FERNANDEZ- I believe that withJustice Recto's proposition for a Presidential Pardon is the right thing to do. For in the case of the defenders, in where they are trapped in an underground prison without knowing as to whether they will be successfully rescued or not, the will to survive will never be in question. The rescue operation already claimed ten lives among the rescuers just to save the lives of the individuals imprisoned underground and just killing one of explorers’ to survive be considered a murder? I don’t believe it’s a murder but a self-preservation.

JACA - I like the last scene when the President checked the time on her watch and clenched her hands in dismay. The fate of the four explorers was sad. The arguments made were compelling that it stirred my mind on my perception and interest in studying the law. One of the counsel made a stand that the law is the law and that the wilfull killing corresponds to a death penalty (legal positivism). The other also questioned about the death penalty, what makes it differet from killing? The laws created are not only there to be obeyed but to be questioned until there are no more questions to be asked. This realization from Fr. Dan's discussion changed my perception of law from black and white to a colorful interesting palette on the different legal theories we can apply in understanding and in studying the law. This film is exceptional because it conveyed the message extensively. I am amazed with the cinematography as compared to the output of film making in my undergrad years a long time ago (hehe).

DANCEL - This is a very complex case, and all the justices presented various perspectives. I agree with all of them to some degree, albeit with some reservations. As they have painstakingly stretched the legal and moral reasoning behind the ruling they aim to arrive to, I am left questioning if morality is the basis of rules, or are rules the basis of morality? Overall, I do acknowledge that the law is indeed hard, but it is the law. The explorers were, however, pushed to commit a heinous crime out of desperation; they were not in their right minds. I believe the law, to a certain degree, pardons mental incapacity. This does not mean that they should be pardoned of their murder, but it must affect the weight of their punishment. Death sentence may not be the most viable answer, especially after all the lives that have already been lost-not out of pity or morality, but by principle of the justness of the law.

CALE-Among them all, Mr Soccoros' argument stands out the strongest. As one who inclines with the naturalist theory, Socorro's argument is compelling since he has exactly presented the experience of the accused and how it might justify the act. Socorro presented the experience of the accused and by which we can affirm that the subjective experiences of the individuals who murdered Roy might be valid. Socorro presented the nature of man in such dire circumstances and presented the idea of attending or mitigating circumstances in criminal proceedings which if taken into context, the idea logically follows. Article 13 Section 4 or 6, might be used to mitigate the circumstance and avoid capital punishment. I do believe that Socorro's arguments were the best since it captured exactly the nature of man in such case and allowed the idea that Laws should serve man, not man should serve the law.

VILLEGAS- I stand by Justice Recto’s assertion that although these men have violated the sanctity of human life, they did not deserve capital punishment. When lawyers are faced with a moral dilemma, it is imperative to see things from all possible angles. The case has a lot riding to it-fate of 4 surviving explorers who have already undergone a traumatic experience, sacrifice of 10 workmen who made the rescue possible, justice for Roy death, etc. The letter of the law on murder is clear, but it failed to account the extraordinarily rare precedent of the accused. Clemency for the survivors ensures upholding the law, and at the same time taking into account the precedence for their actions.

MANULAT - I support the arguments provided by Mr. Socorro, as he reflect the second argument of one of the main characters of the Speluncean Case - Justice Foster. He is adopting a more flexible approach, considering the moral implications and arguing that the explorers acted out of necessity. He claims that the situation faced by the explorers was extraordinary and that their actions, while technically illegal, were driven by an imperative of self-preservation. He acknowledges that the law is not always perfectly aligned with morality, and in cases of extreme necessity, moral considerations should influence judicial decisions. Mr. Socorro advocates for a more realistic approach that takes into account the human element and the specifics of the case. He believes that a rigid application of the law, without consideration of circumstances, would be unjust. He argues that the extreme circumstances they faced should be taken into account, and that the law should be applied in a way that reflects the moral realities of the situation.

