Legal Latin Words

LATIN	MEANING
Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit	The law looks forward, not backward
Lex de Futuro, Judex de Praterio	The law provides for the future, the judge for the past
Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget	When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of its required
Optima Statuti interpretatix Est Insum Statutum	The best interpreter of the statute is the statute itself
Ratio Legis	Interpretation according to spirit
Ratio Legis Est Anima	The reason of the law is its soul
Cessante Ratione Cesat Ipsa Lex	When the reason for the law ceases, the law ceases also to exist
Expresio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius	Express mention is implied exclusion
Generalia specialibus non derogant	A general law does not nullify a specific or special law
Dura Lex Sed Lex	The law may be harsh but it is still the law
Cogitationis Poenam Nemo Emeret	No man may be punished for his thought
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea	The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so
Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus	An act done by me against my will is not my act
Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusant	Ignorance of the law excuse no one
Ignorantia Facto Excusat	Ignorance or mistake in point of fact is an excuse
Ubi Lex Non Distinguit Nea Nos Distiguere Debemos	Where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish
Mens Legislatores	Liberal construction
Reddendo Singula Singulis	Referring each to each
Cassus Omissus Pro Omisso Habbendus Est	A case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted
Noscitur a sociis	Finding the context
Ejusdem generis	When general words follow the designation of particular things, or classes of persons or subjects, the general words will usually be construed to include only those persons or things of the same class or general nature as those specifically enumerated.

Psychological incapacity

Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides:

A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligation of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

Psychological incapacity is a ground for the declaration of absolute nullity of the marriage. Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. [1] In simpler terms, psychological incapacity is the condition of a person who does not have the mind, will, and the heart for the performance of marriage obligations.[2]

[1] Santos v CA, GR No. 112019, January 4, 1995

[2] PARAS, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated Book 1 Persons and Family Relations, p422, 14th Edition

THE INVESTIGATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS

A politically-interested friend of mine randomly asked me why does congress, our legislative body, conducts investigations. Since an investigation, according to him is judicial in nature. I guess this is a significant question since ordinary citizens can always see these hearings in TV and its proceedings are the meat of late night news. His question is a good topic to elaborate and in the broader light, every citizen must at least have a basic understanding of the powers of congress for them to better engage the law-makers and the law-making process. The spirit of the question asks about the investigative powers of congress.

The legislative investigation is enshrined in Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution:

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

Why is there a need for Legislative Investigations?

Arnault v. Nazareno[1] states the foundation of the power of legislative investigation. The court said through Justice Ozaeta that the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information - which is not in frequently true – recourse must be had to others who do possess it. In simpler and general terms; for congress to make good laws, it needs good information from the once that implements it. Thus legislative investigation is that tool to extract information.

What do you mean by “Aid of Legislation”?

In aid of legislation serves as a limitation to the broad investigative powers of congress, so as the publishing of the rules of procedure and the protection of the rights of persons. “In aid of legislation” is an essential element in the jurisdiction of the legislative body. Moreover, it is not necessary that every question propounded to a witness must be material to a proposed legislation.[2] “In other words, the materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. The reason is that the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and the form and character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a fraction of such information elicited form a single question.[3]

Does the absence of published rules, as cited in the constitutional provision, bar congress from investigation?

The second limitation speaks of the need to publish the rules of procedure regarding legislative inquiry. The need for publication became a focus in the case of Neri v. Senate case. This case states that the Senate currently conducting the investigation had not published its rules. The Court emphasised that publication gives the notice that is required for due process since investigation can affect the rights of non-members of congress. In effect, in the absence of published rules, investigation cannot proceed.[4]

What is the basis of congress to contempt people under investigation?

The third limitation of the power of legislative inquiry concerns the protection of the rights of persons articulated in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. However, corollary to the protection of individual rights in the exercise of their investigative power, it should also be understood that Congress can hold people in contempt in its judgement. Jurisprudence provides that the congress in its right of self-preservation can impose penalty in its existence or while in session.

