The terms "private international law" and "conflict of laws," referring to this subject under civil law, create confusion; they are a misnomer. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the term "choice of law" is better.

While this issue is seldom treated in textbooks on private international law, it is humbly submitted that the simple act of naming a field of study can shape our understanding of its core principles. By naming the subject "choice of law" and by putting more emphasis on the process of "choosing" the applicable law, the term immediately clarifies the subject's central objective: to identify the specific legal system that should govern a situation with connections to multiple jurisdictions. This focus helps students approach the subject not as an abstract exploration of differing legal systems, but as a concrete process of selection. This is because the purpose of conflict-of-laws rules is literally “to choose” between Philippine law and a foreign law in resolving a legal question.

However, it has to admitted that the term "choice of law" also has its own limitations. While it is true that the end-product of conflict-of-laws rules is the determination of the proper legal system that governs the case, it cannot be denied that the term is still insufficient to cover other matters included in the study of private international law. For example, service of summons, jurisdiction, recognition of foreign judgment, and enforcement of foreign judgment are matters also falling under this civil law subject.

Consider, for instance, a situation involving a contract for the sale of goods between a Filipino company and a Japanese company. The contract is signed in the Philippines, the goods are to be delivered in Japan, and payment is to be made in US dollars in a bank in Singapore. If a dispute arises regarding the quality of the goods, the question immediately becomes: which law should govern the interpretation of the contract and the rights and obligations of the parties? Is it Philippine law, where the contract was signed? Is it Japanese law, where the goods were to be delivered? Is it Singaporean law, where payment was to be made? Should it perhaps even be the law of the United States, given the currency of payment? The term "choice of law" perfectly encapsulates the task at hand, i.e., the Philippine court, if the case is brought before it, must "choose" which of these potentially relevant legal systems will provide the rules to resolve the dispute.

From the viewpoint of Philippine courts, the starting point is Philippine law. It is only when Philippine laws, those rules known as conflict-of-laws rules or private international law rules, direct the court to consider foreign law that the latter becomes relevant. For example, Philippine contract laws state that the law of the place where the contract was perfected governs its extrinsic validity. If the contract between the Filipino and Japanese companies was indeed perfected in the Philippines, then Philippine law would likely be the initial point of reference, especially if the case was brought before a Philippine court. However, if Philippine conflict-of-laws rules dictate that the law of the place of performance governs certain aspects of the contract, then Japanese law might become applicable to questions concerning the delivery of the goods or such other aspects.

Above all the foregoing discussions, it is important to highlight the crucial procedural aspect of proving foreign law. Even if Philippine conflict-of-laws rules point to the application of Japanese law in our hypothetical scenario, the Philippine court cannot simply take judicial notice of Japanese law. The party seeking the application of Japanese law bears the burden of properly pleading and proving its content; alegata et probata. This typically involves presenting official publications of the foreign law or, in limited circumstances, the expert testimony of individuals knowledgeable in that legal system in question. If Japanese law is not properly proven, the Philippine court is obliged to apply Philippine law -- the lex fori or the law of the forum -- under the principle of processual presumption.

Finally, even if a foreign law is properly pleaded and proved, the Philippine court retains the right to refuse its application if it contravenes the established public policy of the Philippines. This is a fundamental principle in conflict of laws, ensuring that foreign laws, no matter how relevant they might seem in a given set of facts, do not and cannot undermine the core values and principles of the forum state, not to mention its overarching constitutional policies and considerations. For instance, if the properly proven Japanese law regarding contracts contained provisions that were deemed to be grossly contrary to Philippine notions of fairness and equity, the Philippine court is justified in invoking the public policy exception and apply Philippine law instead.