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
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 be
subservient 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 retaliatory
measures. 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
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 the
Sabahans 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 dangers
of 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.