Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 48 no. 10 (2025)

Ambiguity in Focus: A Forensic Discourse Analysis of Republic Act 11648

Kyra Joy Malda | Jhenrose Nove Ebro | Karl Templado | Roseann Ibarra | Maico Demi B. Aperocho

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Citizens enforce laws; therefore, legal documents must be understandable not only to legal experts but also to individuals who are not well-versed in legal language. This study analyzed the Republic Act 11648, or the Act Increasing the Age for Determining the Commission of Statutory Rape. In particular, the researchers aimed to unravel the ambiguities and the structure of this provision. Using Boyarskaya's (2019) Eight Classifications of Ambiguities and Coode's (1845) Four Elements of the Legal Rule as theoretical frameworks, the analysis of the texts reveals that ambiguity is circumstantial in assessing the effectiveness of Coode's standard legislative structure. The study's results showed that the eight classifications of ambiguities were present in the provision, and only two sentences contained all four elements of the legal rule. In addition, ambiguities limit the effectiveness, adequacy, specificity, and validity of interpreting the legal text, even though it follows Coode's Structure of Legislative Provisions. The analyses not only reveal that RA 11648 has ambiguities and follows a particular structure, but they also suggest existing issues in the Philippine legal context, particularly regarding references, grammar, structure, and vocabulary that need to be addressed. Ultimately, this study highly contributes to an in-depth view of the overall linguistic approach of the Philippine legal system through the lens of forensic studies.



References:

