By: Dion Ceazar M. Pascua

San Beda College Manila College of Law

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

     In these centuries of radical changes against colonial rule happening all over the world, classes have also risen, and populist nationalism had begun to rise.  More importantly, the modernization and renewal of legal and government institutions have taken place.

     It’s important to underscore these developments that led to the institutionalization of democratically-made laws.  These laws must always be understood as made in the context and consent of the governed.  While indeed republicanism is the only practicable and modern way to initiate and govern democracy, its main disadvantage lies in its shortcomings in representing the entirety of the governed. 

     But of course, this is understandable, considering that informed consent has become a privilege rather than an absolute right; only some people are capable of participating politically because of their upbringing, education, and social background which enable them to acquire enough knowledge to form a well-grounded belief in politics.

     Let us take this into the Filipino context.  Informed consent and political activity on the part of Filipinos is a societal problem—majority of Filipinos do not know how government works and how it functions to an extent to give them enough to give an informed consent on things. Instead, the same Filipinos have become more focused on their individual lives rather than their lives as relative to the government—as citizens of the Philippines.  And there is nothing wrong with this, actually.  We would rather engage in more pleasant matters than the complexities of politics, drama, and the occasional scandals.  We would rather plough the fields and fish in the oceans to bring bread to the table than engage in discourse that would use too much time that could be used on more important matters. 

     As the old legal maxim goes: ‘your freedom ends where mine begins;’ if there is no respect to other liberties, there wouldn’t be liberty for all.  As citizens we must always recognize the independence of others.  Laws must always be made in consideration of being the middle-ground of liberties among citizens—to construct the limitations of private and personal rights to the benefit of all.  While it cannot be an insurer of liberties, laws must always strive and maximize the protection and the furtherance of rights.  Besides that fact, laws must always be forward-thinking and open-minded, always embracing change, and always inclusive of new concepts.  At the least, laws must reflect verified scientific and rational findings beyond the scope of what has been established and constructed.  In other words, laws must be the exponent of morality and good policy.

     Today, the Philippines is ideally a government of laws, and not of men, as it follows strictly its codes of laws to the letter, owing to its nature as a primarily civil law legal system.  Recent events, particularly pertaining to the widespread proliferation of extrajudicial killings, would show that this isn’t the case, and rights have been greatly miscarried and deprived.  We must never compromise our belief in the laws to the whims of the cries for vengeance, no matter how righteous those calls may be.  Due process is an object of liberty; and liberty is an object of social justice.  Most of all, social justice creates and broadens opportunities and rights for people who will engender a better future for the state.  The laws of the state may not be perfect, and often times, unfair, but an active citizenry will always fulfil the intent and letter of the laws through their unvitiated and informed consent, regardless of the number of persons with self-serving agendas.  The law equally requires our participation and consent to it, as well as demanding us to effect and air out our political concerns and grievances.  We are often daunted with other affairs that concern our personal lives, but we must never forget our roles as citizens of the Republic.

          WE ARE A GOVERNMENT of laws, and not of men, so said John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. It was during this time that he, with the other Founding Fathers of the US, decided to run against the oppressive British Monarchy of King George the Third, and establish the first ever constitutional democratic republic in the world—the first of its kind.

          The American Revolutionary War is a classic example of a struggle versus foreign colonialism, and, as a result, the US government was born—embodying the principles of democracy, republicanism, separation and delegation of powers, and civil service, that have been developed through history from the birth of the Roman Republic, to the Italian city-states and merchant republics, and to the codification and institutionalization of common law doctrine of the United Kingdom.

          It also brought a new movement—a movement against the old world order of feudalism and aristocracy, which directly inspired the French Revolution and the subsequent Latin American Revolutions against Spain, and eventually, the Philippine Revolution.

          Adams’s quote then on became the hallmark of democratic institutions that followed—men then knew that it was more fair and righteous to create a state of laws than follow the absolute rule of monarchs, dictators and despots. From then on, people have become united under governance of content rather than of absolute rule. As English statesman John Milton once wrote:

“The power of kings and magistrates is nothing else, but what is only derivative, transferred and committed to them in trust from the people, to the common good of them all, in whom the power yet remains fundamentally, and cannot be taken from them, without a violation of their natural birthright.”

          Further into this development, rights have been defined, standardized; lawyers, paralegals and notaries have become more common professions, and societies have been transformed from being societies of serfdom patronage into societies of liberalism and individualism.

          In these centuries of radical changes against colonial rule happening all over the world, class’s havealso raised, and populist nationalism had begun to rise. More importantly, the modernization and renewal of legal and government institutions have taken place.

          It’s important to underscore these developments that led to the institutionalization of democratically-made laws. These laws, the subject and context of today’s studies in law, must always be understood as made in the context and consent of the governed. While indeed republicanism is the only practicable and modern way to initiate and govern democracy, its main disadvantage lies in its shortcomings in representing the entirety of the governed.

A government by consent

          But of course, this is understandable, considering that informed consent has become a privilege rather than an absolute right; only some people are capable of participating politically because of their upbringing, education, and social background which enable them to acquire enough knowledge to form a well-grounded belief in politics. While some are inherently disabled—the differently abled or the mentally disturbed; or, if not inherently disabled, the unwilling—the apolitical, the apathetic, and the misinformed. These are some individuals who are deprived of consent for laws, but are no less than the other governed.

          Let us take this into the Filipino context. Informed consent and political activity on the part of Filipinos is a societal problem—majority of Filipinos do not know how government works and how it functions to an extent to give them enough to give an informed consent on things. This consent is often manifested in voting. Instead, the same Filipinos have becomemore focused on their individual lives rather than their lives as relative to the government—as citizens of the Philippines. And there is nothing wrong with this, actually. We would rather engage in more pleasant matters than the complexities of politics, drama, and the occasional scandals. We would rather plough the fields and fish in the oceans to bring bread to the table than engage in discourse that would use too much time that could be used on more important matters.

