My thoughts as I write this essay are triggered by what Senator-Judge Robin Padilla recently said. Oozing with rather misplaced self-confidence, he pleaded for the prosecution (although I heard him say persecution) not to be one-sided. He later further explained that the job of the prosecution is not to win but to obtain justice.
Although his comments stimulated my thoughts, the issue I want to write about is not exactly identical. My thoughts relate to his comments about the need for neutrality although I want to look at it from a different angle.
Society values cold-blooded objective neutrality. A blind-folded lady justice, carrying a weighing scale, is our symbol of neutrality. Another example of our valuation of neutrality is a TV channel which advertises its presentation of news as “walang kinikilingan.”
Thus, we always think of neutrality as something devoutly to be wished. We equate neutrality with logic and fairness. But it may be a surprise to many that our Sacred Scriptures do not look at it that way. In the Book of Exodus, God is not blindfolded when judgment is rendered. God is unabashedly lacking in neutrality. Rather, God says “I have observed the misery of my people… I have heard their cry.” God chose the Israelites for the sole reason that they were being oppressed. The liberation of the Israelites, obviously coming from a divine bias for the oppressed, became a foundational event of Judaism.
The prophets continued this bias for the poor widows and orphans. To put it simply, if God is not neutral, neither were the prophets.
And neither was our Lord Jesus. To be on the side of the poor and the victims is the message of parables like The Good Samaritan and the Rich Man and Lazarus. In the latter, God takes the side of Lazarus for the reason that the rich man was insensitive to his needs. Still in the Gospels, Jesus says that the only criterion for our salvation is what we have done to the least of our brothers and sisters.
This clear one-sidedness of God has led the late South African Anglican Bishop Desmund Tutu, a hero against racial apartheid, to vehemently oppose the idea of divine neutrality. It follows that believers are also called to be one-sided. Bishop Tutu bluntly states, “If you are neutral in situation of injustice, then you are on the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
The secular equivalent of this bias is the motto of President Ramon Magsaysay, “Those who have less in life should have more in law.” This is the reason why public hospitals and public markets should cater more to the poor. For this same reason, the Department of Labor has a bias for the laborer, and not the management.
I invite the reader to relate these thoughts to the ongoing impeachment trial. While we never advocate shortcuts, should the law be really neutral? Should not the law be seen from the lens of accountability and transparency?
