|
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Arinday: Political reality and the new meaning of justice, 2
By G.H. Arinday, Jr.
Sunfare
THE conflict between political reality and judicial decisions within Philippine context has not been thoroughly studied and commonly accepted or mantled as "sound discretion" of the latter.
In the absence of "intellectual revolution" in the Philippines as it did sweep Europe, notably in France in the 1950s and 1960s, simultaneous with the passionate discussions between two Nobel laureates in Literature Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre of the Marxian concept of law, there was the casual observation in the trend toward discretion and flexibility for want of metaphysical workings of the law in relation to political events.
In our case, the criticism often weighs not on the wisdom of the judicial acts but more consequent on influence-peddling or "whispered" hope of those who hold the pendulum of power. In short, there is no aura of certainty and stability in the interpretations of the law and the exercise of judicial discretion.
If ever there is noted some flexibility or erudition of the intent of the law, the precedent of which is being challenged by some new nuggets of wisdom, the suspecting mind is confronted that the said pronouncements come from the clear stream of values which reject the influences of power-peddlers.
More often than not, the doctrine of stare decisis imprisons the judicious mind for fear of being reprimanded by his superiors, although the "reality" of such precedence has become irrelevant notwithstanding. This is not a criticism of some sort but the way I look at what is the reality.
What are the standards and norms by which we can give the deep-seated meaning of the law, when aside from the judicial body other political agencies handling the administrative aspects could reconcile their different conclusions? There are intangibles in the factual milieu which could make or unmake a case, speculation being abhorred by the rules on evidence. Each law has its own mirrors reflective of the required process, but there are some distortions in some reflections. More so, when the "official" records are either tampered or forged. There is what they term as "ex-post facto" evidence which may give strength to an alleged absence of cause of action and yet usually the same is not considered at all depending, of course, on the status of the litigants. One's station in life helps much in the pursuit of justice. This is one factor which determines whether justice is compartmentalized.
In the present political condition of the country, where issues are closely-knitted to the personalities involved, the creaking wheels of justice are consequent on those characters plus their status in our sick society. In the dark reflections of vested interests, certain constitutional processes become merely a sub-topic or even disregarded through manipulated use of fallacies, like "the sentiments of the people." The manifestation assumes some strength and popularity by the crowd-for-hire prompting the weak-hearted among those charged in the implementation of the law to look for mediational reasons to do away with the judicial processes. They call it reconciliation, and the scene is left littered with debris of unresolved conflicts.
On further reflection, we cannot pretend that justice has been fully given to the people in the age-old yearnings for peace and justice. Take for instance the cases against the Marcoses. Do we have standards on how speedy trials to serve as our own benchmarks? Wealth speaks eloquently than the studied wisdom. This may sound trivial but the reality (ouch, it often hurts!) - a term interpreted in various ways mocks the fundamentals of the living spirit of justice.
The recent outburst of Justice Edilberto Sandoval of the Sandiganbayan about the travesty of justice including the lobbying of some magistrates for promotion bespeaks of amoral tendencies among those who want the choice position without considering the missionary zeal that such position demands.
Unlike the American creed of serving the majesty of the law, we do have such derogative deed of knowing the influential in the temple of power. While there is the prodigious increase in executive and legislative powers, our judicial processes have burdened the litigants of some fees and other requirements to have "free access to the courts." Such maladjustment is not only a curse upon a poor litigant but prompts him to look for an alternative to attain justice. Our lawmakers are downright dumb and indifferent to this problem. Pardon me, not all of them. And yet, let them speak about justice to everyone during elections.
Justice is such a lonely word. (To be continued)
(January 19, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
