“DURA LEX, SED LEX”

The law may be hard to observe or difficult to obey, but it remains the law and must be
therefore followed just the same. This is the plain and simple meaning and implication of
the above cited Latin maxim which is well known in a special way by those in the legal
profession. The Latin principle is objectively right and the legal experts are professionally
right as well when invoking the Latin truism – but only by virtue of the following three
fundamental premises:

Firstly, that the law is just in its objective content, just for the subject party concerned,
and just to the society as a whole it is mandated for observance. In other words even
but there is an iota of injustice in the law in conjunction with any of the said qualifying
factors, a law may be difficult to comply with, but an unjust law it remains. Thus it is
that it loses its nature and finality as a law. Example: The E-Vat as a law is unjust
because the very poor and the very rich are taxed same amount in their purchase of
consumer goods!

Secondly, that the law equally applies to all – “without fear or favor”. This simply means
that everybody has exactly the same standing – the same basic human dignity and the
basic human rights – before the law. This is the cornerstone of the majesty of the law: it
bows to no one for consideration of power and wealth. Precisely, herein hinges the
majesty of the law – or this becomes a joke. Example: Recently, nothing less than a
whale in authority and might wriggled out of the legal net while two small fries were
caught!

Lastly, that the law is interpreted and applied by a legal system that is not simply
working as designed and expected – but categorically working according to the demands
of social justice specially in terms of its distributive dimension that is provident of public
welfare or common goods. And this is distinctly not the case when those entities and
individuals tasked to act accordingly, either do nothing or act to the
contrary. Example: The dysfunctional justice system in the Country.

Under any of the at least three realities above mentioned, it is quite incongruous to say
it with peace of conscience and conviction of reason the famous Latin line “Dura lex, sed
lex.” – in the concrete Philippine situation. Therein, the maxim or saying becomes a big
bad joke - such as in the following cases: When jails are full of poor and helpless people.
When the so called “Rich and Famous” are above the law. When someone is altogether
immune from any prosecution for any gross misdeed, any gigantic graft, any colossal
corruption even by making them one big combined or huge composite villainy –
precisely brought to fulfillment by that someone with all the power and influence to do
what is right and just, but does exactly the abominable and censurable.
Filamie Lourly F. Cacdac LLB- 1 Legal Writing

Dura Lex Sed Lex: Concept and Application

The law may be harsh, but it is still the law. The law may be difficult to obey but it must be therefore
complied with because Ignorance of the law excuses no one, 1Ignorantia legis non excusat. It is presumed that
every individual or every inhabitants of such nation knows the law. The phrase Dura Lex Sed Lex originated in
the 11th century as a principle of cannon law (church law) by Bishop Buchard of Worms. It stands for the "Rule
of Law", that is the letter of the law must be followed by everyone and no one is above the law. A society who
strongly believes in the rule of law is said to be more free from tyranny. If a ruler is above the law, then he can
rule tyrannically.

The Latin phrase uses the term Lex as opposed to Jus. This is important. Lex is a law created by men,
which can often be arbitrary like the speed limit along a certain street. Jus is a law which exists in the natural
order of things and which cannot be modified by the act of a legislature. For instance, murder of innocents and
slavery are always wrong regardless of the local law. Buchard's principle does not say that the natural law is harsh,
but that the law created by man is harsh. Even though it may be arbitrary and have no foundation in traditional
concepts of justice, good and evil, for society to function efficiently, each person must obey it. You might recall
that this is the principle reason why Socrates committed suicide after being imprisoned: he could not turn his back
2
on his country but had to face his punishment. The Latin principle is objectively right and the legal experts
are professionally right as well when invoking the Latin truism – but only by virtue of the following three
fundamental premises:

Firstly,that the law is just in its objective content, just for the subject party concerned, and just to the
society as a whole it is mandated for observance. In other words even but there is an iota of injustice in the law
in conjunction with any of the said qualifying factors, a law may be difficult to comply with, but an unjust law it
remains. Thus it is that it loses its nature and finality as a law. Example: The E-Vat as a law is unjust because the
very poor and the very rich are taxed same a m o u n t i n t h e i r p u r c h a s e o f c o n s u m e r g o o d s !

Secondly, that the law equally applies to all – “without fear or favor”. This simply means that everybody
has exactly the same standing – the same basic human dignity and the basic human rights – before the law. This
is the cornerstone of the majesty of the law: it bows to no one for consideration of power and wealth. Precisely,
herein hinges the majesty of the law – or this becomes a joke. Example: Recently, nothing less than a whale in
authority and might wriggled out of the legal net while two small fries were caught!

Lastly, that the law is interpreted and applied by a legal system that is not simply working as designed and
expected – but categorically working according to the demands of social justice specially in terms of its
distributive dimension that is provident of public welfare or common goods. And this is distinctly not the case
when those entities and individuals tasked to act accordingly, either do nothing or act to the
contrary. Example: The dysfunctional justice system in the Country.

3
When the law is clear, there is no other recourse but to apply it regardless of its perceived harshness. Dura
lex sed lex. Nonetheless, the law should never be applied or interpreted to oppress one in order to favor another.
As a court of law and of justice, this Court has the duty to adjudicate conflicting claims based not only on the
cold provision of the law but also according to the higher principles of right and justice.

It means that you don't have to obey the law only when it's easy to do so. You must obey the law even
when it's bad for you to do so.

The most common example is a person who doesn't want to testify in court against a dangerous criminal. The law
says "Tough, testify anyway."

1 . Edgardo L. Paras. Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated. Volume 1. 2013. pp. 19, 89. What the law grants, the court
cannot deny.
2 . Oscar Cruz. Viewpoints: Personal views and commentaries. http://ovc.blogspot.com/2010/06/dura-lex-sed-lex.html
3 . Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court. G.R. No. 176707. February 17, 2010