Let’s talk turkey on Latin maxims
With a negligible risk of error, it could be said that while Latin phrases are deemed the bedrock principles of modern law, some have become obsolete.
Text size
With a negligible risk of error, it could be said that while Latin phrases are deemed the bedrock principles of modern law, some have become obsolete.
Offhand, it can be said that there has been no heavy downpour of Latin maxims in the impeachment trial at this point except for a handful, namely, “sui generis,” “salus populi est suprema lex,” “ab initio,” “ad cautelam,” “prima facie” and “motu proprio.”
That being so, it renders empty the condescending assertion that most people might fail to understand the exchange of legal argumentation by the parties. It’s safe to assume that Filipinos in general do comprehend every sequence in the regimented proceedings at 8 on a scale of 10.
With a negligible risk of error, it could be said that while Latin phrases are deemed the bedrock principles of modern law, some have become obsolete, or otherwise put, “cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex” — when the reason for a law ceases, the law itself ceases. At best, their old meanings have evolved based on modern legal standards.
For instance, the historical maxim “cujus est solum,” which means land ownership extends infinitely upward, is now affected by aviation laws and public airspace rights. For another, “falsus in uno,” meaning false in one, false in everything, or a lie discredits the whole thing, is replaced by a judicial weighing of the evidence.
Further, actio personalis moritur cum persona, or an action ends when one of the parties dies, is now overruled by wrongful death and survival statutes. And not the least, “caveat emptor,” which means the buyer assumes all transaction risks, has been reconfigured by consumer protection laws.
How about “rex non potest peccare,” which means the king can do no wrong? When the President himself was the one who exposed the deeply entrenched corruption in the administration, what applies is “fiat justitia ruat caelum,” which means let justice be done though the heavens fall, other alternate supporting maxims notwithstanding.
Verily, “ex dolo malo non oritur actio,” which literally means that no man can file a claim upon his own wrongdoing, appears to reflect the President’s “mandate that contractors and accomplices behind substandard projects will not profit and must shoulder the full rectification costs.”
Pragmatically, the exception to this is when the accuser is found to be the villain himself, which others view isn’t far remote since the breadcrumbs (the loot) are traced to the doorsteps of Malacañang, or the President’s young subalterns being allegedly implicated in the multibillion-peso heist.
It begs stating that not a few legal jurisdictions likewise rely heavily on Latin maxims in their jurisprudence. This is so to “distill complex legal principles, streamline judicial reasoning, preserve connection to historic Roman law roots.” Thus, despite the so-called “Plain English” movement having reduced its usage in legal drafting, these maxims never cease to be used as foundational tools for judges worldwide.
While indeed Latin maxims matter in our native jurisprudence, prudence demands that they be cautiously used in light of evolving legal systems, modern statutes, or perhaps third-order legal precedents. Interestingly, one wonders if such maxims as “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, rule for the accused) or “pacta sunt servanda” (agreements must be kept) could ordinarily provide support for Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, now turned PDL (person deprived of liberty).
Arguably, although Marcoleta’s motion to quash was dismissed at its most preliminary stage, there appears to be strong belief in any way, shape or form that the plunder charged against him could raise a modicum of doubt that thereby opens a window of opportunity for acquittal at some future time.
In light of the Latin maxim, “in dubio pro reo,” how is it not possible that this protects his rights as an accused, consistent with the constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence, such that if there’s reasonable doubt, the court must acquit him?
In like vein, could not the paired maxims “ab initio” (from the beginning) and “ad cautelam” (with caution) be applied as to favor VP Sara Duterte, respectively, as when the Supreme Court declared her initial 2025 articles of impeachment unconstitutional, along with her answer “ad cautelam” raising such trial as procedurally defective and the Senate impeachment court shouldn’t have jurisdiction?
It’s in the highest cognizant court to decide.