Experience has shown that mere requests for such information are often unavailing, and also that information which is volunteers is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed.[5] The fact that the Constitution expressly gives to Congress the power to punish its Members for disorderly behaviour, does not by necessary implication exclude the power to punish for contempt any other person.[6] This must be so, inasmuch as the basis of the power to impose such a penalty is the right which the Legislature has to self-preservation, and which right is enforceable during the existence of the legislative body. [7]

The power to contempt is articulated further by Arnault vs. Nazareno. The petitioner argued that the Senate lacks authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session. According to the Supreme Court:

That investigation has not been completed because of the refusal of the petitioner as a witness to answer certain questions pertinent to the subject of the inquiry. The Senate has empowered the committee to continue the investigation during the recess. By refusing to answer the questions, the witness has obstructed the performance by the Senate of its legislative function, and the Senate has the power to remove the obstruction by compelling the witness to answer the questions thru restraint of his liberty until he shall have answered them. That power subsists as long as the Senate, which is a continuing body, persists in performing the particular legislative function involved. To hold that it may punish the witness for contempt only during the session in which investigation was begun, would be to recognize the right of the Senate to perform its function but at the same time to deny to it an essential and appropriate means for its performance. Aside from this, if we should hold that the power to punish for contempt terminates upon the adjournment of the session, the Senate would have to resume the investigation at the next and succeeding sessions and repeat the contempt proceedings against the witness until the investigation is completed-an absurd, unnecessary, and vexatious procedure, which should be avoided. As against the foregoing conclusion it is argued for the petitioner that the power may be abusively and oppressively exerted by the Senate which might keep the witness in prison for life. But we must assume that the Senate will not be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper bounds. And if, contrary to this assumption, proper limitations are disregarded, the portals of this Court are always open to those whose rights might thus be transgressed.

Who is exempt from Legislative Inquiry?

The President, on whom executive power is vested, is beyond the reach of Congress, except through the power of impeachment. It is based on the President's position as the highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a long-standing custom. Members of the Supreme Court are exempt from this power of inquiry on the basis not only of separation of powers but also on the fiscal autonomy and the constitutional independence of the judiciary.[8]

Conclusion

The power of inquiry flows from the fundamental principle of the separation of powers which our Constitution enshrines. It enables the legislative branch of government to do its job with precision under the delicate relationship with the other co-equal branches of government and the limitations of the power set forth in Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution. For ordinary citizens, it is important to understand that the law-making process entails vast powers which if unchecked, can invade and insult our individual rights and freedoms. Legislative inquiry as an implied power of the legislature should be at its best, supported for it aids in creating good laws, and at its worst, guarded for it can be a tool to play circus among the self-interests and passions of law-makers.

[1] 87 Phil. 29, 45 (1950)

[2] BERNAS, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p.760, 2009 Ed.

[3] 87 Phil. At 45.

[4] BERNAS, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p.762, 2009 Ed.

[5] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S., 135; 71 L.ed.,580; 50 A.L.R.,1.

[6] Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheaton, 204; 5 L. Ed., 242.

[7] Avancwna, C.J., concurring in Lopez v. De los Reyes, 55 Phil. 170, 186 (1930)

[8] Sabio vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 174318, October 17, 2006

LAW SCHOOL FOR BEGINNERS LIKE ME

Law midterm exam week is over! For us freshmen, this experience serves as the beginning of the end of our ordinary lives. In my case, I entered Law school having only a slight idea on what degree of studying I should do and on how to answer in exams. When I begun to dissect the innocently looking case and question printed on paper, I began to realize the immensity and gravity in the study of Law. For beginners, these are few points which might help.

Mere studying is not enough. You do just study hard, you have to study smart. You really have to also dissect the Law books and understand the strands, the wisdom, the exceptions, the requisites, generalities and all its intricate attributes. Every word, every punctuation, every clause in a provision has a legal implication and as law students, you are expected to understand every single bit of it. So this is why law books are freakishly thick. Mastery of the Law really depends so much on our particular study habits. So as early as freshmen year, it is always ideal to identify your study style and develop a study plan based on that. Needless to say, be committed to that study plan.

The mastery of the Law is just a component of the whole learning experience. The indispensable partner of this knowledge of the Law is the skill of legal analysis. Needless to say (and ideally speaking), the law should serve men and not the other way around. It is how you apply the law in human experience that gives the former its life and meets its purpose. In the exams, our score mainly depends on the quality of our legal reasoning. This skill as we were told can be developed by constantly reading the news. In almost all aspects of the news, laws can be applied. It is in this constant mental exercise of application where this skill can prosper.