AMODIA-After watching the movie would like to center on how well the film conveys the deep moral and ethical issues of the speluncean case, particularly from a perspective that values compassion, mercy, and the possibility of redemption. I conclude that the movie serves as a powerful reminder that true justice must consider the full humanity of those involved, taking into account not only their actions but also their intentions, circumstances and potential for moral growth. Thus, illustrates the need for a justice system that is not only fair and consistenr but also aligned with the deeper moral laws that guide human conscience.

MIRALLO-After hearing all of the council's arguments, I stand by Ms. Recto's proposition for a Presidential Pardon and ask Congress to eliminate the capital punishment. While it is true that the end does not justify the methods, the defendants did what was necessary to live. Killing the four explorers to adhere with the written ruling and to maintain honor amidst potential humiliation is tantamount to the four defendants murdering one of their peers to elude starvation. I do not say that the defendants should be released just because their conducts are justifiable; rather, I argue that we should give them considerable punishment.The defendants are a victim of this predicament. If the statute states, "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death" and no one is exempt, does the sentence of the defendants extend to the decision bodies as well?

Bacomo - Morality may not have been the basic foundation of law, but it is one of the basis. Laws were created to guide people right from wrong, but how can we give guidance if the conflict is between the law and moral itself? This is the question that intrigued my mind upon learning of the gruesome case of the trapped hikers. In the situation of the hikers, the idea of cannibalism came whilst their minds were clouded with fear, hunger, and thirst. I can't help but make a comparison between the jurists and the hikers. In the case of the hikers, rational thinking has left and the instinct to survive kicked in. What happened to Roy may have been a necessary evil, an action, albeit being gruesome. In the case of the jurists, of course they could still argue the difference between grey and gray in the comforts of their cozy offices, sadly the hikers didn't have.

LABITAD - I acknowledge the legal and moral arguments presented by all the council members. However, I stand by the argument of Miss Recto that presidential pardon be granted and ask the Congress to abolish the capital punishment. The law must be right and just otherwise it does not bind. Sacrificing the lives of the 4 survivors is an injustice to the sacrifice of the lives of Roy and the rescuers.

ABADILLA - The dilemma is obviously how case highlights different approaches to legal reasoning. The president has discretionary capacity of clemency. The movie enrich our understanding of how law interacts with ethics and human experience.

ARIAS, DON ROEL - Granting Executive Clemency to the four survivors is a PREROGATIVE or discretion of the President of the Republic to make. Although it is arduous and herculean, she should not have passed her responsibility to the organized small council to validate the decision of the Supreme Court. It should have been her decision to grant pardon or conviction to the survivors based on the merit of her conviction. The position of Mr. Juesan, her political opponent, reinforced the cited premise. His observation on the attitude of the President to dodge her responsibilities manifested her weakness to arrive at a sound judgment on the fate of the survivors and their families. While it is true that law and morality do not blend together, the merits of the action of the survivors to kill Roy Whetmore despite his strong appeal to withdraw constituted a crime that is punishable by law. The presentations of facts and arguments for the proofs of the killing is very clear that a crime was committed paving the way for the legal maxim, “In criminalibus, probationes debent esse luce clariones”, in criminal cases the proofs ought to be clearer than light. In the short film, I noticed a thread of philosophical humanism and justice in the position of Mr. Manglapus when he pointed out that the Lady Justice covers her eyes in order not to be bias without letting the outside factors influence her decision. The consistency of his position brings to a conclusion that as appointed members of the small council, they are the guardians of society. This conclusion is supported by the theory of John Rawls that one should do a “reflective equilibrium when making decisions “. For me, on the part of the President, it seems that she has imagined herself under the “veil of ignorance “ unaware of her place in society. Imagine the survivors are to be thrown into a situation that they do not have a choice but to wait for the pronouncement of the government through the President. Therefore, the law must be applied equally to all persons without fear or favor as it is guided by a general rule, “mala in se” which involves moral turpitude and “mala prohibita” wherein acts are made punishable, like killing, in order to secure a more orderly society.

