Random Thoughts

Anything under the sun


Leave a comment

Of ‘Torts and Damages’ and Love: ‘Violenti non fit injuria’

While reading Torts and Damages cases for our class tomorrow, a thought came up:
In torts law, one of the principles, and defenses against liability for damages, is “violenti non fit injuria” — to one who is willing, there can be no injury. It means that a person, who voluntarily exposed him/herself to a known risk or danger, must abide by the consequences and cannot be entitled to damages should he/she thereafter suffer injury or damage therefrom (Ilocos Norte Electric Co. v. CAG.R. No. L-53401, November 6, 1989).

Just like LOVE. Yes. Love. With emphasis to “love” in romantic relationships. When we love, we assume the risk of getting hurt or getting rejected. We all know those risks yet we pursue the person or the relationship. Thus, if, at the end of the day, we end up getting hurt in loving someone, we cannot just cry foul and blame that person or God or the concept of love itself. Violenti non fit injuria. To one who is willing to love, he/she must bear the consequences.

So, should we stop loving then? Should I stop going to law school which might not love me back? Definitely not! 😀 The principle only reminds us that we be careful so that we will not end up hurting ourselves too much. Despite the uncertainties and risks in life, just keep loving until we find “the right one”. As the line in a movie goes, “As long as you love, there is hope.” 😀


Leave a comment

Human Rights Month: Inherent Right to Die?

If we have an inherent Right to Life, do we also have an inherent RIGHT TO DIE?

NO. The European Court of Human Rights in Pretty v. UK DID NOT allow the petitioner suffering from a motor neuron disease to commit suicide with the help of her husband because she did not have the right to die and that there is NO such thing as Right to Die which can be derived from the Right to Life. The Court explained:

The consistent emphasis in all the cases before the Court has been the obligation of the State to protect life. The Court is not persuaded that “the right to life” guaranteed in Article 2 can be interpreted as involving a negative aspect. While, for example in the context of Article 11 of the Convention, the freedom of association has been found to involve not only a right to join an association but a corresponding right not to be forced to join an association, the Court observes that the notion of a freedom implies some measure of choice as to its exercise (see Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, pp. 21-22, § 52, and Sigurđur A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland, judgment of 30 June 1993, Series A no. 264, pp. 15-16, § 35). Article 2 of the Convention is phrased in different terms. It is unconcerned with issues to do with the quality of living or what a person chooses to do with his or her life. To the extent that these aspects are recognised as so fundamental to the human condition that they require protection from State interference, they may be reflected in the rights guaranteed by other Articles of the Convention, or in other international human rights instruments. Article 2 cannot, without a distortion of language, be interpreted as conferring the diametrically opposite right, namely a right to die; nor can it create a right to self-determination in the sense of conferring on an individual the entitlement to choose death rather than life.

 


December is considered internationally as Human Rights Month. Specifically, December 10 is internationally known as Human Rights Day since it was on that day in 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was proclaimed.

If I have time, I may post Human Rights Law trivia every Wednesday of December this year as we are currently taking up Human Rights Law this semester. Know your rights! 😀

Source: Hunger Response

Source: Hunger Response


Leave a comment

Sabi ng BATAS | How Many Islands Does Philippines Have?

 

Since gradeschool, we were taught that the number of islands that our Philippine Archipelago has depends on the tide: we have 7,107 islands during low tide while we only have 7,100 islands during high tide.

However, under Public International Law, we actually have 7,100 islands only. In his reviewer book on Public International Law, International Law legal luminary Atty. Ralph Sarmiento clarified:

“If asked how many islands does the Philippines have, do not reply with ‘high tide or low tide?!’ The number of islands does not change whether it’s high tide or low tide because an island is always above water at high tide.”

Atty. Sarmiento anchors his explanation on Art. 121 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which defines “island” as a naturally formed mass of land, surrounded with waters, which is above water at high tide. In other words, the so-called seven islands of the Philippine Archipelago which appear during low tide cannot actually be considered as islands for they are submerged during high tide.

Kaya next time, whenever you will be asked again how many islands does Philippines have, just answer “7,100 islands”, no more, no less, until some of these islands would be submerged under water due to melting of the ice caps as a consequence of the rapid climate change caused by us. 😉


Leave a comment

Sigalot sa Lupa

Credits to the owner of this photo.

