8/3/2019 1 4 7 10 ra

1/2

1. Historical perspectiveTwo main sources of jurisprudential thought and experience emerge from antiquity. These are thephilosophical speculation of the Greeks and the legal and administrative practice of the Romans. Thespeculative genius of Plato issued in the Republic and The Laws . Aristotle consolidated this body of philosophical thought and brought to it the strength of empirical observation in his treatises on ethics and

on politics.Greek speculation on the nature of law centered on the question of whether law exists by nature or byconvention. The Greek philosophers examined this fundamental question so thoroughly that it is hard tofind instances of contemporary speculation that escape the bounds set by the Greek thinkers.

Roman law, on the other hand, had an autonomous development based on a millennium of judicialexperience and administrative practice. Greek philosophical theories permeated the essence of Romanlaw, but the slow, steady accumulation of legal experience and its crystallization into general principles of law and finally into codification gave Roman law its enduring character. For the Romans, jurisprudencealways remained an eminently practical study.

These two sources, namely, Greek theories of the nature of justice and Roman experience in politicaladministration, became, after religion, the most dominant aspect of medieval culture. The idea of the Holy

Roman Empire with the Corpus Juris Civilis as a statute binding all Christendom and the Roman Catholicchurch with its manifold forms of law as spiritual authority for all Christians formed a coherent theoreticalstructure.

St. Thomas Aquinas divided law into the eternal, the divine, the natural, and the human. It will be notedthat two of these, the eternal law and the natural law, are theories of the nature of justice. The divine lawand the human law are ordained or posited. We thus see the divisions of antiquity continued in the form of notions of law that exists by nature and law that is ordained, whether by God or by man.

This distinction survived the Renaissance revolutions in science and government. Indeed, the greatpolitical revolutions were waged in the name of a secularized law of nature abstracted from the mind of man and considered the true mark of his humanity. Reason, as higher law, was held to legitimize revoltagainst the dictates of sovereign will.

This fundamental divergence of opinion on the nature of law came down to the twentieth century, theEnglish-speaking common law countries heavily committed to the view that law is the ordainment of alawfully constituted sovereign; and the civil law countries alternating between a social scientific view of law as positive enactment and law as existing in some sense independently of human disposition.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/jurisprudence.aspx

4. Jurisprudence already had this meaning in Ancient Rome even if at its origins the discipline was a( periti ) in the jus of mos maiorum (traditional law ), a body of oral laws and customs verbally transmitted"by father to son". Praetors established a workable body of laws by judging whether or not singular caseswere capable of being prosecuted either by the edicta, the annual pronunciation of prosecutable offense,or in extraordinary situations, additions made to the edicta. An iudex then would judge a remedyaccording to the facts of the case.

Their sentences were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but effectively itwas an activity that, apart from formally reconsidering for each case what precisely was traditionally in thelegal habits, soon turned also to a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to the newer social instances. The law was then implemented with new evolutive Institutiones (legal concepts ), while

8/3/2019 1 4 7 10 ra

2/2

remaining in the traditional scheme. Praetors were replaced in 3rd century BC by a laical bodyof prudentes . Admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence

7. Decisions of CA are not considered law because it is not considered to be a jurisprudence. Decisions of the SC may be set aside when the law applicable to a specific case is clear and does not need any more jurisprudence of the SC to support such law in consideration for the issue to be resolve in the said case.Another thing is that Sc jurisprudence may be set aside when the law involved in the decision hasalready been changed by repeal or amendment thus may constitute the jurisprudence to be contrary tothe new repealed or amended law. (sagot ko lang yan)

1o. Di ko talaga alam ito kasi di ko gets kung ano ung tinutukoy sa question na in light of report on usesof law. may sarili akong sagot.... sabihin ko na lang tomorrow. Pasok na lang tayo ng 5pm para sa

legphilo natin. Pasensya na....