OMAYAN- After a thorough eyeing on this short film, the council were confronted on the urgent need for a due demand of observation on the arguments laid by the justices. Different views were presented on whether or not a clemency be granted. I stand by the principle that the “end does not justify the means”. Deciding objectively encompasses the concepts of an external reality, impartiality, neutrality, scientific inquiry, and truth.

PREJOLES- It reveals that laws, as written codes, have limitations when applied to extraordinary situations that lawmakers may not have anticipated. This underscores the need for flexibility and the potential need for judicial discretion to ensure that justice is served in cases where strict adherence to the law could lead to unjust outcomes.

SALADAGA- Each argument is significant as they firmly highlighted the need to understand the contexts in which the law is applied. This supports a more detailed and careful approach to justice that considers the human factors involved in legal decisions, especially on cases like this one. But, it would have been more effective if they had first heard or considered each side before casting their votes. As to my end, there should be complete regard and respect for our laws, but there should also be consideration on the exceptional nature of certain cases. I therefore support for the appeal of an absolute pardon, and for the legislators to consider abolishing death penalty, and align penal codes more closely with ethical standards and societal needs. Appreciation for all the efforts behind this production❤❤

ARNADO III, CATALINO G. -The third speaker (Mr. Socorro) for me is the most compelling among the speakers. His philosophical approach on the case seeks to deliver justice in a way that is both legally sound and morally sensitive. This ensures that the legal system remains relevant and just in addressing complex and extraordinary cases like that of the Speluncean explorers. In his approach, he expresses his sentiments by addressing the issue in a balanced way provided that the 1st and 2nd speakers had given their argument of the case, that opposes to one another. Mr. Socorro shows a balanced approach towards the case by acknowledging the importance of the law but also recognizes the need to adapt its application in extraordinary circumstances. This balance between legal adherence and compassion ensures that justice is not only done but is also perceived as fair and humane. He then also takes into account the extreme conditions faced by the spelunkers, the third speaker emphasizes the importance of context in legal decision-making. This recognition of human frailty and the psychological impact of such dire circumstances makes their argument deeply empathetic and relatable. He also then added that in making decision of certain cases like this one it is also imperative to take into consideration that justice can be beyond the letters of the law. The call for flexibility in legal judgments ensures that the law serves the people, rather than strictly enforcing rules that may lead to unjust outcomes. This perspective aligns with the broader goal of justice, which is to achieve fairness and equity in society, even if it means deviating from rigid legal formalism. Lastly, unlike the first speaker, who may risk subjectivity by overemphasizing morality, or the second speaker, who may come across as overly rigid, the third speaker avoids these extremes. He advocate for a nuanced application of the law that considers both legal principles and the human context, making his argument more practical and adaptable.

SIALONGO- After watching the film, it's the adoptation and effectivity of the rule of law matters for me at the end because even if how much we dig deeper to present our own mind boggling interpretation in the vastness of what is right or wrong, we still couldn't reach the verdict of our thoughts. Human as we are, simply being humane to our fellow human being is enough. However, we live in the world where we are bound to preserve and protect the law of the land while we still exist. May all of us deserve a second chance to review and include important provisions, that is to constantly review, amend, and revisit the applicability of the lawin order to arrive a common goal and direction in attaining fair and just society.

BEBERINO - Based on the short movie presented, there is an obvious dilemma between the law and morality in the matter of whether or not to grant executive clemency to the accused explorers. In my part, I strongly agree with the contention of Mr. Marcelo that the law by design is oppressive against the social class of the accused persons in this case. Given the cases he cited, including wealthy and known individuals who have committed heinous crimes a number of times but are still acquitted because they are public figures and have connections, this is just a manifestation of injustice. In addition, it also gives a greater possibility of risking the lives of innocent people, often affecting the vulnerable population in society. Hence, this shows inequality before the law. For me, granting executive clemency is the best thing to do. The death penalty is just likened to committing a crime. This is so because we still take the life of another person, which is a violation of our right to life. We should not allow the death penalty, but life imprisonment should be the highest kind of punishment to be given to give them the chance for self-realization through suffering in their entire lives for the consequences they have heavily and wrongfully committed. Granting capital punishment to the accused does not always provide the sense of justice that families require.

