Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Every person, whether natural or juridical seek redress in the courts of law for the imposition of justice in any given situation. The court represented by the judge is seen as the final arbiter who puts an end to any given controversy where both parties lay down their positions and arguments and leaves it up to the judge to decide on the matter based on an objective and not subjective attitude. I agree with the above quote that a strong duty of loyalty should be applied only when it is clear that the parties agree on it.

When there is clear evidence to the contrary, the courts should not obligate the parties to perform any duty not agreed upon by the parties. It would be an injustice to force a party who is not in agreement with the proposition of the case to act in accordance with a duty not agreed upon by them. This will result to speculations of the court acting in a biased manner since it would often result to a case where the other party is forced to perform something favorable to the other. The courts should weigh every circumstance by listening and asking for evidence from both parties with equal opportunities given on both sides.

It would be unfair to force the other party to act in compliance with an alleged agreement where the evidence clearly points to the fact that such was not freely and voluntarily agreed upon by both parties. It would however be a different matter where the duty of loyalty is being asked by the court from a citizen of the specific nation or country wherein the latter is bound to render loyalty to the former. In this case, there is no need to show proof of any agreement since it is inherent in every citizen to accord due respect and fidelity to his government and country.

A citizen who has patriotism running in his veins would not think twice of being loyal to his country. In the event that any person commits any act of disloyalty against his country, justice should be served to protect the country of that person. It is only proper for every citizen of any country to be loyal to the latter without the need of any agreement. In this regard, I say that the court is not committing any error in obligating the person to become loyal since it is his bounden duty to do so.

Jurisprudence provides for numerous cases wherein it is best for the courts to execute agreements such as compromise agreements that were freely executed by parties. This would save a lot of time and effort on both the part of the court and of the litigants in the case. If the case clearly points out a scenario where the parties have agreed on the duty of loyalty being imposed and there is no evidence of any violence, threat, strategy or intimidation employed by any party to perform such duty then this clearly reflects that the parties voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly agreed to perform such duty.

The courts would then be left with no choice but to execute the agreement. All of these arguments are taken in the context wherein the duty of loyalty is not contrary to law or public policy. It would not be proper for the court to enforce the duty of loyalty where such is not in accordance with law for being contrary to good morals or public policy. Take for instance a case wherein the parties entered into an agreement that they would be loyal to their commitment to each other but such agreement pertains to the commission of a wrong against their country.

In this case, the agreement should not be enforced in any court of law for being in violation of law. Thus, the courts should impose the duty of loyalty from the parties when it can be seen that the parties clearly understand that they are in agreement in performing such duty, provided, that the agreement of the parties are in accordance with law Resources: - US Constitution - Supreme Court Jurisprudence