Reaction Paper
“DOUBLE JEOPARDY” Reaction Paper
The movie’s plot is outstanding! I could request for more acting or for more famous actors and actresses, but the plot just remains the same (Well, I don’t really have any problem with the cast. I just used this sentence for emphasis on the plot.). All of the following views and opinions are all based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
The plot is a very unique one in a sense that the Constitutional law pertaining Double Jeopardy (Stated in Article III, Section 21 of the Philippine Constitution) is very familiar, especially to us students who are studying the Philippine Constitution. But it never really came to my mind to use the term “what if” so as to be able to mimic the plot of this story. This movie became “brilliant” for me, because the idea from which the story revolved is so obvious, but I was not able to expand my imagination and thought of this kind of story before watching it.
Libby is such a wise woman. She did not just accept the things that happen to her. She is not passive. I admire her. Her actions are so wise and practical, especially in the matter of redeeming herself to see and be with her son once more. She knows her rights were sequestered from her unjustly. At first she wanted to do it tamely but when she discovered the truth that her supposedly dead husband is still alive, her indignancy is revived. Actually, I am not convinced that she was given a fair and speedy trial as stated in Article III, Section I and XVI. It seems that the conclusions were so fast. There was not enough cross examination. Yet I am convinced that she was given the rights stated in Section XII and XIII but maybe not enough. Her side was not thoroughly examined in court. Her conviction was probably influenced by the prerogatives of the judges based on the “obvious” evidences against her. Because of this, Libby, by herself, made her own way to prove her innocence.
Article III, Section X made Libby’s husband liable to their marriage
The movie’s plot is outstanding! I could request for more acting or for more famous actors and actresses, but the plot just remains the same (Well, I don’t really have any problem with the cast. I just used this sentence for emphasis on the plot.). All of the following views and opinions are all based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
The plot is a very unique one in a sense that the Constitutional law pertaining Double Jeopardy (Stated in Article III, Section 21 of the Philippine Constitution) is very familiar, especially to us students who are studying the Philippine Constitution. But it never really came to my mind to use the term “what if” so as to be able to mimic the plot of this story. This movie became “brilliant” for me, because the idea from which the story revolved is so obvious, but I was not able to expand my imagination and thought of this kind of story before watching it.
Libby is such a wise woman. She did not just accept the things that happen to her. She is not passive. I admire her. Her actions are so wise and practical, especially in the matter of redeeming herself to see and be with her son once more. She knows her rights were sequestered from her unjustly. At first she wanted to do it tamely but when she discovered the truth that her supposedly dead husband is still alive, her indignancy is revived. Actually, I am not convinced that she was given a fair and speedy trial as stated in Article III, Section I and XVI. It seems that the conclusions were so fast. There was not enough cross examination. Yet I am convinced that she was given the rights stated in Section XII and XIII but maybe not enough. Her side was not thoroughly examined in court. Her conviction was probably influenced by the prerogatives of the judges based on the “obvious” evidences against her. Because of this, Libby, by herself, made her own way to prove her innocence.
Article III, Section X made Libby’s husband liable to their marriage