ABAPO-After considering the various arguments presented by the justices in the short film, Justice Recto's perspective aligns most closely with my own view of the case. She argues that "unless a law is right and just, it does not have the force to compel duties and obligations." This raises a crucial point: how can sentencing the four defendants to death be considered right and just, given the extreme circumstances they endured and the sacrifices others made to save them? Such a verdict would undermine the value of those sacrifices, including Roy’s. For this reason, I support the appeal for an absolute pardon.

ARMAMENTO- Each argument is notable as they all stood firmly and emphasized the importance of understanding the circumstances surrounding the application of the law. This advocates for a more nuanced approach to justice that considers the human aspects behind legal decisions. The case prompts reflection on the integrity of applying legal principles strictly versus considering ethical implications. It presents a scenario where the rigid application of the law can lead to unjust outcomes. The extreme situation challenges the notion of strict adherence to the law and raises important questions about whether laws should be applied rigidly or interpreted with flexibility to account for extraordinary circumstances. After careful consideration, I adhere to the idea of granting executive clemency. The severe punishment of the explorers, who committed the crime out of desperation, is unfair. Given the life-threatening situation and moral dilemmas they faced, they should be judged with compassion and understanding of their extreme circumstances. Life imprisonment may be a more humane and fair alternative to the death penalty, as it allows for the preservation of life while still holding them accountable. Great job to everyone who contributed to this piece.

Binghay - I find the argument of Ms. Recto to be sentimental that she condemns the killing of Roy however she forgot that Roy (Whetmore) withdraws from the casting of dice. His death did not come from sacrifice for his colleagues. If Roy's death was intended to save the lives of the four defendants, then we must also consider Roy's right to preserve his own life. What if the situation changed, and instead of being a victim, Roy was attacked by the group, but he managed to get hold of a revolver and shot one of the spelunkers in self-defense? Would Roy still face the same charges as the defendants? Like them, Roy has the right to protect his own life, which is recognized as self-defense. However, Roy had no means and was not a threat to the group. What matters is that his life was taken from him by the group who had days of premeditated deliberation of the intent to kill. As Justice Keen in the said "Judges should not be driven by personal predilections, Dura Lex Sed Lex. Meanwhile I concur with Mr. Sanchez that justice should demand accountability, and we should not tamper the provision the state, while I do think we can only sympathize, but deciding on the case we must consider that there should be Justice for the killing of Roy. In the argument of Mr. Socorro, I have dissenting opinion if we allow this kind of decision based on natural law that we pardon the defendants because he argues that they are were not in the "state of law" but in the "state of nature". It would undermine the enforceability of the law. Supplementing my argument is that in the Lon F. Fuller paper. Justice Foster referenced a case of a similar situation Commonwealth V. Valjean. Here are the facts where the accused was indicted on larceny where he/she only stole a loaf of bread and was criminal convicted by the same court of the same Justices of Fuller's paper. Applying the legal doctrine of stare decisis when a previous court ruled on the same issue, the court willing make their ruling based on precedence. Therefore, we must be consistent with Jurisprudence

HINGPIT - I find all the arguments compelling that require a deep understanding of the law and the peculiarities of the case. However, given all the arguments presented, I support Mr. Soccoro’s reasoning on the importance of considering the attending circumstances when sentencing in any criminal proceeding. This aligns with natural law, as he reasoned by considering the phenomenology of hunger and the grave situation the Speluncean Explorers are in. It is true that discussing justice and the application of the law is easier when there are no compromising circumstances surrounding a case. But the case of the Speluncean Explorers is not an easy case, it is complex and requires a balance between adherence to the law and morality. It would be unjust not to consider the attending circumstances, as they are the foundation of why there is a case to begin with. Furthermore, I would argue with Mr. Sanchez’s statement, “Since when did morality become the foundation of our legal order?” I believe that morality is actually the foundation of a legal order. Laws are rules for man to realize and share basic natural goods, which become society’s common good. If morality were not the foundation of the law, there would be unreasonable and unjust laws in the legal system. Questioning the reasonableness and justness of a law would not be possible without considering human morality. Man is the lawmaker and is also the one who questions the reasonableness and justness of laws, and it is inherent in human nature to understand what is naturally good.

