It is a common notion that the law is a set of rules established to maintain order and peace within society.

It is a body of regulations and principles implemented for the purpose of promulgating justice and the common good. The purpose of law is essentially to prevent injustice from prevailing in society, it attempts to make sure that each and every person in society does not suffer from the turmoil that the unjust bring about. Its main benefit to society is to establish a set of norms where every person will be accorded what is due to him/her. The law strives to minimize the inequalities prevalent in each and every society. Promoting the good, protecting the law-abiding citizens, punishing the violators of the law, these are but a handful of what the purpose of the law is and what the law stands for. It is a system of principles, regulations, and guidelines with the end goal of promoting justice and peace. With this notion, the law can be compared to that of a compass, a guide in a mans voyage, pointing toward the desired direction (which ideally, is to the path of the just), however, not all choose to follow where the compass points. And to those who lack such guidance would end up being lost without any direction. According to Javier de Pedros Person and Law lecture, justice can be achieved by requiring that legitimate authority properly distribute rights and duties and is bound to give each one of his subjects what is due to him. But in the current Philippine society, this statement seems unfit as illustrated by the dialogue and interview our group conducted with three different personalities from different sectors a taxi driver (marginalized), businessman (affluent sector) and a lawyer (government sector). Answering the question of Who benefits from the law provided two viewpoints. The particular perspective from the government sector has the ideal belief that persons who follow the law certainly are the beneficiaries thereof. And these persons are what de Pedro considers as rational and ethical beings that give an answer for their actions. Unlike animals, man is a creature composed of both a body and a soul. As a result of such, man is a rational being, possessing reason and intellect. He is a being that possesses free will and because of this, man is a being who does not act on instinct alone, he is responsible for his actions. He is a being capable of discernment and foreseeing the results of the choices he makes. Through this, man establishes interpersonal relations with others within society. The notion of justice, of giving everyone his due and acting in accordance with the norms of society give rise to the concept of ethics, of morals. Man is said to be a free being, of pursuing what he so wishes and desires, yet there is a set-back, and this is where morality enters

the portrait. Though man, a being of reason, is free to do as he wishes, he must act accordingly with what is acceptable, with what is right, that which is good for the benefit of society. Clearly, to take anothers life, anothers possession in inherently evil, it is embedded in mans nature that there exists a moral guide, a conscience in each and every person. Such is what the law attempts to preserve with the purpose of protecting the common. What is wrong is clearly wrong and is undoubtedly unacceptable and unwelcomed in society. The law caters to these principles. It tries to prevent that which is evil, that which lacks good from spreading in society. In this sense, the law connects itself with morality. Its end goal is ultimately to prevent that which is wrong from harassing man. It is man who has given birth to the concept of law, which is a result of mans rationality, with the purpose of promulgating the common good for the community. It promotes order which generally entails what is right, what is good, in order to bring about progress and peace in the community. It is with this that the law establishes a connection with morality. The marginalized and affluent sector, though from two opposite poles, had surprisingly the same opinion that that the rich and powerful people benefit from the law. Distributive justice is thus not present since only those who distribute these rights and duties only gain advantage and receive more than what is due to them. The affluent sector calls this legitimate authority that supposedly must distribute the common proportionally the greedy lawmakers since those who are in a position of governing others need to be good men in order to practice justice. A lawmaker, according to de Pedro, must, besides having a sense of fairness, has self-control and possesses the necessary fortitude and wisdom. In the world and society we live in today, other factors come into play when legislating a new law or when faced in conflict with the law such as money, influences, connections and the like. Those representatives in the different sectors interviewed now see that there is no morality in law. Money talks. But, de Pedro also justifies these lawmakers. Though those in the position cannot always absolutely consider all personal and individual situations in society. The positive or human law cannot always answer the certain condition and state the subjects are faced with. Though the laws purpose and fulfillment is that of justice through moral means, this cannot be achieved at all times. The laws purpose is still being upheld since what is naturally good, both personally and in relation with the common good still prevail over granted rights and duties. These representatives who consider that there is no morality in law have respect for positive law. As rational and ethical beings, them being persons who strive to

be a good man also strive to be a good citizen.