          As an agricultural and working people, Filipinos are short-term oriented, or subsistence-oriented, and voting, which should be a fair avenue for Filipinos of every class to vent their political will, becomes an avenue to justify and complement these short-term or subsistence-oriented goals. In other words, politics and governance are viewed only to serve citizens, not as a participatory endeavor.

          This system is especially vulnerable to corruption, which is the case happening in the country. This is also used by people to politicize their platforms, which will easily gain traction on incomplete consent. While again, this is not a problem, it becomes as such when a politician uses this weakness to gain the favor of the electorate without protest, giving him an unbridled leverage on political matters, including using it for his own gain and agendas. As such, consent is vitiated; there is no expression of the fullness of liberty and rights.

          Why is informed consent important? In today’s libertarian and democratic institutions, consent is the main currency of legislation and public service—laws are made with the consent of the people through their delegated and democratically-elected officials. As discussed before, this consent may be vitiated not by choice, but by necessity from societal factors and this weakness may be taken advantage of by self-serving agendas in the bureaucracy. Also, avenues to express political consent are often times not taken seriously by the electorate, who would rather have a political system for their needs not as a citizen of the government, but as a private individual. Laws are made for the benefit of its subjects—the state; but it doesn’t only stop at to create and define the state, but to set the state in its course to betterment and an ideal destination—this is often enshrined in the state’s constitution.

          But what composes of this ‘ideal destination?’ It is understood that modern laws are practicable to an extent that they recognize the inequalities, dilemmas and lacks in society, which the same affirm, and which they aim to reduce or alleviate. Laws are geared towards the achievement of social justice and equity, as well as prosperity, but this concept, as always, is subject to the different factors that constitute the individual’s concept of politics.

Social justice

          The conversation of Socrates with his sophist friends in The Republic by Plato, defined justice as giving what is due and taking what is undue. He then proceeded to trace the origin of justice, which he and his other friends said came out of fear of persecution of the breach social contracts (either widely practiced or verbal) which were borne out of agreement, consent—and that if one breaches these contracts that have been widely agreed upon, it becomes injustice. Socrates also made mention of an ‘ideal city state’ of which ruled by a ‘Philosopher King,’ in contrast to a king who has gained an ‘education.’ Socrates averred that the overwhelming power of the city state has even breached the privacy of normal citizens—that rights are ruthlessly subordinated to serve the state’s (which is ruled by the ‘educated’ king) needs in war.

          You could say that Socrates was the first ever advocate of human rights. During the Italian renaissance, these political views were then reaffirmed in part by Niccolo Machiavelli. Though Machiavelli, a statist, agreed that there is a need for the ruler to further pursue in the arts of civil matters and war, his main argument in The Prince is that the state must survive through any means possible, preferably through a show of force, even to a point of subjecting its constituents to fear. In either case of Machiavelli and Socrates, it was a view on social justice.

          Fast forward to contemporary times, a more modern definition of social justice is the just relation of a private individual to a society, and how that society provides for its individuals the opportunities for them to flourish in their desires and aspirations of the self. According to Plato however, social justice is when an individual, by virtue, fulfils his assigned or inherited role for the benefit of other individuals in a state. If that were the case, then there is no social justice if an individual extricates himself from society and participates only for his own matters. Under this definition, there is no social justice if laws are made without the full consent and consideration of the rights of the governed.

          Hence we see political activism—human rights, environmental rights, racial minorityrights and indigenous peoples’ rights. The beauty in our constitution is that it has enshrined a bill or rights, as with most current constitutions of other sovereign states, it preserves and reserves the rights of the citizen against the deprivation of life, liberty and property.

          Liberty is another object of social justice. Defined as the right to exercise freedom and free will, liberty, in recent times, have been redefined as the right to good and avoid evil. Every law student, in the first phase of his or her study in law school, is given the concept of liberty and how it relates to due process. As it always been, liberty is more of a political right than a natural one, for if one defines liberty through his own terms, without due consideration of other persons with personal liberties as well, there wouldn’t be liberty to begin with.

Liberty to do good and avoid evil

          As the old legal maxim goes: ‘your freedom ends where mine begins;’ if there is no respect to other liberties, there wouldn’t be liberty for all. As citizens we must always recognize the independence of others. Laws must always be made in consideration of being the middle-ground of liberties among citizens—to construct the limitations of private and personal rights to the benefit of all. While it cannot be an insurer of liberties, laws must always strive and maximize the protection and the furtherance of rights. Besides that fact, laws must always be forward-thinking and open-minded, always embracing change, and always inclusive of new concepts. At the least, laws must reflect verified scientific and rational findings beyond the scope of what has been established and constructed. In other words, laws must be the exponent of morality and good policy. This has been especially true in today’s political practice—what is frowned upon before may be acceptable today, for example, witchcraft used to be severely punished in the United States, homosexuality and queerness was viewed as a mental illness before, racial segregation also used to be legal, and the recreational use of cannabis used to be illegal.

          It therefore follows that if properly-made and forward-thinking laws made are diligently followed by its citizens, a more open, prosperous and intelligent society becomes more manifest.

          Today, the Philippines is ideally a government of laws, and not of men, as it follows strictly its codes of laws to the letter, owing to its nature as a primarily civil law legal system. Recent events, particularly pertaining to the widespread proliferation of extrajudicial killings, would show that this isn’t the case, and rights have been greatly miscarried and deprived, especially for the suspects of the extra-judicial killings on their rights to due process. As law students, we must never compromise our belief in the laws to the whims of the cries for vengeance, no matter how righteous those calls may be. Due process is an object of liberty, and, as discussed, liberty is an object of social justice. Most of all, social justice creates and broadens opportunities and rights for people who will engender a better future for the state. The laws of the state may not be perfect, and often times, unfair, but an active citizenry will always fulfil the intent and letter of the laws through their unvitiated and informed consent, regardless of the number of persons with self-serving agendas. The law equally requires our participation and consent to it, as well as demanding us to effect and air out our political concerns and grievances. We are often daunted with other affairs that concern our personal lives, but we must never forget our roles as citizens of the Republic.