One professor would always tell us that at the end of the day, the legal profession is all about communication. Language is the third component that every law student is expected to have at least a basic understanding of. Our legal writing professor would always tell us to practice writing – legally. This really means writing with the absence of flowery words and with the prime purpose of persuading the reader to your side.

More than just technical/academic skills, the most important trait to develop in Law school is resiliency. Law school, even how smart you are, is a frustrating experience. This needs no further articulation. What is important then is how grounded you are in your reason for taking up such “extraordinary” experience to say the least. When you are definitely convinced that this is the path you are meant to do, then perseverance and hard work will naturally radiate in all your actions in and out of Law school.

Non-delegability of Legislative Powers

Non-delegability: The Basics

The concept of non-delegability of legislative power is of great importance in the study of the constitution and in the appreciation of the concept of separation of powers as enshrined in modern democracies. One of the great commentaries on the Constitution of the United States which our constitution is patterned from wrote that “Why go the trouble of separating the three powers of government if they can straight-way remerge on their own motion? The second is the concept of due process of law, which precludes the transfer of regulatory functions to private persons. Lastly, there is the maxim of agency “Delegata potestas non potest delegari (No delegated can be futher delegated)”[1].

Corwin clearly articulated the reason behind the bar on delegation of legislative powers. Our constitution has lodged the legislative power which is the power to make, alter and repeal laws to Congress and as a derivative power from the sovereign people; a delegated power cannot be delegated further.

However, the growing complexity of modern society has led governments to regulate various aspects of human activity as an exercise of government’s police power. Numerous statues have been passed creating administrative agencies and authorizing them to exercise vast regulatory powers. The rules and regulations they issue have the force of law.[2]

There are two theories that support this phenomenon of expanding regulatory powers. The first one is to a non-legislative body may be authorized to “fill up the details”.[3] The second one is congress may pass contingent legislation, that is, legislation which leaves to another body the business of ascertaining the facts necessary to bring the law into actual operation.[4]

A criterion was developed to assure that the power delegated by the legislature is not law-making but law-execution. First one is the delegation must be complete in itself – it must set forth therein the policy be carried out or implemented by the delegate and the second one is fix a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable.[5]

Jurisprudence

American and Philippine Jurisprudence brings greater light on the subject of non-delegability.

In the case of Compania General de Tabacos v. Board of Public Utility[6], the Supreme Court ruled that the delegation is so general that it is no more precise than if it had just said “The Board may require every public utility to furnish annually a detailed report.” Hence they ruled

that the statute is an unlawful delegation of legislative power.

In the Case of United States v. Ang Tang Ho[7], the Supreme Court ruled that the law, which authorize the Governor General to issue and promulgate temporary rules and emergency measures fixing the price of such cereals for any cause of conditions, contains no standard that will guide the Governor General in determining whether the rise is extraordinary and for determining what the price should be. It is another case of unlawful delegation of legislative power.

In the Case of Araneta v. Gamaitan[8], the Supreme Court ruled that the regulation, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to impose restrictions on the use of any fishing net or fishing device for the protection of fish or fry or fish eggs, merely supplies the details for implementing the law which is already clear and complete in itself and contains a standard to guide the administrative officers.

Conclusion

They say that tyranny is a system that has been laid to rest in annals of human history. In these modern and enlightened times, the people, in their unlimited sovereign capacity, has delegated their power in 3 equal branches of government – not anymore concentrated in one man, one family or one department of government. It is in this concept of separation of powers where this concept of non-delegability mainly hinges to. As future officers of the court, the concept of non-delegability demands appreciation and understanding for this concept draws the line between the power to make laws and the power to execute them.

[1] CROWIN, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 95 (1964)

[2] BERNAS, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p.686, 2009 Ed.

[3] Wayman v. Southward, 10 Wheat 1, 42 (1825)

[4] The Brig Aurora, 7 Cr. 382 (1813)

[5] Palaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569, 576-7 (1965).

