Spanish people were
educated”.
“So.. hindi lang sila no. But lahat ng legalist ng
Spain were influence by St.Thomas Aquinas..
Ok.. so yun na.. na educate sila..they are the
people that shaped the correct interpretation
and application of the Spanish Penal Code and
what happen next.. Of course.. alam niyo nato..
Again.. sinakop tayo ng Espanya then Revised
Penal Code were patterned like the Revised
Penal Code of Spain”
“And so.. our Filipino drafters.. Jurist, lawyers
who turn into people such as Sanchez Roman
and Manresa in determining the correct
understanding of the Revised Penal Code”
The flow:
1. St. Thomas Aquinas influence the
education of the entirety of Europe
including Spain.
2. Eventually, his teachings have reached
to more contemporary Spanish Jurists
like Manresa and Sanchez Roman.
3. The other guys or Spanish guys made
the Revised Penal Code and eventually
reach to the Philippines.
“No need to memorized any dates, just
familiarize yourself to the flow. Paano naabot si
St. Thomas Aquinas.. isang Italian Philosopher..
to the Philippines or his teachings, how did it
arrived to the Philippines?”
“So it is really not a coincidence, there are
similarities with suma-theologica and our
Revised Penal Code”
“So.. iba talaga yung impact ni St. Thomas
Aquinas sa European educational system, no?
and syempre sinakop tayo ng Spain.. na
influence na rin tayo. Diba kung isipin mo ha..
ano man yung pinaka first na university sa
Philippines?”
“It is UST or University of Santo Thomas. This
still refers to St. Thomas Aquinas. Okay.. so our
first lawyers and justices would be trained by
the teachings of Sanchez Roman, Manresa, and
Viada, in turn.. sino naman ang nag influence
kina Sanchez Roman, Manresa, and Viada? So..
its St. Thomas Aquinas.”
“So, let’s probed further..kung ang jurist natin..
yung teacher nila, sila Sanchez Roman.. at ang
teacher naman ni Sanchez Roman ay si St.
Thomas Aquinas.. oh sino naman nag influence
kay St. Thomas Aquinas? Or kumbaga.. sino
naman yung teacher niya in a way, no?”
Who is the main influencer of St. Thomas
Aquinas?
Aristotle and Plato.
“Parang lahat ng field no.. may kinalaman
talaga itong great thinkers”
If you think about it, our criminal law, Aristotle
and Plato have influence it somehow. Most of
the disciplines are traced back to these Greek
Philosophers.
“Example.. sa medicine.. it is influence by
Hyprocrates.. kaya meron silang Hypocratic
Oath.. sa Math, meron si Pythogaras kaya
merong Pythogorean Theorem but anyway..
take note of the history of how St. Thomas
Aquinas influence criminal law and take note of
what concepts in the Revised Penal Code are
attributed to him”