KILAT- The speakers are good in philosophizing the case of Speluncean Explorers. They have given their legal grounds and philosophy on the case. However, I would like to give my insightful thought with regard to the argument of the 1st speaker and 2nd speaker. The 1st Speaker commits Contradiction and "Argumentum Ad Misericordiam". Well it is prevalent on her introductory argument that Rhoy was killed and that the 4 accused were guilty on Rhoy's brutal murder. The speaker later on contradict her 1st proposition and said on her subsequent proposition that these 4 people have gone through a lot in the cave and there were 10 rescuers die in the process and also Rhoy's sacrifice will go squander if these 4 people are to die. This is also a form of pity, in order not to waste the heroic death of the people in the cave the 4 accused must be granted and absolute pardon from the President. I do appreciate how the 1st speaker is against on the death penalty. And to the 2nd Speaker, when does morality become the foundation of our Legal Order? I would like to have my comment on this through the Work of St. Thomas Aquinas through his work on Summa Theologica, which he said that the natural and ineradicable inclination of human nature to the good in general, and our knowledge to the 1st principle of morality, this is known as Synderesis. As human beings we have the inclination toward what is good, and this inclination is the inborn knowledge that leans us toward moral action. So we have an innate desire which is to do good and to avoid evil. Our inclination toward good is called Moral action and our inclination toward evil is immoral action. So to answer when does morality become the foundation of the legal structure is the moment the human person inclined to good. If my propositions are not into your liking, I promote Ecumenism, Let's talk what unites our ideas rather than what divides our ideas. Thank you

ESGUERRA-The four explorers are guilty of the murder of Mr. Rhoy. I understand the arguments of others who wanted the four explorers to be acquitted but let's just say that what would happen if they hadn't been rescued? Kill another person? What about after that? The only reason that they would choose to kill and eat a person is because of the assumption that doing so will keep them alive long enough to be rescued. However, I don't support the punishment of such a crime which is the death penalty. Killing will not solve anything. Killing the murderers cannot genuinely relieve the suffering of the family of Mr. Rhoy but just extends the suffering to the families of the four explorers.

SUMALPONG - The case of the Speluncean explorers is truly mind-boggling and truly presents a complex intersection of law and morality. Just like the justices, the Council of the President also faced the same dilemma, each having their own interpretation and reflecting or showing their philosophical views based on their decisions. From the video presented, each council member expressed their different arguments. Ms. Recto argued that statues are only valid insofar as they conform to what is right. She affirmed the conviction of the defendants but not the death penalty, since she believes that the law must be right and just. This showed that she is a legal activist, where contemporary values are used in interpreting the Constitution. Mr. Sanchez’s decision showed that he was a positivist since he argued that justice requires accountability and must be applied justly. The law may be harsh, but it is the law, and it would be unjust if there was a selective application of justice. Mr. Socorro’s argument highlighted that he was a naturalist, since he argued that the phenomenology of hunger among the defendants must be considered. Further, Mr. Wesley decided to stand by what the judiciary had decided. This presented judicial restraint, meaning he followed the past decisions already made and did not make any changes to the current statutes. Mr. Manapul later argued that there is a reason why criminal justice is harsh, which showed that he is a legal positivist since he was also cautious about giving presidential pardon. Lastly, Mr. Marcelo claimed that the defendants must be granted pardon and argued that the law is discriminatory and oppressive against the social class. To my end, I was poignant with the argument of Ms. Recto; however, for now, I still stick to my decision to side with Justice Keen and Mr. Sanchez. Dura Lex, sed Lex. Laws cannot be unjust because they are promulgated by a party with sovereign authority. P.S. I commend the people behind the video for such an entertaining film. The effort and dedication you all put into this project are truly evident and have aided us in our study.

