Abstract / Excerpt:

More than a hundred years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that object of the study of the law is prediction, "the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of courts." A current legal theorist, on the other hand, writes that predictability, together with acceptability, is one of the most important features of legitimacy of any legal system. A stable body of rules, changed only after a careful consideration, is one guarantee of predictability.
With respect to decisions, the most important tool for enhancing consistency and predictability is the policy of stare decisis. The policy means that "once a point of law has been established by the court, that point of law will, generally, be followed by the same court and by all courts of lower rank in subsequent cases where the same legal issue is raised." One needs no authority for the proposition that lawyers and litigants will find no solace in a system where legal rules are interpreted by judges in any which way they want.
This essay is a cautious excursion into the field of conflicting pronouncements of a Supreme Court that can split itself into several divisions, and the implications of the resulting uncertainty in the practice of law.

Full Text

More than a hundred years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that object of the study of the law is prediction, "the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of courts." A current legal theorist, on the other hand, writes that predictability, together with acceptability, is one of the most important features of legitimacy of any legal system. A stable body of rules, changed only after a careful consideration, is one guarantee of predictability.
With respect to decisions, the most important tool for enhancing consistency and predictability is the policy of stare decisis. The policy means that "once a point of law has been established by the court, that point of law will, generally, be followed by the same court and by all courts of lower rank in subsequent cases where the same legal issue is raised." One needs no authority for the proposition that lawyers and litigants will find no solace in a system where legal rules are interpreted by judges in any which way they want.
This essay is a cautious excursion into the field of conflicting pronouncements of a Supreme Court that can split itself into several divisions, and the implications of the resulting uncertainty in the practice of law.

Info

Source Journal	Mindanao Law Journal
Journal Volume	Mindanao Law Journal Vol.1 No.1
Authors	Gil A. de la Banda
Page Count	6
Place of Publication	Davao City
Original Publication Date	August 1, 2007
Tags

Preview