Credits to the owner of this photo.

 

In issue herein are property and property rights, a familiar subject of controversy and a wellspring of enormous conflict that has led not only to protracted legal entanglements but to even more bitter consequences, like strained relationships and even the forfeiture of lives.

It is a question that likewise reflects a tragic commentary on prevailing social and cultural values and institutions, where, as one observer notes,wealth and its accumulation are the basis of self-fulfillment and where property is held as sacred as life itself.

– Justice Abraham Sarmiento, Sr. in Adille v. CA, G.R. No. L-44546, January 29, 1988


Leave a comment

Statement of concern on the RP-US Agreement on Enhanced Security Cooperation (AEDC)

“The agreement apparently aims to increase and prolong the presence US troops in the country, and as government has already announced, allow the US access to Philippine bases, the prepositioning of US arms, military supplies and equipment as well as the construction and maintenance of US military facilities inside these Philippine bases.

Given these apparently new features, there is valid concern that the new pact may be going beyond the scope of previous military agreements. That contrary to the negotiators’ claims, this is not a mere implementing agreement of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement nor the periodic arrangements on mutual logistics and support. The AEDC as reported by media threatens to reverse the historic Senate vote that removed the US bases in 1991.”

Teddy Casiño

The following is the statement issued by former senators Guingona, Saguisag and Tañada plus several lawyers and concerned citizens regarding the military agreement to be signed between PH and US officials this morning.

We express our grave concern over news that a new military agreement called the Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation (AEDC) will be signed between the Philippines and the United States during next week’s visit of US President Barack Obama.

The agreement apparently aims to increase and prolong the presence US troops in the country, and as government has already announced, allow the US access to Philippine bases, the prepositioning of US arms, military supplies and equipment as well as the construction and maintenance of US military facilities inside these Philippine bases.

Given these apparently new features, there is valid concern that the new pact may be going beyond the scope of previous military agreements. That contrary to…

View original post 250 more words


Leave a comment

Sabi ng BATAS | Tara na’t mag-beach: The sea/ocean is a property of PUBLIC DOMAIN

Credits to TripAdvisor.com

Since it’s vacation period man when many people go to beaches, I just want to share what I learned in our Property Law class this evening:

The sea/ocean is a property of PUBLIC DOMAIN — it can neither be owned by the State nor by a private person (natural or juridical). it should be made available to the public.

Thus, for example, di ka pwedeng sitahin ni A kung nakarating ka na sa isang portion ng dagat na nasa tapat ng kanyang beach resort, kahit dun ka nagbayad sa katabing beach resort ni B. HINDI niya exclusive na pagmamay-ari ang portion na yan ng dagat. HINDI kasama sa binabayaran mo ang pagbabad o paglangoy mo sa dagat.

Kaya kung sisitahin ka next time, sabihin mo, PUBLIC DOMAIN ang karagatan; kahit yung mga sirena gaya ni Dyesibel, pwedeng magbabad sa karagatan nang walang bayad basta wag lang nilang angkinin ang karagatang nasa teritoryo ng Pinas.


Leave a comment

The high court should not abdicate its duty to protect freedom of expression

“No less than the U.N. Human Rights Committee has already declared that Philippine Criminal Libel Law is contrary to Freedom of Expression. The Court’s decision failing to declare libel as unconstitutional is therefore contrary to Human Rights Law.”

Harry Roque's Blog

After the oral argument on the 'Anti-Cybercrime Act of 2012' at the Supreme Court (Jan. 15, 2013) After the oral argument on the ‘Anti-Cybercrime Act of 2012’ at the Supreme Court (Jan. 15, 2013)

“The high court should not abdicate its duty to protect freedom of expression. No less than the U.N. Human Rights Committee has already declared that Philippine Criminal Libel Law is contrary to Freedom of Expression. The Court’s decision failing to declare libel as unconstitutional is therefore contrary to Human Rights Law.

“Centerlaw and our client, Alexander Adonis, welcome the other provisions of the Act such as the Take Down clause and the decision to strike down the real time gathering of information. This is indeed a major victory for privacy and the right of the people
to be secure in their communication.

“We will continue the fight to nullify criminal libel. Cyber libel is an infringement on free speech.”

Centerlaw issued this statement following today’s announcement that the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that online…

View original post 60 more words