By: Ervin Fredrick H. Dy

University of the Philippines College of Law

Executive Summary

     What is Rule of Law? Rule of Law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It is exactly this capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner equivalent to lack of jurisdiction which is often the subject being assailed at in numerous petitions for certiorari. Rule of Law affords people a certain expectation of fair play and not being simply left to the whims of a person, such as in the case of dictatorship, wherein the ruler is held above law. This was clearly present during the time of martial law under Former President Ferdinand Marcos, who held both executive and legislative powers. At his discretion, he would institute or promulgate numerous presidential decrees penalizing certain acts, the public having no prior notice or knowledge of such laws, in turn being arrested out of the blue for committing an act they didn’t know was illegal. Without Rule of Law, there was wide spread oppression on the part of Marcos, there being rampant summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during his regime. Thus we can say that without Rule of Law there is no liberty.

     But what kind of liberty are we exactly talking about? I respectfully propose that the Rule of Law affords liberty from arbitrariness and oppression.

     As stated earlier, Rule of Law provides people a reasonable expectation of fairness and consistency when the law is applied. When a person files a case before the courts. He would expect that the judge would apply the current existing laws correctly and not arbitrarily or be affected and persuaded to rule otherwise through bribes. The principle of stare decisis is based from this foundation. This principle espouses the doctrine of precedent, which means that if an issue has already been decided the Court should simply adopt its previous ruling. This affords litigants an idea how a case will be decided by the courts given the already long history and experiences available to the courts. Otherwise, without stare decisis, the Court could simply flip flop over and over again in utter disregard of its previous rulings, leading the party litigants to the whims of the Court. Litigation would not then be about applying and interpreting the law, but it would simply be who the judges or justices prefer more.

     Proceeding from liberty from arbitrariness, what is the next logical consequence? It is necessarily the achieving of a stable judicial system. As already pointed out before, wherein people trust the judicial system since there is consistency and whatever judgment they may be rendered with, it is based on sound legal reasoning and not caprice, hence people get what is due to them, that which is just and equitable. Having a stable legal system is a crucial aspect of attaining prosperity.

     Prosperity is the state of flourishing, thriving, good fortune or successful social status.  One way this can be achieved is through investments and ventures. As a potential investor, one would survey the countries wherein there is lesser risk of bad investments, such as when the government takes control over such assets and refuses to compensate such taking. With a stable legal system, investors would be encouraged to invest in our country because of the minimized risk of arbitrariness on the part of the government. If there is any breach of obligation, injury, or harm suffered by the investor, he is sure to be able to obtain relief and correspondingly receive what is just under a stable legal system. With more investors being enticed to invest in our country, prosperity is then a necessary consequence of the Rule of Law.

“When the Rule of Law disappears, we are ruled by the whims of men.”

– Tiffany Madison

        What is Rule of Law? Rule of Law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It is exactly this capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner equivalent to lack of jurisdiction which is often the subject being assailed at in numerous petitions for certiorari. Basically, Rule of Law affords people a certain expectation of fair play and not being simply left to the whims of a person, such as in the case of dictatorship, wherein the ruler is held above law. This was clearly present during the time of martial law under Former President Ferdinand Marcos, who held both executive and legislative powers. At his discretion, he would institute or promulgate numerous presidential decrees penalizing certain acts, the public having no prior notice or knowledge of such laws, in turn being arrested out of the blue for committing an act they didn’t know was illegal. This was exactly the subject being challenged of in the landmark case of Tañada vs. Tuvera, wherein the publication requirement for any rule was held by the Supreme Court to be mandatory, what may be provided by law was merely the number of days after publication before it takes effectivity. Without Rule of Law, there was wide spread oppression on the part of Marcos, who has already been recognized as a tyrant under our laws such as Republic Act 10368 or the “Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013”, wherein the State recognizes the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during his regime. Thus we can say that without Rule of Law there is no liberty.

        But what kind of liberty are we exactly talking about? Is it merely physical liberty, that is one is not incarcerated? Or does it pertain to liberty of movement, wherein one can freely move to and fro? Or is it liberty of choice, being free to choose whatever gender preference one has or the person who one wants to marry? I respectfully propose that the Rule of Law affords liberty on two fronts based on its definition: namely liberty from arbitrariness and oppression on the part of the subjects of law or the governed, and liberty from corruption on the part of the law maker or the governor.

        As stated earlier, Rule of Law provides people a reasonable expectation of fairness and consistency when the law is applied. When one person is caught for over speeding, he would not complain against the traffic enforcer arguing as to why he was singled out. He would expect that each and every violator of traffic regulations would be apprehended as well as far as practicable. The same is true when a person files a case before the courts. He would expect that the judge would apply the current existing laws correctly and not arbitrarily or be affected and persuaded to rule otherwise through bribes. The principle of stare decisis is based from this foundation. This principle espouses the doctrine of precedent, which means that if an issue has already been decided the Court should simply adopt its previous ruling. This affords litigants an idea how a case will be decided by the courts given the already long history and experiences available to the courts. Otherwise, without stare decisis, the Court could simply flip flop over and over again in utter disregard of its previous rulings, leading the party litigants to the whims of the Court. Litigation would not then be about applying and interpreting the law, but it would simply be who the judges or justices prefer more.

        Now, on the part of the law maker or governor, why is it that Rule of Law will provide liberty from corruption? To explain this, allow me to quote the motto of my beloved fraternity, the Alpha Phi Beta Fraternity, of which I am a proud member of: “We shall not be saved without wisdom, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty.”

