Law & Economics Paper #1
The world does not operate in a vacuum. Neither does the law. Various considerations come into play whenever one would try to explain what the law is and how it operates. Legal theories and ideologies analyzing the law from different perspectives abound. The two introductory readings assigned in class beg the question, what then is the nexus between law and economics?
It is obvious that laws are part and parcel of a country’s economic policy. If the President decides to meddle with tariffs, then her decision must be grounded on sound advice from economists, else, she and her cohorts will be in the poorhouse along with the rest of the country. The legislature could also direct the course of the country’s economy in formulating laws that would, for example, give incentives to manufacturers/producers of agricultural products. It is less perceptible, however, how economics could come into play in shaping legal thought or trends, especially in the Philippine setting.
The Philippine legal system can perhaps be summed up in the separation of powers doctrine. The legislature makes, the judiciary interprets, and the executive implements, the law. This seemingly clear-cut allocation of the powers of government is still subject to the first premise above, that the world does not operate in a vacuum. For instance, the oft-quoted legal maxim, Dura lex, sed lex, suggests that for laws to be effective, there must be no deviation from what the law says. The rigid application of the law, although ideal, is not always the rule. Consider the Manila Hotel case where the Supreme Court suddenly used national patrimony, evoking thoughts of a hundred years of struggle to regain the Filipino identity, in ruling for the losing bidder. One would wonder if the court really knew what it was doing. In Congress, it would also appear that the only thing related to economy would be how much money it would take for a bill to be passed and approved and how much this year’s pork barrel allocation would be. As for the implementation of the law, a P 100 bill would be enough to write off that MMDA ticket. For all the considerations behind each law, decision or implementation of the law, it would appear that economics takes the back seat.
The two readings submit that it might be possible to use principles of economics in shaping/analyzing legal thought. If laws do not operate in a vacuum, how must they be construed and more importantly, what approach must be used in ensuring that the laws achieve their ends? Economics is scientific in its application. In economics, certain conditions always give rise to certain results. Can this approach seriously be used in the Philippine legal setting where even an obvious interpretation of the law can be glossed over so glaringly? Is there a pattern in Philippine jurisprudence that can be explained away by principles in economics? Is it feasible for the judiciary to consider economics as a factor in its decisions? A negative answer might prove to be just a symptom of myopia.
The world does not operate in a vacuum. Neither does the law. Various considerations come into play whenever one would try to explain what the law is and how it operates. Legal theories and ideologies analyzing the law from different perspectives abound. The two introductory readings assigned in class beg the question, what then is the nexus between law and economics?
It is obvious that laws are part and parcel of a country’s economic policy. If the President decides to meddle with tariffs, then her decision must be grounded on sound advice from economists, else, she and her cohorts will be in the poorhouse along with the rest of the country. The legislature could also direct the course of the country’s economy in formulating laws that would, for example, give incentives to manufacturers/producers of agricultural products. It is less perceptible, however, how economics could come into play in shaping legal thought or trends, especially in the Philippine setting.
The Philippine legal system can perhaps be summed up in the separation of powers doctrine. The legislature makes, the judiciary interprets, and the executive implements, the law. This seemingly clear-cut allocation of the powers of government is still subject to the first premise above, that the world does not operate in a vacuum. For instance, the oft-quoted legal maxim, Dura lex, sed lex, suggests that for laws to be effective, there must be no deviation from what the law says. The rigid application of the law, although ideal, is not always the rule. Consider the Manila Hotel case where the Supreme Court suddenly used national patrimony, evoking thoughts of a hundred years of struggle to regain the Filipino identity, in ruling for the losing bidder. One would wonder if the court really knew what it was doing. In Congress, it would also appear that the only thing related to economy would be how much money it would take for a bill to be passed and approved and how much this year’s pork barrel allocation would be. As for the implementation of the law, a P 100 bill would be enough to write off that MMDA ticket. For all the considerations behind each law, decision or implementation of the law, it would appear that economics takes the back seat.
The two readings submit that it might be possible to use principles of economics in shaping/analyzing legal thought. If laws do not operate in a vacuum, how must they be construed and more importantly, what approach must be used in ensuring that the laws achieve their ends? Economics is scientific in its application. In economics, certain conditions always give rise to certain results. Can this approach seriously be used in the Philippine legal setting where even an obvious interpretation of the law can be glossed over so glaringly? Is there a pattern in Philippine jurisprudence that can be explained away by principles in economics? Is it feasible for the judiciary to consider economics as a factor in its decisions? A negative answer might prove to be just a symptom of myopia.
0 comments:
Post a Comment