DISCLAIMER: The thoughts and/or opinions expressed are of my own.

Neither is it to be considered correct

or wrong, so, please proceed with a grain of salt. Also note that these are questions included in my Midterm and
Final exam under the subject Philosophy of Law, please refrain from sending this to different individuals aside
from yourselves. Any form or kind reproduction of such document will be actionable. Thank you.

Can a change in the law or legal system also lead to a change of perspectives, biases, and assumptions? Or is it
the other way around? Demonstrate your answer.

- For me a change in the law or the legal system will be tantamount to the change of perspectives, biases, and
assumptions which is, in fact, for the better. I will demonstrate my answer with an example of the role or the
history of women situated in the law and in the legal system through time immemorial. It has been provided by
history that in the Pre-Colonial age, women were of high regard as they were afforded to have high ranking
positions but when the Spaniards came, how the law and the majority of mankind sees women, has went
downhill from thereon after; alleging that since women are inferior in strength and in terms of their education,
they are to only be afforded less opportunities because they are only there to bear children, have and take care of a
family, and be consecrated as nuns in the church. Even though through the years the legal system and the laws
have changed, the stigma regarding the capabilities of women are still present which can be seen in labor, their
rights, and their standing in the world ruled by man. In the eyes of law, since women are inferior and men are
superior, there was a case instituted by a man that women are blindsided with what they are fighting for, and that
is equality or equal application of the law. But in fact, when we change the law and the legal system, and
ultimately quash the stigma which had prevailed in a patriarchal society, we are to say that such "act" of "begging"
that man and women be treated equal in the broadest manner is not a threat to the God Complex and ego of
men. Yes, it is true that women has long deviated from what is contemplated in the Maria Clara Doctrine that
"women are weak, shy, and soft", and because of this long-standing stigma, women had worked hard for
themselves to be recognized by this patriarchal society; being successful lawyers, entrepreneurs, and even being
dubbed as the richest woman on earth. It can also be heard in the song of Taylor Swift entitled "The Man'' which
encapsulated that the struggle of women is real; being told that she is not competent just because she is a woman
and that she needs to put in the hardwork for her to hopefully earn her place in this patriarchal world that we are,
unfortunately, in. Lastly under the context of the Legal System, it has been stated by the President of the United
States, Joe Bidden, that "women are being disadvantaged by the criminal and the legal system itself." In the setting
when a woman has been subjected to the hideous crime of rape, which is the first injustice experienced by her, she
is to be left feeling "dirty" or used by such unlawful acts done to her, but the real struggle for me is when she is
turned over to the police and was handled by male officers because let's face it, women police officers are to be
counted with fingers or with hands at the very least. The interrogation of male officers is not consoling and not
any way near comfortable because they are objectifying a woman on why such a thing has happened to her, and
the most disgusting question of all is this; "what were you wearing when that happened?". If the legal system
would have allowed more female police officers, then the victim would not be subjected to more trauma than she
already has experienced by the hands of her perpetrator, and that women would have then the confidence and
trust in the legal system because it was produced by research that most women who have experienced sexual
violence had a hard time contemplating to step into the light and file for a suit against their perpetrators because
of the incidents where the police officers will ultimately sexualize the investigation and also because of victim
blaming which is now rampant. This is me standing up for women and making 'mankind', which is a collective
word for all of the men in the world, that instituting change and equality in the system is not prejudicial to you
because what we ultimately want to happen is for the acknowledgement and inclusion of women in the world as
your counterparts and not as your rivals. Injustice and inequality will still be alive when we feel too insecure and
threatened with something that would disturb your "bubble" where in fact it should have been seen as the norm
 all along for women to be also thriving and being place-holders in this world. If in the case that men would try
and give a chance to women, it will be both big steps for MANkind and HERstory because by then we have
permanently closed "the gap." Babae kami, hindi babae lang.

The Womens Honor Doctrine otherwise known as the Maria Clara Doctrine is a doctrine applied in Rape Cases
which
provides that when a woman testifies in court about the circumstances of the carnal knowledge, the court
should be inclined to believe that this is true. The ratio of this pronouncement is: It is a well-known fact that
women, especially Filipinos, would not admit that they have been abused unless abuse had actually happened.
This is due to a belief that the offended party would not have positively stated that intercourse took place
unless it did actually take place. (People v. Tano, G.R. No. L-11991, 31 October 1960) The application of this
doctrine, however, was rejected in the case of People v. Amarela, G.R. No. 225642-43, 17 January 2018. The
Court, speaking through Justice Leonen, provided This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor. And
while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant
in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and
reserved Filipino woman. We should stay away from such a mindset and accept the realities of a woman's
dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a strong and confidently intelligent
and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights. In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private
complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural misconception. It is important to weed out these
unnecessary notions because an accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided of
course, that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things. Applying the tenets of Legal Realism as discussed in "The Path of the Law'', how should this
shift of perspective be appreciated?