[6] 34 Phil. 136 (1916)

[7] 43 Phil. 1,5-6 (1922)

[8] 101 Phil. 328 (1957)

The Philippine Bill of 1902 and Jus Soli

After the turn-over of sovereignty from the Kingdom of Spain to the United States over the former’s colonies, the United States began paving the way for the Philippines in particular towards self-governance. The Philippine Bill was enacted by the Congress of the United States on July 1, 1902. The act was originally thought out to be a temporary one. It was meant to prepare the Filipinos for independence and self-governance for a period of at most eight years. However, it became the guide for the administration of civil government of the Philippines for fourteen years. It has little character of a constitutional act. Those provisions which one would expect to find in a constitution, such as establishing the framework for government, limiting governmental powers, and providing for the political organization of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, were lacking[1].

Section 4 of the Philippine Bill defines who the citizens of the Philippines were. It stated:

That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except as such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the united States and Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight: Provided, That the Philippine legislature is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of other insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Island who could become citizens of the United States if residing therein[2].

In this Bill, all those that were considered citizens of the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris were deemed to be citizen. Also, all those born after 11 April 1899 to parents who were Spanish subjects on that date and who continued to reside in the Philippines were ipso facto citizens of the Philippine Islands unless they declare their allegiance to the Spanish Crown. It was in this period (1902-1935) that the concept of Jus Soli was actually practiced in our archipelago[3].

[1] GEORGE A. MALCOLM, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 222 (1920)

[2] PHILIPPINE BILL OF 1902 § 4 (1902) amended by ACT OF MARCH 23, 1912

[3] Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. 315 (1912)

Ignorance of the law as the basis of good faith.

I would like to add the concept of Ignorance of the law as the basis of good faith.

Article 526 of the Civil Code provides that:

He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.

The civil code specifically provides that a mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. This does not mean, however, that one is excused because of such ignorance. He is still liable, but his liability shall be mitigated. [1]

In the case of Kasilag vs. Rodriguez[2], the Supreme Court held that one who possesses land by virtue of a void contract can, nevertheless, be considered a possessor in good faith if the law involved is comparatively difficult to comprehend, and as such he is entitled to reimbursement for useful improvements he had introduced on the land before he is deprived of the land.

[1] Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated Book 1 Persons and Family Relations, p24, 14th Edition

[2] 69 Phil. 217

Locus Standi and Inter-generational Responsibility

There is an interesting case regarding the topic on Locus Standi.

In Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr.[1], the case involved thirty four minors who went to Court represented by their parents pleading the cause of “intergenerational responsibility” and “inter-generational justice” and asking the Supreme Court to order the Secretary of Natural Resources to cancel all existing timber licenses agreements and to “cease and desist from receiving, accepting or approving new timber license agreements. They alleged that the massive commercial logging in the country is causing vast abuses on rainforest[2].

The issue was whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi.

The Supreme Court said that: “We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit.” Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned as stated in Article 2, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution[3].

[1] 224 SCRA 792 (1993)

[2] Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p.90, 2009 Ed.

[3] The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Compulsory Military and Civil Service and the 1987 Philippine Constitution

Compulsory Military and Civil Service and the 1987 Philippine Constitution

It has been said that one of the most vital concepts any lawyer should understand and articulate is the constitutionality of compulsory military and civil service. Once invoked, any man with common intelligence is quick to cast doubt on its wisdom and build opposition against it. Thus it is vital for lawyers to let the people fully understand the reasons behind its constitutionality.

Section 4, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “The Prime Duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfilment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.”

Though the constitution itself has articulated that this power to compel such actions, it is important to understand the rich US and Philippine jurisprudence that further articulate this matter.

Draft vs. Volunteer System

Before we go further into this topic, it is essential to understand the reasons seen by our constitutional framers on the. The 1935 provision[1] on compulsory military service came into fruition from the recognition of the inadequacy of a volunteer system both in terms of military effectiveness and in terms of quality between rich and the poor[2]. The report of the committee on national defence said that: “the volunteer system is undemocratic, because the cannon fodder, with very few exceptions, consists of proletarians. Added further “sons of the wealthy can evade the sacred duty of defending their country, though it is they who enjoy the advantages obtained through the services rendered and blood spilled by men to whom fortune has been unkind.” Flowing from these points, it can be understood that a draft as opposed to a volunteer system, is more just since it calls each able-bodied citizen regardless of wealth, education, at the very least, to protect the state.