        Our motto starts with the phrase “We shall not be saved”, depicting the current scenario we are faced with that “We”, as humans, are in need of being saved. Are our lives in physical danger? What do we need saving from? This is answered by the following phrase of “for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty.” The fraternity recognizes the importance of knowledge in that it is a source of power. You can use such knowledge to convince other people to do things they would not normally do, either because you are incredibly convincing and credible with such knowledge, or the fact that the knowledge itself is used to coerce another person such as in the case of blackmail, wherein private information about a person is used to control his actions. Now power is merely a tool which can help a person achieve what he wants, to help him attain his goals. It can be used for good or even bad purposes, as in the case of Former President Marcos, who although is undeniably brilliant in himself, as he was a Bar Topnotcher among others, abused his power and used it for his personal gain, to the detriment of the public. As Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton said: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” With unrestricted power, one can easily be corrupted by it, hence the notion that humans need saving, specifically saving from the problem of corruption of power. Now what is the answer to this problem of corruption? The motto provides it to be only wisdom. Wisdom, simply put, is the ability to discern what is right from what is wrong, and choosing to do the right thing. With wisdom, one’s use of power is tempered and no longer prone to abuse. With wisdom, one can attain liberty – liberty from corruption of power. Wisdom is the central theme of the fraternity with the end goal of attaining liberty. As applied to Rule of Law, when the public official knows and recognizes the Rule of Law, that is in order to be right his decisions must be reasonable and not arbitrary, he will not then succumb to the temptations of power and be corrupted by it.

        Proceeding from liberty from arbitrariness, what is the next logical consequence? It is necessarily the achieving of a stable judicial system. As already pointed out before, wherein people trust the judicial system since there is consistency and whatever judgment they may be rendered with, it is based on sound legal reasoning and not caprice, hence people get what is due to them, that which is just and equitable. Having a stable legal system is a crucial aspect of attaining prosperity.

        Prosperity is the state of flourishing, thriving, good fortune or successful social status.  One way this can be achieved is through investments and ventures. As a potential investor, one would survey the countries wherein there is lesser risk of bad investments, such as when the government takes control over such assets and refuses to compensate such taking. With a stable legal system, investors would be encouraged to invest in our country because of the minimized risk of arbitrariness on the part of the government. If there is any breach of obligation, injury, or harm suffered by the investor, he is sure to be able to obtain relief and correspondingly receive what is just under a stable legal system. With more investors being enticed to invest in our country, prosperity is then a necessary consequence of the Rule of Law.

        Understanding the philosophy of liberty and prosperity under the Rule of Law, how can I then aim to promote this as a law student and in the future in my legal career? As a student, I am currently espousing this philosophy as a member of the Alpha Phi Beta Fraternity among others. As stated earlier, the central theme of our fraternity is wisdom with the end goal of attaining liberty. As such when looking for potential recruits to our fraternity, we orient them on our goals and how to achieve them, such essentially is an information dissemination project, better if the person is actually recruited and joins us in our worthy cause. Concurrent with recruitment as a method of disseminating our views and philosophies, the fraternity is also active in numerous projects. One of the pillars of the fraternity is academics. As explained before, the fraternity recognizes the importance of knowledge in that it is a source of power. If one has great academic standing, he tends to be more credible in the eyes of others. This in fact was true when I participated as a speaker just recently on September 15 in a talk titled “A Look into Law”, organized by the UP-NCPAG Student Council for those students interested to take up law. I was invited to give an inspirational talk to motivate the students to pursue law due to my outstanding academic background, graduating Magna Cum Laude in BS Geodetic Engineering and currently top 5 of our batch and a member of the Order of the Purple Feather, the honor society at UP College of Law. In my speech I talked about how law is merely a tool that can be used to attain a specific objective or purpose, in that we should not be corrupted by power and remember that no one is above the law, hence attain liberty from corruption. Another pillar of the fraternity is forensics and debate. Just this past three weeks, I participated and won the championship in the 29^th Annual Pi Sigma Open Debate Tournament, which is the longest running open debate tournament in Southeast Asia. The debate tournament is aimed to promote awareness and critical thinking on various issues that have affected Philippine society. Participants came from different schools such as San Beda College of Law, Arellano University School of Law, Lyceum of the Philippines University. Participants from UP came from College of Engineering, School of Library and Information Studies, UP Debate Society, and College of Law. On our elimination matchup with the UP College of Engineering, the proposition was that PD 910, or the Malampaya Fund law, be amended to allow its use for biodiversity conservation. As the negative side, we argued and highlighted that no matter how good a policy is or how noble the cause of conserving the environment is, under the Rule of Law the amendment proposed must pass the test of constitutionality, otherwise, public funds will be left to the whims and unbridled discretion of the executive, such as was the case when the Supreme Court declared the phrase “as may be hereafter directed by the President” as unconstitutional in the case of Belgica vs. Ochoa or the PDAF case. The importance of Rule of Law was explained not only to the opposing side composed of engineering students, but as well as to the audience members who may not have been familiar with it. Through debate, I can not only inform other people regarding the philosophy of liberty and prosperity under the Rule of Law, I can in fact convince them and help them see and realize the importance of such philosophy.

        In line with the moniker of my fraternity Alpha Phi Beta, which means “Abogado Para sa Bayan” and the fact that I am a product of the UP education system, meaning I am an iskolar ng bayan, my planned line of work is government and public service. Just last June to July I interned at the Office of the Solicitor General to have a taste of what public service is, and I am convinced that I will be pursuing my career there. From the OSG, my next track would be to shift to the Judiciary, either going to the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan. While in the Judiciary, I can promote the philosophy by helping attain judicial stability under the Rule of Law in order to have prosperity. From there I can also conduct lectures, seminars, workshops, trainings, classes, and other forms of instruction to promote the philosophy.