- This shift of perspective is appreciated but with caution. It has been established that when we say Legal Realism,
we are to look at the laws and apply it as how it should have been applied and have been construed by our
lawmakers. In the given cases, I have observed that the application of such Women's Honor Doctrine in both
cases is far in respect to when it was applied; the other being in the year 1960 and the other in the year 2018. It has
been established that laws must be open to redirecting and that it should be evolving in the sense that it conforms
to the situation in the present. I agree with the statement that a woman's dynamic role in the society has changed
over the years; from being demure and being reserved to being a strong and independent woman who is willing to
fight for her rights. But as it is anchored to Legal Realism, we are to use the law or the doctrine in this case as it is.
Because no matter how circumstances are ever-changing, such perception of the women who are victims of rape is
still tenable and is even a form of protection from discrimination because what we call "victim blaming" is very
rampant in this generation. The women of today has absolutely evolved and changed; they have found the power
of speaking up for themselves as liberating and their only power in a patriarchal society but let us not make this
kind of change traumatic for them because there has been a tendency that if people would not believe their
testimony about the wrong done onto them and would put the blame on them. In the concept of the Moral
Truth, the truth is the truth and that such offer of the whole truth is equivalent to serving justice, then what
greater truth would be the testimony of the victim herself in such instances.

AS IT IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TENETS OF PHILOSOPHY OF LAW AND HISTORY OF LAW:

FEMINIST LEGAL THOUGHT / FEMINISM AND THE LAW

 ● PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD
● Women enjoyed a high social standing i.e. the “Babaylans”, women chieftains, etc. (Blair and
Robertson)
● Western thought diminished this standing
● The Spanish Regime constrained women
● *Only in 1863 where women were allowed to study (Colegios and Beaterios)
● Spanish institutions prepared women for motherhood or the religious life and was offered little
education

THE SPANISH CODIGO CIVILE DE 1889

● Patria Potestas and Pater Familias - husbands were the absolute rulers and wives were merely
subordinates

SPANISH COLONIAL RULE

● Her entry into the world of wage labor, which came with her employment in government-owned
tobacco factories in 1781; her demand for a more enlightened education, made in 1888 when women of
Malolos petitioned Governor General Weyler to open an academy where they could learn Spanish…

AMERICAN PERIOD

● The university system allowed women to get education; establishment for Primary Schools for boys and
girls, and the opening of the University of the Philippines.
● The stereotype remained
● As to labor, women were severely restricted, and special protection was given because of the supposed
“relative weakness of the average woman and on her child-bearing and maternal functions”

THE PRESENT

● The code commission in the Philippine Civil Code adopted a fundamental liberalization of women’s
rights
● However, the code retained discriminatory provisions against women
● The fundamental difference between ADULTERY & CONCUBINAGE
● The widow loses her parental authority over the child if she remarries, unless provided otherwise by
the will of the husband.

STRANDS OF FEMINIST THOUGHT

1. FIRST WAVE; struggling for the right to vote, granted with civil and political rights
2. SECOND WAVE; economic rights (work, labor)
3. THIRD WAVE; intersectionality, struggle for identity, recognizing that not all women and their
struggles are the same, bodily autonomy
SCHOOL’S THOUGHTS IN FEMINISM

● LIBERAL FEMINISM; upon political and legal changes, creates laws to serve as reparation to
feminism, women can only thrive in liberal democracy, very much western, within a human rights
framework.
● RADICAL FEMINISM; total overhaul of the system because the system is so rotten, to replace the
entire system that causes the prejudice of women.
● SOCIALIST FEMINISM; total overhaul of the system but only through the proletariat struggle that
women can conquer, because of the existing social systems, gender discrimination because of capitalism
● CONSERVATIVE FEMINISM; focuses on choice (empowered choice). What a woman chooses, it is
already good. Not force women to be open if she chooses not to be open. Primacy of choices of women
for themselves.

FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE

● How the law impacts practical and concrete circumstances of women

● Patriarchy infuses the legal system and all its workings, and that this is an unacceptable state of affairs
● Critical legal theory; challenged dominant narratives in the legal system
● Is not politically neutral, but a normative approach.

In the case of GARCIA V. DRILON G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013

● Equal protection vis-a-vis gender-based discrimination

● Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
● Classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences
● Germane to the purpose of the law
● Must not be limited to existing conditions only
● Must apply equally to each member of the class.

**JOE BIDEN

● Widespread gender bias

● Double victimization first at the hands of the offender and then of the legal system