TALANDRON- It is concerning that the president was not present during the discussion of the arguments. Her insights on the matter would have been more substantial if she would have been present. Similarly, the voting process within the council might have been more meaningful if all members had the opportunity to hear each other's points of view before casting their votes. On Another Note: I find myself aligned with Miss Recto’s stance. It's hypocritical that while the law condemns murder, we become murderers ourselves by affirming the death penalty for these individuals. We must remember to respect the judiciary as a separate entity from the legislative branch. However, the legislative body can amend laws when deemed necessary. The existence of each entity serves as a check and balance of the laws governing the rights of the people.

SORIANO - While watching the short film I had put myself as one of the explorers and asked myself; would I do the same? Since it’s a human instinct to survive. But to the extent of killing ? I find it illogical and morally unethical . Thus, like any other justices in the forum I condemn the criminals ; an eye for an eye. Even how harsh the law is , it is a law nobody is immune from it even under circumstance. I go for the Justices who are against in giving the criminals pardon . What’s the use of laws if these justices violate? Kudos to Father Dan and to the actors & actresses as well ; you all deserved to be called atty.

BARNIDO - Mr. Socorro's arguments were persuasive, though I believe a deeper exploration could have strengthened his case. The oft-repeated maxim Dura lex sed lex ("The law is harsh, but it is the law") sometimes blinds us to the fact that the law cannot be applied in a overly rigid, black-and-white manner. There are exceptions and mitigating and extenuating circumstances that warrant a more nuanced approach in evaluating this case. Being subjected to extreme hunger and the doom of impending death are extreme circumstances that could have been considered. The justice system must remain attuned to the complexities of real life and ensure that it dispenses justice with both fairness and compassion. I’m reminded of the case of Marivic Genosa (People vs Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, September 29, 2000). The court grappled with the challenge of addressing the concept of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) within the existing legal framework. Given that BWS is a relatively new concept in jurisprudence, the court took an extraordinary approach, delving into extensive studies and research to better understand the syndrome and the psychological impact on chronically abused individuals. While the court expressed deep sympathy for those affected by BWS, it emphasized the need to operate strictly within the boundaries of existing laws, acknowledging that it could not create or amend those laws. In Marivic Genosa's case, the court found that the requirements for establishing self-defense were not fully met, resulting in the affirmation of her conviction for parricide. However, recognizing the mitigating circumstances, the court reduced her sentence significantly. Since she had already served more than the minimum sentence, the court ordered her release, provided there were no other legal reasons to detain her. This case illustrates that while the court was constrained by the existing legal framework and could not overturn the guilty verdict, it acknowledged the severe suffering Marivic Genosa endured at the hands of her husband and did everything within its power to mitigate her sentence. Lady Justice may be blind but I would like to believe that she is not oblivious to the complexities and realities of the world. Addendum: I would like to commend this class for this gem of a video. The production values, cinematography, and the writing are really really great. 🎉

Castañares -The Chief Justice's argument in the Case of the Speluncean Explorers is persuasive due to its balanced approach, combining strict adherence to the law with a recognition of extraordinary circumstances. This stance upholds the integrity of the legal system by interpreting the statute literally, while simultaneously acknowledging the need for mercy through a recommendation for executive clemency. The approach not only respects the separation of powers but also provides a clear, consistent application of the law. Ultimately, it presents a compelling perspective that addresses both legal rigidity and moral flexibility in this complex case.

QUILARIO - I conform to the argument of Mr. Marcelo as he points the subjective application of the law towards the powerful and the rich in comparison to the helpless and suppressed. The examples that he provided showcased the clear distinction on how the legal system is manipulative on the cases of differential status but similar circumstances. I do hereby agree that these men represent the oppressed where the law applied is interpreted in a manner that oversees the undeniable circumstances and bids them no excuse for justification. Though It is true that the law should not be bendable for selective application and it demands accountability but I do hereby agree to the question, whose accountability does this apply? If the law is indeed a definitive structure that should be followed, why did these powerful men deserve the pardon and commutation they received. How did these men differ from the heinous crimes they committed from the explorers. The previous examples where these powerful men raped the innocent was a willful act outside a dire situation and yet there was no discussion regarding the pardon or commutation they received. However, these men who were in the death row due to hunger and starvation for a sacrifice that would allow them to live. Though it is truly heinous and monstrous this does not differ from the disgusting crime that these powerful men did. Therefore, i do support the argument Mr. Marcelo placed during the discussion as it places an insightful perspective towards the difference in how cases are dealt between the ordinary and the powerful.

AUGUIS - This case is indeed mind-blowing and disheartening on what side to take as a human and a student of law. In this, I fully support the argument of Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Manglapos, and Mr. Huezan (not sure if I hear it right). The law is harsh, but it is the law. And morality is neither the foundation nor the basis of the law; the law constitutes the essence of morality. If justices have to first rely on morality and sympathy, what will its effects be on those cases that were examined without the eyes of sympathizers yet deserve it? And what will it bring to the future when a similar case is also to be faced? Sympathy proposes the fact that selective application of the law is present. Since when is our law based on sympathy? We are in a generation where killing / cannibalism will be judged in the eyes of the law. Thus, the law must be applied without exception and uncompromised. Mr. Manglapos, in the movie, argued that lawmaking bodies did not create the law that could be set aside or bent. This will create chaos in the justice system if the judiciary or the president has to decide on this case on the grounds of morality. This is also the reason, as Mr. Manglapos said, why criminal justice is harsh and mostly unforgiving for deterrence, so society won't come across them again. I also support Mr. Huezan's argument that the case has already been decided because even the judiciary has shown impartiality over the case, so what was the true intention of the president to have a presidential circle? The law strictly gives protection and importance of life. The statute was there not for a specific reason on how the accused took the life of someone. It is clear that it should be applied to people who took the lives of others. It is not a question of whether it is rightful to hang them after the ten rescuers died due to their job, nor is it just to hang them after the extensive efforts of rescuing them. Clearly, we were out of focus on the main issue. As Justice Tatting stated, if there could have been a provision regarding eating a person, perhaps it would've been more appropriate to apply in the case. Yet, there is none because the statute is clear. If the reason of starvation by a thief of bread was refused to be accepted by the court, how can we forgive a person who ate another person? (Commonwealth vs. Valijean). Hence, regardless of reason, the life that the defendants took is as important as theirs, which is the reason the statute was applicable. Sympathy with mercy is empathy. Sympathy with truth is justice. Justice, truth, and sympathy must not be selective. We can't close our eyes to the families of the dead and open our senses to the families of the accused. This is why morality can't be the full basis of the law. The latter corresponds to and constitutes the essence of the former.

VILLASIN - Though I am convinced with each of the advisors' arguments, I was more swayed by one of the advisors who said that the president is conveniently dodging responsibility and that all advisors were set up to fail by their president by placing them in a very difficult situation that she should have already decided on as president, especially since she reiterated that she promotes justice and fairness. It was then decided, when the Supreme Court ruled, that the explorers must face capital punishment (since the Chief Justice during the first movie, even though his personal feelings contradict, still binds himself as to what the law should be). Although capital punishment seems to be an extreme punitive measure, its purpose is to uphold the concept of justice. As someone who was in favor of one of the Justices who showed a positivist approach during the first part of the movie, a separation of law and morality should be considered, and to bring balance to society, one must uphold the law, regardless of its morality or immorality. Fīat iūstitia ruat cælum. Meaning, "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." The law should be interpreted as it is written. Every conclusion does not necessarily conform to good moral reasoning but it can also lead to morally defective conclusions. Justice should be realized no matter the consequences are.