By: Sean James B. Borja

Ateneo de Manila Law School

Executive Summary: Resonance

     In the age of millennials, where choice is virtually unlimited, choosing a career path is a quarterlife crisis waiting to happen.  Luckily for me, that was not the case; as early as my junior year in high school, I was fairly set on becoming a lawyer. While I was spared the conundrum of discovering what I wanted to do in life, however, vocational certainty did not mean understanding. I relished in building my hopes and dreams and yet I had a rather rudimentary grasp of what lawyers did. My high school teachers told me that lawyers were all about fighting for justice. But what is justice? What do lawyers fight for?

     Our very own Constitution, in Section 9, Article II, dares to define what justice entails. It commands the State to “promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation, and free the people from poverty.” By and large, this constitutional mandate is designed to put the plight of the underprivileged at center stage of governmental policy and to rally the State’s awesome machinery to eliminate inequities in society.  Prosperity for all: that is the goal of social justice.

     Our Constitution recognizes that our nation’s poorest are not free. They are bound by the chains of poverty, and lack the very voice to espouse their own cause. Viewed in this light, our earlier conception of justice becomes a little bit clearer: justice is not just about giving. Justice must also be enabling. In the words of our very own Supreme Court, “Social justice does not champion division of property or equality of economic status; what it and the Constitution do guaranty are equality of opportunity, equality of political rights, equality before the law, equality between values given and received, and equitable sharing of the social and material goods on the basis of efforts exerted in their production.”[1] Justice goes beyond benevolence; it requires, instead, an interplay between prosperity and liberty. One without the other would simply not do.

     How do we go about attaining liberty? I believe we can begin by hearing out stories.

     ‘Little Prince’ Lander Solano is a 9-year-old boy who sells kesong puti to passers-by along Filmore Street, Makati. He negotiates alleys, flyovers, and underpasses every day—all in the company of thieves—just to make a living. Little Prince’s mother also sells kesong puti behind the Cash & Carry along Osmeña Highway, where the family spends the night whenever their goods remain unsold. He is currently out of school, but one day, he said, he will take up engineering and build homes, towers, and dreams.

     Little Prince’s narrative is but one of myriad stories that need to be heard. This is where, I believe, the legal profession and advocacy come in. We claim to live under the rule of law, but without the instrumentalities to bridge the gap between established rights and the underserved, the deep-seated inequalities that we have today will endure for generations to come. Thus, a discussion of Article III of the Constitution is a hifalutin, largely academic exercise unless it can be concretized and brought down to the level of the common tao. And so I believe this is the lawyer’s task: a lawyer must stand at the helm of the law and, through the strength of advocacy and the power his/her voice, turn liberty and prosperity into concrete reality.

     It has been said that the rule of law is the great equalizer and yet, without lawyers, the law is rendered fictional and out of reach, especially for those at the fringes of society. Prosperity and liberty under the rule of law: these are laudable goals but without agency to bridge them to the beneficiaries, a wide chasm will continue to isolate the underserved. And so this is the lawyer’s mission: s/he must learn the power of advocacy—learn to harness it, and become the voice that resonates when others go silent.

[1] Guido v. Rural Progress Administration, G.R. No. L-2089, October 31, 1949.

Never have our people had greater need than today for great lawyers, and for young men and women determined to be great lawyers. Great lawyers—not brilliant lawyers. A scoundrel may be, and often is, brilliant; and the greater the scoundrel, the more brilliant the lawyer. But only a good man can become a great lawyer: For only a man who understands the weaknesses of men because he has conquered them in himself; who has the courage to pursue his ideals though he knows them to be unattainable… only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and never resort to force.

         — Jose “Ka Pepe” Diokno

        For many people, choosing a career path is a quarterlife crisis waiting to happen. In the age of millennials, where choice is virtually unlimited and people are constantly looking to find and dig into their niche—to be “different” and to stand out from the crowd—“what do you want to do?” has become a sensitive topic to be broached with caution.  Luckily for me, that was not the case; as early as my junior year in high school, I was fairly set on becoming a lawyer. “An ace attorney,” I would beam with pride as I told my family and my closest friends. While I was spared the conundrum of discovering what I wanted to do in life however, vocational certainty did not mean understanding. I relished in building my hopes and dreams like towers and yet I had a rather rudimentary grasp of what lawyers did. My high school teachers told me that lawyers were all about fighting for justice. But what is justice? What do lawyers really fight for?

        Justice is gray area whose contours we can only attempt to define with precision. In broad strokes, justice is the state of fairness under prevailing factual circumstances. Justice, in its most nascent of definitions, means giving to another what is his due. As an ideal and as a virtue, it is something that we have been building towards since the birth of our nation. But what does it demand from us?

        Our very own Constitution, in Section 9, Article II, dares to define what justice entails and commands the State to “promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation, and free the people from poverty.” By and large, this constitutional mandate is designed to put the plight of the underprivileged at center stage of governmental policy and to rally the State’s awesome machinery to eliminate inequities in society.  Prosperity for all: that is the goal of social justice, as can be seen in the various efforts that have been led by government.

        Consider the following state measure.

        The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), our version of the World Bank’s Conditional Cash Transfer Program, was instituted to break the chain of poverty from one generation to the next by investing in the health and education of children from underserved families. In 2010, 800,000 beneficiary households were enrolled in the 4Ps. By 2015, however, this number would balloon to 4,400,000, with a total budget of P62.7 billion for the subsequent year.[1] In fact, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank praised the program’s success in lessening the burden of those stricken with poverty.

        The 4Ps is but one example of measures geared towards the attainment of social justice. Though the cynic would have much to say about our current array of governmental programs, the facts show that our nation has made significant gains towards the reduction of inequalities. While laudable in their purpose, however, it is equally arguable that the programs that government has spearheaded are essentially remedial, rather than comprehensive, solutions. As such, they run the danger of remaining short-term palliatives. For instance, the 4Ps addresses issues on maternal mortality and child mortality, while leaving out other vulnerable sectors, such as poor senior citizens, the chronically sick, and the out-of-school youth. Indeed, the causes of poverty are highly complex and interlocking, and cannot be addressed without real engagement of the beneficiaries—that is, an attempt to understand the contexts in which they live.