American Jurisprudence

In the Selective Draft Case[3] of the United States which challenge the military draft by virtue of the Thirteenth Amendment[4], the US Supreme Court held that: “We are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defence of the rights and honour of the state, as the result of war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary service.” It can be deduced from the court’s decision that the people themselves through their representatives have declared the state of war and thus as a consequence, require the people to meet its demands in the form of military or civil service.

In the case of Jacobson vs. Massachusetts.[5] , the Supreme Court said that, without violating the Constitution; a person may be compelled by force, if need be, against his will, against his pecuniary interests, and even against his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country, and risk the chances of being shot down in its defence

Philippine Jurisprudence

In People vs. Lagman[6], the accused was prosecuted for failure to register for military service under the national defence act. He assailed the validity of the said act. The Supreme Court said that the duty of the government to defend the state cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. Added further, the Supreme Court also pointed out that the right of the Government to require compulsory military services is a consequence of its duty to defend the state and is reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.

Conclusion

This topic touches one of the most sacred duties of every citizen and it is the intention of this sharing to shed a humble light on the wisdom behind this noble and sacred duty. In the event that government calls us to defend the state, it is incumbent upon us, as citizens of the state to rid ourselves of our personal attachments, private interests and selfish desires for a cause larger than any one of us. That is the defence of the state which nurtures our very life, liberty and property.

---

[1] Article 2, Section 2: The defense of the State is a prime duty of government, and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal military or civil service.

[2] Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p.67, 2009 Ed.

[3] 245 U.S. 366, 390 (1918)

[4] Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[5] 197 U.S., 11; 25 Sup. Ct. Rep., 385

[6] 66 Phil. 13 (1938)

The end of days.

1st Week In Law School

I am slowly getting the rhythm of my new law school life. The first week was full of surprises and consolations. I had my first oral recitation in Political Law on the National Territory. I never realized that playing Age of Empires would be this applicable in creating a conceptual framework about sovereignty and territory. Nonetheless, my answer was not a home-run, though it was respectable enough. The other subjects are also very interesting but I have strong sense that this interest will slowly erode when I shall begin to dissect all those voluminous cases and texts considering that the first week was still a honey moon period. My block mates also trusted me enough to be their block president. I thought I am through with this but hey, this is who I am. So for the next coming weeks, I am expecting myself to fall in love with the law books which/whom I spend all my day with. I only hope they can answer back when I ask them if they ate their lunch already.

1st Day of Law School.

"Motherly Funny" I guess would be the best adjective to describe my first day of Law Class. Aside from the obvious fact that our professor was a woman, she also exudes the motherly conduct which allows us to feel relax and easy in her class. Her persona is far from the enumerations of sadistic tendencies given to us during the freshmen orientation. From her side comments and hand gestures, we can draw a conclusion that she is authentically fun.

It was our Legal Writing class. One thing that stuck in me really was how basic its purpose is. We write to convince. Not to inspire, not to romanticize, not to play with the artistic value of words. We write to convince the court of our points.

In the end, it is ultimately the precision of our words where we can fully deliver the force of the law for the interest of justice.

God loves us FIRST. Ninoy and Cory Aqunio Leadership Journey

In its most profound sense, the Ninoy and Cory Aqunio Leadership Journey weaved my anxiety, excitement, doubts, hopes and fears into one understandable and appreciable picture of my life. I bring so much anxiety into this retreat. Friends are leaving, going separate paths; college comfort has ended and the prospect of Law School still stings with fear and uncertainty.

In all the rich inputs given to us, I want to share a simple highlight.

According to Henri Nouwen, we oftentimes miss the whole point about the nature of our relationship with God. Our common mentality is we keep on doing good so we can merit God’s love. We operate in that one-way relationship which simply spells we should please Him – period. Nouwen opens up this new thought that affirms the fundamental truth that God loves us FIRST.

The question is not “how am I to find God?” but “How am I to let myself be found by him?” The question is not “How am I to find God?” but “how am I to let myself be found by him?” The question is not “How am I to know God?”, but “How am I to let myself be loved by God?”.