Collision Between Mixed and Civil Law Systems: A Comparative Study of Criminal Procedural Rules in the Philippines and China
Emilio Aguinaldo College, Philippines
Abstract
In the context of global legal modernization, diverse legal systems demonstrate distinct jurisprudential logics and operational models within their criminal procedural frameworks. This study presents a comparative analysis of the mixed legal system of the Philippines and the civil law system of China, focusing on the foundational structure, institutional mechanisms, and reform trajectories of their respective criminal procedures. It begins by outlining the legal traditions and systemic characteristics of both countries, highlighting the profound influence of legal culture on the development and functioning of their criminal justice systems. The study then examines key procedural components, identifying critical operational challenges—including institutional fragmentation, corruption, and deficiencies in human rights protection in the Philippines; and procedural inefficiency, inadequate protection of defense rights, and limited judicial neutrality in China. Finally, the paper assesses the referential value of the Philippine experience for China, offering localized reform recommendations. These emphasize the importance of integrating procedural justice, safeguarding rights, and enhancing institutional coherence, while preserving the structural stability inherent to the civil law tradition.
Keywords:
Philippines and China; Criminal Procedure Rules; Legal System Comparison; Civil Law; Mixed Legal SystemData Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. All legal documents and case law cited are publicly accessible from official government and judicial sources.
Copyright Notice & License:
All articles published in Journal of Law, Psychology, and Communication Studies are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license permits:
-
Unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium;
-
Commercial and non-commercial use;
-
Adaptation and transformation, including derivative works;
provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source, and a link to the license is included.
Authors retain full copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of first publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PDF Downloads
Journal Info
How to Cite
References
David, R. (1966). Major legal systems in the world today. Stevens & Sons.
National People's Congress Standing Committee. (2023). Annual report on the rule of law in China (2023). NPC Press.
People v. Legrama, G.R. No. 133064 (Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 6, 2000).
People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485 (Supreme Court of the Philippines, January 20, 1997).
People v. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566 (Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 9, 2003).
People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224 (Supreme Court of the Philippines, May 19, 2004).
Qiao, Y. (2018). Legal transplants in Chinese criminal justice reform. Journal of Comparative Law, 12(1), 88–102.
Republic of the Philippines. (2020). Rules of criminal procedure. Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2022). Strategic plan for judicial innovations (SPJI) 2022–2027. Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2024). Judicial report RTJ202579: Application of exclusionary rule. Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Transparency International. (2023). Corruption perceptions index 2023.
The Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. (2018). NPC Observer.
Wang, D. (2022). Comparative reflections on judicial independence: China and the Philippines. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 9(1), 55–78.
Zhang, J. (2021). Reforms and challenges in China's criminal procedure system. Peking University Law Journal, 29(2), 112–135. (In Chinese)
Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An introduction to comparative law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