        Many of our socio-economic efforts, albeit a testament to the governmental push for poverty alleviation and prosperity, fail to consider that perhaps inequities, within the Philippine context, are merely symptomatic of an even great problem: the poor have no voice to espouse their own cause. The lack of representation is aggravated by the fact that they cannot even be bothered to do so. When you fall along the margins of society, you have little room for discourse and debate. You are given aid, and you say yes, and then go back to making ends meet. No doubt the poor man on the street may get by, but the inconvenient truth remains: pure beneficence is, more often than not, temporary, and its effects, short-lived at best. Consequently, he remains bound to the cycle of poverty. In many ways, therefore, governmental aid tends to be the balm that soothes the blistering wounds, without breaking the chains that caused them. Indeed, there is no liberty in economic assistance alone—not when it refuses to acknowledge the underlying context of those living on the margins: that they are a disenfranchised lot.

        It is not enough that we Filipinos commiserate with the plight of our underprivileged neighbors. Benevolence, without liberation, is bound to be a self-defeating cause. In this regard, our earlier conception of justice thus becomes a little bit clearer: justice is not just about giving. Justice must also be enabling. In the words of our very own Supreme Court, “Social justice does not champion division of property or equality of economic status; what it and the Constitution do guaranty are equality of opportunity, equality of political rights, equality before the law, equality between values given and received, and equitable sharing of the social and material goods on the basis of efforts exerted in their production.”[2] Justice goes beyond mere charity and requires an interplay of prosperity and liberty. One without the other would simply not do. This begs the question: how do we go about attaining liberty? Which avenues must we explore? To me, I believe we do not have to look far to find an answer.

        We can begin with hearing out stories.

        ‘Little Prince’ Lander Solano is a 9-year-old boy who sells kesong puti to passers-by along Filmore Street, Makati. He negotiates sketchy alleys, flyovers, and underpasses every day—all in the company of thieves—just to make a living. Little Prince’s mother also sells kesong puti behind the Cash & Carry along Osmeña Highway, where the family spends the night whenever their goods remain unsold. He is currently out of school, but one day, he said, he will take up engineering and build homes, towers, and dreams.

        Krizia Mae is a 15-year old girl living in the uplands of General Nakar, Quezon. She is a member of the Dumagat tribe, displaced from her ancestral home to give way to the construction of Kaliwa Dam in Quezon. She wants to become a teacher someday, but finds that the current facilities in her settlement are largely inadequate. Krizia Mae does not understand why her community had to relocate.

        The narratives of Little Prince and Krizia Mae are but two of myriad stories that need to be told to and heard by those in the core of society. Since the persons living on the margins lack the voice to pass on their narratives and to espouse their own cause, however, they require agency. This is where, I believe, the legal profession and advocacy come in. We claim to live under the rule of law, but without the instrumentalities to bridge the gap between established rights and the underserved, the deep-seated inequalities that we have today will endure for generations to come. Thus, a discussion of Article III of the Constitution is a hifalutin, largely academic exercise unless it can be concretized and brought down to the level of the common tao. And so I believe this is the lawyer’s task: a lawyer must stand at the helm of the law and, through the strength of advocacy and the power of persuasion, turn liberty and prosperity into concrete reality.

***

        When I was growing up, I developed the notion that a great lawyer is one who can speak his mind freely, compellingly, and defiantly. A lawyer is, first and foremost, an advocate—one who is called to champion another person’s cause, when the latter cannot himself do so. I was not a particularly big boy, even when I was an adolescent, and so physical strength was never my forte. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that becoming a lawyer spoke to me on many levels. Fiery oratory: it was the weapon of choice that I hoped to brandish skillfully one day.

        Childhood dreams are attractive because they tend to be ideal, while conveniently discounting realities. In my first year of law school, it dawned on me that the path of law meant serious and competitive business. Perhaps it was the professors, who relentlessly tried to catch us out of step. Or my classmates who, even in their free time, discussed their own versions of “What happened in this case?”  Or maybe it was my Type-A personality which made me feel a constant need to compete with myself. In my first year, I developed the notion that law school was all about the paper chase—the slow, grueling crawl to get the best grades possible. Law school was a context where it seemed like being statistically best was what mattered most. It was not so fascinating after all.

        The ‘bad recits’ came in frequently and academics only got harder as we advanced through the semesters. As I became more immersed in law school, however, my disposition towards learning took a gradual turn. I began to consider the possibility that, while grades are all fair and fine, perhaps they are not everything. After all, memorizing codal provisions and facts-issues-held helped me live to see another day, yet they could only do so much to advance my dreams of becoming a great advocate. It was then that I realized I still had not found what I was looking for, and so I decided that greatness probably lied elsewhere.

        As a prospective lawyer, I dream to create ripples in the lives around me. Many of us (myself included) want to create a difference in the world—to fight the good fight, so to speak—and yet, few of us ever know where to even begin. And so we end up feeling stuck in a rut, unable to map out our next move in making an impact out of our lives. As a law student, what concrete action could I have possibly taken to pull down my dreams from the clouds and turn them into a reality here on the ground?

        The answer became apparent when I began my second year of law school.  The Ateneo Society of International Law (ASIL), an organization dedicated to moot court, opened its doors to new recruits. To me, it seemed an obvious choice to learn the ropes of advocacy. While I do not regret joining ASIL, it was nevertheless difficult decision to make because active involvement meant balancing sleepless nights of studying, with equally sleepless nights of training, researching, and writing.

I wish I could say that advocacy came naturally and instantly to me, but mine was an uphill, Sysiphic struggle more than anything else. After all the jibber jabber and heartstrings about advocacy, one would reasonably expect that I was proficient at it. I was not.

