Jurisprudence vs. Doctrine
What is difference between Jurisprudence and Doctrine? The Constitution is a formal source of law, because it gives rise to the primary foundations that place it above the powers of the State, forcing its operators to obey it. It also contains the essence of political, legal and social order; therefore, establishes the basic principles that must govern all the norms of conduct of the people and those that determine the structure and activity of the State.
Difference between Jurisprudence and Doctrine
But when asserting the Constitution, we must be aware of certain fundamental concepts such as: law, jurisprudence and doctrine; since knowing this will allow us to better understand some things. In this case we will focus on studying the differences between doctrine and jurisprudence.
It is the set of judgments issued by jurists in their task of finding legal truth. This set of opinions issued by scholars of law is manifested through books, magazines, articles; among others. It is reduced to the set of opinions that guide the exercise of the right. It never imposes itself, nor is it mandatory.
Many legislative reforms are due to the doctrine, since it exerts as a force generating legal judgments, influences the conscience of the legislators so that they understand the necessities of reforms or the elaboration of a certain law.
Some claim that jurisprudence has superiority over doctrine, since in practice the content of the former is more binding and binding than the latter.
It is an important source of law. The word derives from the Latin juris “law “, prudentia “wisdom “. Jurisprudence is called the current state of the law, as reflected by the set of decisions that, in a given matter, are enshrined in the decisions of the courts. Judicial rulings by a higher court require the lower-ranking official and the parties involved in the conflict to comply.
It arises from the legal assessment made by judges when knowing whether the right has been well or poorly applied according to the case submitted to them. This legal assessment is the one that leads the judge to a judicial decision, the foundations of which form in a set of general principles product of a judicial experience. In practice, these jurisprudential arguments are taken into account by lawyers to resolve future cases.
This set of decisions of a higher court, has as essential function to ensure the correct interpretation of the laws and to preserve the interpretative unity of the laws.
The unity of the jurisprudential decisions on cases is forming a body of solutions that acquires a certain obligatory and binding character, first because it creates a precedent and second because the same problems will be given identical solutions. This set of sentences is collected month by month in an official publication called the Judicial Bulletin. These publications contribute with this source of right to legal security for all citizens.
The jurisprudence is formed by the interpretations that the courts do of the law, when they specify its content, complete it or also modify it, giving it a solution different from the one that the legislator wanted. She can fill the silence of what the law does not say.
It is the source of law because it generates principles; legal foundations in the circumstances determined in time and place in judicial decisions; interprets the law and transcends horizons where the legislator cannot reach. It is a living matter for the formation of legal science, since it is nourished by judicial experiences. In addition, the judge has to fill the gaps that the legislator at the time of drafting the law did not envisage; so the experience contributes to their training. At the moment the jurisprudence is called judicial right.