  1. Alnuzaili, E.S. (2022). Linguistic ambiguity in the transitional Civil Code of Eritrea. Studies in English Language Teaching, 1-21. DOI: 10.22158/selt.v10n2p67
  2. Awe, B. I., & Fanokun, P. S. (2018). Archaisms in legal contracts - A corpus-based analysis. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 6(4), 5-20.
  3. AZ Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (n.d.). Types of Abuse. In the AZ Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence. https://www.acesdv.org/domestic-violence-graphics/types-of-abuse/
  4. Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman
  5. Benzmüller, C., & Andrews, P. (2019). Church’s type theory. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Meta-physics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  6. Bernardo, A.S., & Albaña-Garrido, A.P. (2023). Disambiguating Philippine Republic Acts: The case of RA 10913. Intl J Legal Discourse, 8(1): 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2006
  7. Bizri, O. F. (2018). Science, Technology, Innovation, and Development in the Arab Countries. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812577-9.00006-4
  8. Bouregbi, S. (2021). Ambiguity in legal translation. 251-264. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350048798_Ambiguity_in_Legal_Translation
  9. Boyarskaya, E. (2019). Ambiguity matters in linguistics and translation. Slovo.ru: Baltijskij Accent 10(3). https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/4293/12718/
  10. Brecht, A. (1939). Relative and absolute justice. Social Research, 6(1), 58–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40981655
  11. Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.). Syndicate. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/syndicate
  12. Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.). Definition of thereof. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/thereof
  13. Carpenter, J. (2022). The problems and positives of passives: Exploring why controlling passive voice nominalizations is about more than preference and style. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4290027
  14. Cave, T. (1990). Recognitions: A study in poetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  15. Chauhaan, L. (2013). Use of archaic language in law. European Academic Research, 1(4), 332-336.
  16. Conway, P. (2012). Drafting to avoid syntactic ambiguity. http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/site/articleIDs/63B6C5E2ABB6A511CA25714C000CFF37/$file/syntactic.pdf
  17. Coode, G. (1845). On legislative expression: Or the language of the written law. https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=hvQDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
  18. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007) An introduction to forensic linguistics. Language in evidence. Abingdon: Routledge.
  19. Council of Europe (n.d.). Verbal sexual harassment. In Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/harassment-and-sexual-harassment#:~:text=Verbal%20examples%20of   %20sexual%20harassment,clothing%2C%20anatomy%2C%20or%20looks%2C
  20. Delu, Z., & Rushan, L. (2021). New research on cohesion and coherence in linguistics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003190110
  21. Doninger, W. (1999). Carnal knowledge. Doreen B. Townsend Center Occasional Papers, 21, 1-18. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/90s963bm
  22. Eliezer, K., & Peled, E. (2021). Intertextual psychoanalytic-intersubjective analysis in qualitative research: Can two walk together, except they be agreed?. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 26. 1-13. 10.1080/13645579.2021.2011118.
  23. Gałuskina, K., & Sycz, J. (2013). Latin maxims and phrases in the Polish, English and French legal systems — The comparative study. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 34(47), 9-26. DOI: 10.2478/slgr-2013-0020 
  24. Garner, B. A. (2001). A dictionary of modern legal usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  25. Halliday, M. A. K, & Hasan, R. (2014.). Cohesion in English, p. 32.
  26. Hartin, T. (2023, November 21). Rhetorical device | Definition, types & examples. https://study.com/learn/lesson/rhetorical-device-types-examples.html
  27. Hemmel, D. J.  (2023). Polysemy and the law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4264800
  28. Houlbrooke, R. (2018). Carnal knowledge: Regulating sex in England. Cultural and Social History. 16. 1-2. 10.1080/14780038.2018.1521551.
  29. Hu, D. (2023). Linguistic expressions of conditions of Chinese legislative provisions: A register grammar perspective. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1405.29
  30. Hu, D. (2022). Conditional markers of legal texts: A comparative study of Civil Code and its English version. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(8). https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.27
  31. International Federation of Accountants. (2010). International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board.
  32. Jain, B. (2017). Decoding Latin maxims. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/decoding-latin-maxims-bhoomika-jain#:~:text=Published%20Oct%2021%2C%202017,on%20which%20law%20is%20built
  33. Kalejaiye, A., Oyagiri, B., & Idowu, O. (2019) Ambiguities in the language of law: A case study of selected court cases in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI). https://www.ijhssi.org/papers/vol8(9)/Series-2/J0809025359.pdf
  34. Karolides, N. J. (2020). The reading process: Transactional theory in action. In Reader Response in Elementary Classrooms (pp. 3-28). Routledge.
  35. Kao, C.W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2020). High school writing teacher feedback on word choice errors. Language Learning & Technology, 24(3), 19–29. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44732
  36. Kwarcinski, W. (2019). What is legal discourse: A pragmatic account. https://wa.amu.edu.pl/plm_old/2003/abs_kwarcinski.htm
  37. Lian, X., Huang, D., Li, X., Zhao, Z., Fan, Z., & Li, M. (2023). Really vague? Automatically identify the potential false vagueness within the context of documents. Mathematics. 11. 2334. 10.3390/math11102334.
  38. Madrunio, M. & Pefianco-Martin, I. (2023). Forensic linguistics in the Philippines: Origins, developments, and directions. 10.1017/9781009106078.
  39. Massey, A.K., Rutledge, R., Anton, A., & Swire, P. (2014). Identifying and classifying ambiguity for regulatory requirements. 22nd international Conference on RE. IEEE
  40. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.). Trade. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trade
  41. Otat, D. (2015). Potential ambiguity translation performances within legal language institutional nomenclature. Ambiguous valences of performance in contract language. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 7(3), 15–24.
  42. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (n.d.). Exception. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/exception#:~:text=a%20person%20or%20thing%20that%20is%20not%20included%20in%20a%20general%20statement
  43. Palmer, A. (2023, December 21). Negative connotations (E. Hans, Ed.). https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-negative-connotation-definition-examples.html
  44. Philippine Information Agency (2023, April 12). Rape has the highest incidence among eight-focused crimes in Davao City in 2023. https://pia.gov.ph/news/2023/04/12/rape-has-the-highest-incidence-among-eight-focused-crimes-in-davao-city-in-2023
  45. Rape: Reasons, Impacts and Preventions. (2021, August 25). Edubirdie. https://edubirdie.com/examples/rape-reasons-impacts-and-preventions/
  46. Saleh, Y. (2017). Semantic ambiguity in English language. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339273973_Semantic_ambiguity_In_English_language/citation/download
  47. Shang, Y., & Jin, S. (2018). On the ambiguity caused by the language structure in the legal case. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Atlantis Press, 220, 499-504. DOI 10.2991/iceemt-18.2018.97
  48. Statista Research Department (2023). Number of rape cases Philippines 2020-2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1170653/philippines-number-of-cases/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20number% 20of,year’s%20total%20number%20of%20cases
  49. Sultonov, K., & Numonova, Z. (2021). The analyses of reference in discourse and its main types. European Scholar Journal, 4(2), 200-202. https://scholarzest.com/index.php/esj/article/download/512/423/1077
  50. Sunstar (2023, September 6). Rising rape cases alarm police. https://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/local-news/rising-rape-cases-alarm-police
  51. Supreme Court E-Library (1930, December 8). An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws. Supreme Court E-Library. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426
  52. Tapia-Hoffmann, A. (2021). Legal certainty. 10.1007/978-3-030-70986-0_2.
  53. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
  54. Thomas, J. C., & Kopel, J. (2023). Male victims of sexual assault: A review of the literature. Behavioral Sciences, 4(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040304
  55. Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
  56. Torbert, P. (2014). The study of the risks of contract ambiguity. The University of Chicago Law School: Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Working Paper No. 686.
  57. Ulugbek, R. (2021). An analysis of words whose emotional meaning changes in modern English linguistics. Euro-Asia Conferences, 1(1), 131-136.
  58. Vocabulary.com. (n.d.). Dealing. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dealing
  59. Vocabulary.com. (n.d.). Sex offense. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sex offense 
  60. Walsh, M., & Goldberg, R. M. (2020). Rethinking counseling recruitment for transgender clients: Using content analysis to investigate trends. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 14(3), 210-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2020.1790466
  61. Willows, D. M. (1974). Reading between the lines: Selective attention in good and poor readers. Child Development, 45(2), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127962
  62. Yu, D. (1997). A comparative study of grammatical ambiguity and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Foreign Language, 6, 29–35.
  63. Zhang, G. (2014). A comparative analysis of lexical features of contract English. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL). https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v2-i9/9.pdf

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic