Testing by cadbury26

Make your own| Clone and edit

NO more non sense

All those recitation wont be getting me anywhere, I need to pass the midterms and the finals to get through 1st semester. It is possible to cover the pointers for the exam but I am extremely nervous, and I am bad in planning my schedule in studying all law subjects.

Political law is still kind of a blur, I am having trouble picking up some of the major points in the book and the discussion although concrete is still a handful. Its funny that its like decoding a secret code and that the author of the consti book was a friend of shakespeare. Sigh! I just hope ill be able to pull through with this.

Think like any justice would?

It was a surprisingly interactive day for me today. Nothing much to say on Civil code, we were on article 36 psychological incapacitation as a ground for legal separation or annulment of marriage. I get the idea but I have yet to read the cases to really substantiate on the matter and the issues.

I was so pumped up again on criminal law today as we digest and discuss the circumstances affecing criminal liability (justifying circumstances) Our professor, fiscal Soriano was i think pleased in a non obvious way about how Ive justified the situation she gave on defense of a stranger. I know how important it is to be aware of certain requisites of these legal provisions because those were basically the baselines of how things should be dealt with. She said I would answer like any judge would-so i took that one as a compliment-I guess. That was a commendation and it meant a lot because that would only mean that I am finally understanding what I am rreading. Not to brag but the situations given were a no brainer, and a nothing like a good common sense would answer the questions.

i am hoping that I could keep it up in all my subjects.

Running in circles

I am physically and mentally drained.
I now have to figure out how I can get my mojo back, but I am going nowhere with it.
Some people can be vile, there are things in life that are just so hard to explain.
I feel like I am under a microscope and some people will do anything to crush me. If its all in my mind, i need professional help.
I guess, I enjoy being alone because it helps me think.
I am free to just stay calm and be free from stress.
Be underrated
be low profile
Free to dream
Live the life
feel Lucky
Defy anything-everything
build-up confidence
Recharge
I imagine looking at the beach and smelling the fresh cool breeze touch my face

cases and articles

Surprisingly, I am starting to get the hang of reading my law books. It gets a little frustrating at times, but they are tolerable. I sure do hope my patience will improve after indulging myself into honing my reading skill. Speaking of reading, I took the liberty of downloading case files from the class yahoo group page for our constitutional 1 assignment, and boy, were those cases lengthy. I read about the Guingona vs. Carague case, it was about questioning the unconstitutionality of a certain general appropriations act provision, and how there was a political question that was proper for the congress and senate to address. Whether a certain sum be appropriated for national debt services or that an appropriation should only be alloted for the principal fees and other bank charges excluding the debt services. So far, that was what i understood.

Next up, was the Luna vs Court of Appeals case. This case is somewhat similar to the Daoang case or any child custody case for that matter. Clearly this case had that Renvoi/referring back principle going on, because it was tossed up from the lower court then elevated to the higher court, then eventually the SC would refer it back to the lower court ordering the latter to issue a writ of execution. Now this is where it gets really interesting. The child in question vented out on a private hearing when asked by the appointed psychologist about whether she likes to stay with her biological parents, wherein, the child desisted and told the doctor that her real parents are hurting her and pretending that they love here only because they want her[child] on their side. She insisted further that she would kill herself if she will be in custody with her biological parents. The judge addressed this issue like any mother or parent would have. The custody went to the guardian/grandparents. The SC initially contested that the lower court should have pushed through executing the order, but due to the child's statement it was a valid supervening cause sufficient to amending the ruling,I think it is also worthy of noting that the state may have acted upon the doctrine of parens patriae.

adrenaline rush, is it?

Okay, last saturday, we had a mini, sort of informal debate for the legal prof/intro to law subject about why the bar examinations be abolished. I was in the affirmative side so even if I was rooting for the opposition , i had to make a stand. And so I did. I feared though that I might have overdone it, I just didn't know why I was so pumped and it was almost like I was looking forward for the opposition to take us down and me firing back at them with even stronger rebuttals. I guess that was the whole point of it. I delivered, but the professor said we werent quite there yet. I dont think ill ever show off like that again. I dont want my classmates to think that I was a complete show off and an airhead.

Then came forensics, we had a quiz on adjectives transmuted into their noun forms. It caught me off guard. I wasn't confident that i could answer those, but i wasn't worried either. So when we checked the papers I was surprised of the things that I still dont know, or had known that I didn't remember. I figured, if these were the kind of questions in the midterms, im doomed. Its all good.

Statutory Construction and Political Law

I spent the entire day reading Chapter 5 of Constitutional Law 1 about the fundamental principles and state policies. I was able to get the idea of each topic but I struggled a little bit on the technical areas that is beyond the scope of Constitutional 1 first semester. We kicked off the discussion on the Preamble, I seriously thought Atty. Castro would call up someone to recite the entire preamble-he didn't. I memorized it, but i doubt if I can deliver completely without glancing at the book. I was Relieved that he went straight to explaining the significance of the preamble.
He then talked us through about the state as a DEMOCRATIC government that is tempered by its Republican attribute [Section 1, Article II]. As otherwise it is noteworthy that the sovereignty resides on the people, but the Philippines is not characterized as purely democratic that the people governs themselves. Atty. Castro simply means that our government serves the people as mere representations and for the renovation with respect to the promotion of public welfare and his common good.
Quoting abraham lincoln's famous phrase" the government of the people, by the people and for the people [shall not perish from the earth]." On this note, the people was obliged to invoke a positive act to RATIFY the constitution making it a SOCIAL CONTRACT which can be seen as the surrendering portion of sovereign power by entrusting its fate upon the important constitutional agencies [government; element of the state] that individually have their own functions independent with each other as distinguished with the BLENDING OF POWERS and the SEPARATION OF POWERS. Our state is a government of laws NOT of men.
There is of course this crucial process of electing the members of the Senate and Congress employing the RULE OF MAJORITY OR MERE PLURALITY.
Section 4 (The Defense of the State) gets me thinking how powerful the law is as it implements orders and the intent of each provision is strongly administered. As a sovereign nation it is the people's responsibility as well as the AFP to protect our state from external threats to national security. It was stated in the Political law book that the Section 4 provision is based upon the inherent right of every State to existence and self-preservation.