I will not lie: the results from my first competition were a disappointment at best. Despite all efforts, my team failed to advance to the international round; in fact, we did not even make it past the quarterfinals during nationals. To put the nail in the coffin, I discovered post-mortem that my individual scores were absolutely dismal. After all those months of rigorous training, I ended up going home with my tail in between my legs. Needless to say, the experience was a huge blow to my self-esteem, and I considered that maybe I did not have what it takes to make it in the real world.

Even as all the cards were stacked against me, however, I willed myself to compete again. For if I decided to pack my bags and go home, then I would have failed not only my dreams and myself. I would have failed Little Prince, who was at Filmore Street with his kesong puti wanting nothing else but to meet his quota; I would have failed Krizia Mae who wanted nothing but to fight for her ancestors’ lands. If I broke under the pressure of not being good enough, then I would have failed the legal profession.

We all very much would like to be brilliant at what we do, and yet greatness is never a miracle waiting to happen at any given moment. Greatness, I found, is the art of small steps: it is in the daily struggle that we can take courage, and become better, stronger, and wittier. Trials, tribulations, setbacks, and fiascos are really just tests of character in disguise, for the fire that melts butter is the same fire that hardens steel. True enough, the sun was on my side and in my most recent competition, I prevailed as 3^rd Best Speaker in Asia. I dare say (and at risk of flying my own flag), it was a good way to wrap up my first year of mooting.

As a law student with two years to go, I believe this is my task: to embrace the grind, and to never stop honing my craft. There is still a lot to learn. For instance, I have yet to master the delicate art of weaving together legal principles and facts to form logical, sound, and compelling arguments. I have yet to master composure and measured speech while under fire from judges because, as I learned, hostility never advances one’s ability to argue. When I finish law school, I would like to hit the ground running. At the same time, I know that it is only through resilience and relentless pursuit that I can net myself the armaments that I would need to espouse liberty and prosperity when I enter “the real world.”

It has been said that the rule of law is the great equalizer and yet, without lawyers, the law is rendered fictional and out of reach, especially for those at the fringes of society. Prosperity and liberty under the rule of law: these are laudable goals but without agency to bridge them to the beneficiaries, a wide chasm will continue to isolate the underserved. And so this is the lawyer’s mission: s/he must learn the power of advocacy—learn to harness it, and become the voice that resonates when others go silent.

[1] Statistics taken from the Department of Social Welfare and Development, at http://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/ (last accessed October 13, 2016).

[2] Guido v. Rural Progress Administration, G.R. No. L-2089, October 31, 1949.

By: Jose Noel B. Hilario

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Law

Executive Summary

     When I was a child I always hear the importance of education. I heard it several times from my parents and from others which at times seem trivial perhaps by reason of my young age. Nonetheless, looking back I thank God for our situation in life for it helped me realize education’s true importance.

     As a boy I already knew that we are not among those fortunate people born with a silver spoon albeit we are not poor. That is why I have been well oriented that I must do well in school and in enriching my knowledge and wisdom. One of the greatest values I learned is that education is a treasure that will never be taken from you. In addition, I knew then that it is also life’s greatest equalizer. That is why I fully submit and adhere to my High school’s philosophy, which espouse that “The Essence of Education is Liberation from the bondage of Ignorance and Poverty”.

      Life reminds me now that I’m blessed to have been liberated from the ills of ignorance which plague some of our fellows by reason of many factors such as lack of opportunity, poverty, lack of support and proper mindset including the seemingly never-ending cycle of poverty which many of our poor brethren cannot seem to unchain. Indeed, experience taught me that with enough support, opportunities, proper conditioning of one’s mind and with sufficient premium to education, liberty and prosperity is not too far.

     Liberty and prosperity goes together in perfect harmony. One cannot perfectly achieve lasting peace and satisfaction without the other for we are by nature interdependent beings. First, is our interdependence with the Creator in which we attribute all our works for His glory and joy. And second, is our interdependence with the fellow beings because I submit, no person and no country could achieve its optimum development and prosperity in isolation.

     Liberty and Prosperity however, were often treated separately and worse in complete disregard or isolation with the other. But who can we blame for that? When even our history suggest that albeit our nature requires us to walk in perfect harmony we would rather choose and be plagued with just either or even none of these essentials, which is in complete disregard of our purpose and faculties’ ability. As we examine some human behaviors we would see people acting as if they are god, although they are no more than men who thinks life revolves by themselves. States as well act with utter superiority, struggling for their quest for power, affirmation and dominance. This might be stretching the point but these behaviors can be attributed due to the failure to observe basic principles of interdependence which failure in practice and continuous denial hereof would result to instability and downfall. An illustration can be shown by what happened in our country during martial law, because of our leader’s desire to “achieve prosperity” thru unwarranted control and by giving a very high premium to stability which at the end of it backfired not just to the President’s leadership and administration but also to our country. Instead of prosperity what we received were revolutions, coup, and the glorious people power, all because of the lack of balance and interdependence of liberty and prosperity. History told us that to a certain extent, our people’s liberty was denied resulting to the natural consequence of an unsatisfied populace who because of such denial of human rights, due process and liberty revolted to be freed from the clutches of dictatorship.

     Often the masses were plundered and do not know it, that is why they need advocates. Hence, as a future lawyer I take the task of minimizing the bondage of poverty and hunger by studying, applying and promoting the rule of law. I hope to inspire those who thought that they could no longer unchain from the shackles of helplessness. Because indeed, liberty and prosperity could turn and shape a person inside the cave into someone society ought them to be.

         When I was a child I always hear the importance of education. I heard it several times from my parents and from others which at times seem trivial perhaps by reason of my young age. Like a trivia we often acknowledge its importance without delving deep as to its real significance as long as we know it for a fact. Nonetheless, looking back I thank God for our situation in life for it helped me realize education’s true importance.