Jabagat- After watching the short film and reflecting on the arguments presented by the council, I realized that studying the law involves much more than I initially thought. Regardless of the philosophical foundation behind each council’s decision, each has its own merits, and I do not wish to invalidate any of them. Although this is just the beginning of my Philosophy 1 class, this activity has already challenged and stimulated my thinking. Studying law and philosophy will provide me with diverse perspectives and help me decide what kind of philosopher I want to become in the future. I look forward to gaining more insights and knowledge from Fr. Dan.

ROSILLO - I support the arguments provided both by Mr. Socorro and Mr. Marcelo, as they reflect the second argument of one of the main characters of the Speluncean Case - Justice Foster. I supported the decision of Justice Foster to set aside the sentence of the defendants with proper contemplation behind the spirit of self-defense: "A man whose life is threatened will repel his aggressor, whatever the law may say." It should be pointed out that in the case of the defendants, the "aggressor" should be construed as the dire circumstance they have found themselves in. Hence, as their lives are threatened by this "aggressor" they have been compelled to "defend" themselves by devising a means for survival, no matter how grim such means were, and no matter what laws oppose thereof. The arguments provided by Mr. Socorro and Mr. Marcelo for the defendants reflect the lives of subjects in the Medieval Ages. In times of siege, the subjects of the invaded sovereignty will be deprived of food. Hence, they will resort to undesirable means to stay alive, such as by robbing other subjects, and/or killing their pets for food. Those in power, however, will have a different circumstance than that of their subjects, albeit they are both being invaded by a foreign power, since they will not be experiencing starvation, no matter their use in defending their state. Hence, Mr. Marcelo provides a compelling argument that there are times laws are more favorable to the rich than that of the poor, especially, in regards to the provisions applied to convict the defendants.

Del Rio - all the arguments presented have their merits and I agree with them to an extent. Personally, I would implore the legislative body to consider adding provisions for such circumstances - the lawmakers of their time could not have predicted for such an unfortunate tragedy from happening, leading to the situation where we are now, wherein 4 survivors are put to death because of how the law was written. Taking in to account all of the facts and the circumstances they experienced, I am partial to commuting their sentences, not an outright pardon - the fact is, murder was still committed, regardless of the reasoning behind the act. Rhoy was not willing to be the sacrifice but the 4 survivors willingly took his life, stripping him of his choice.

ARCAY- I will begin my point of view with the famous legal maxim, “Dura Lex Sed Lex,,” which denotes, the law may be harsh, but such is the law. Which in the context of speluncean case must be upheld regardless of how unfortunate the verdict may be. Furthermore, I firmly believe that law must interpreted the way it should be understood and should be applied objectively. No amount of morality can ever suffice or appease the heinous crime of cannibalism. We have reached a certain level of civilization wherein killing a human being is considered barbaric. Regardless of the situation, we should conduct ourselves to the demands of the current status quo. I am reminded of the famous code of Hammurabi, one of the oldest codes ever known, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” wherein in you will be penalized to a similar degree. Narito M. Arcay Jr Narito M. Arcay Jr

❤❤❤❤😮😮😮😮

Si father maretis gehapon

Marites c father ha😂

Best to obey God's commandment. He is the only one who can give life and death. If we obey Him. He will take care of everything..

Kimpau lang forever!

Amen. Father

Kimver👍👍

GODBLESS Kim ❤

I enjoyed the video

naku po mali ka ng tanong Father.dapat ang tanong mo uyab mo c Paulo Avelino?Mas sinagot ka sana ni Kim hahahah

marites pod kaayo father ba😅😂

😅😅😅 si Father ..

C father maritess….😂 Pero wala ka hearing nga cla KimPau na ang mg uyab😅😂

Tawang tawa talaga,ako ni father ...sus grabe no? pati nga pari gustong guston silang dalawa ni Oliver katulad ni doctora Belo kilig na kilig ...