          As a boy I already knew that we are not among those fortunate people born with a silver spoon albeit we are not poor. That is why I have been well oriented that I must do well in school and in enriching my knowledge and wisdom. One of the greatest values I learned is that education is a treasure that will never be and cannot be taken from you. In addition, I knew then that it is also life’s greatest equalizer. That is why I fully submit and adhere to my High school’s philosophy, which espouse that “The Essence of Education is Liberation from the bondage of Ignorance and Poverty”. Life reminds me now that I’m blessed to have been liberated from the ills of ignorance which plague some of our fellows by reason of many factors such as lack of opportunity, poverty, lack of support and proper mindset including the seemingly never-ending cycle of poverty which many of our poor brethren cannot seem to unchain. Indeed, experience taught me that with enough support, opportunities, proper conditioning of one’s mind and with sufficient premium to education, liberty and prosperity is not too far.

          Liberty and prosperity goes together in perfect harmony. One cannot perfectly achieve lasting peace and satisfaction without the other. We are by nature interdependent beings. First, is our interdependence with the Creator in which we attribute all our works for His glory and joy, in the hopes of receiving the better end on judgment day. Second, is our interdependence with the fellow beings because I believe that indeed, no person and no country could achieve its optimum development and prosperity in isolation. Liberty and Prosperity however, were often treated separately and worse in complete disregard or isolation with the other. But who can we blame for that? Facts and previous data suggest that albeit our nature requires us to walk in perfect harmony we would rather choose and be plagued with just either or even none of these essentials, which is in complete disregard of our purpose and faculties’ ability. As we examine some human behaviors we would see people acting as if they are god, although they are no more than men in complete ignorance acting that they know everything and could live in isolation. States as well act with utter superiority, struggling for their quest for power, affirmation and dominance. This might be stretching the point but these behaviors can be attributed due to the failure to observe basic principles of interdependencewhich failure in practice and continuous denial hereof would result to instability and downfall. An illustration can be shown by what happened in our country during martial law, because of our leader’s desire to “achieve prosperity” thru unwarranted control and by giving a very high premium to stability which at the end of it backfired not just to the President’s leadership and administration but also to our country. Instead of prosperity what we received are revolutions, coup d’état, and the glorious people power, all because of the lack of balance and interdependence of liberty and prosperity. History told us that to a certain extent, our people’s liberty was denied resulting to the natural consequence of an unsatisfied populace who because of such denial of human rights, due process and liberty revolted to be freed from the clutches of dictatorship.

          As I continue to study law, I realized that our laws are astoundingly beautiful although at the same time I recognize its own shortcomings and limitations.  To some students of law they may say that they want to study the same to liberate others from abuse and denial of rights. While to some they may assert that they wanted to become lawyers simple because they want to earn and enrich themselves. As to the two views, notably, our Code of Professional Responsibility rightfully and logically responds by saying that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him (Canon 17). This implies that as a lawyer we are not engaged in a mere money making business, instead we owe fidelity to the real purpose of our profession which is the safeguarding of liberty and nurturing of prosperity under the rule of law. That is why in the words of Chief Justice Panganiban in BURBE v. MAGULTA “Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration”. As lawyers, and responsible citizens of the Republic of the Philippines we hold the duty to the public of safeguarding the rights of our fellow under the rule of law and at the same time to promote their prosperity within the bounds of the law.

          In my day to day journey at the University of Santo Tomas, my usual routine is to first ride the tricycle bound to Hi-top Anonas. From there I will walk to the Light Rail Transit (LRT) to ride the train bound to Legarda. I will then again find myself riding a pedicab or tricycle to eventually reach my destination, UST. In the midst of this daily routine I would always encounter a poor and helpless old woman in the streets of Anonas. My first and honest response is to pray for her and oftentimes, I would also give her whatever kind of food or snack I have inside my bag. As a student, that was the only thing I know I can do for her considering that I may not have the sufficient funds and also because my mindset was always preoccupied with many other things including the difficult law subjects.

          One Friday afternoon, my mom decided to go to Quiapo so I decided to travel along with her since we’re both bound to Manila. In this travel again we encountered the old woman. This time my mom saw what I did.  Notably however mom said jokingly “Panay pambara lang binibigay mo, susunod samahan mo ng tubig naman”. From that simple joke I realized that mama was right. Indeed, I could do more than that. Yes, I might have save the old woman from her hunger during that day but the question remain unanswered, did I really help her on her struggle that way? I may not have because I have failed to give her water or I may have done my part. But, from that simple instance I learned a bunch of things. I realized that sometimes we are too focused on doing good on one aspect. Moreover, when that one aspect is already an act of doing well (like giving some food to the needy) we are often satisfied without delving deeper as to the real need and mourning of our brethren. Indeed we usually respond in a shallow way. In a similar vein, as a law student, I believed before that my calling as a lawyer starts and ends by safeguarding the liberty of my fellow, until I saw a different light.

          As future lawyers, we must safeguard and advocate the value of promoting our brothers and sisters well-being. It is not sufficient that we just act and expect that our real long term outcome would be realized by focusing on only giving food without anything else. That is why according to Chief Justice Panganiban, “Justice and jobs; freedom and food; ethics and economics; democracy and development; nay, liberty and prosperity must always go together; one is useless without the other. The attainment of this dual goal involves an understanding of the intertwining relationship of law and business; and of regulation and entrepreneurship.”

          Just like my experience, the story above also goes well with the majority of our society. Law students and lawyers were often too focused in the single aspect of the value of the rule of law. Many if not few, were conditioned that as long as he safeguards his/her liberty he has done his part. On the other hand, some might have that mindset that as long as they receive compensation, they are at the victorious side of it notwithstanding the fact that they did might have done that the expense of chaining one’s soul for lack of conscience. Liberty without prosperity and vice versa seems to dominate the field. But this cannot be perpetuated. As a lawyer, our culture and DNA must change. A life check must be realized by everyone to understand that our duty does not end by espousing one and leaving the other. Karl Marx historical materialism proves that the pattern of our history is in line with logic. Our history championed well the cry of the society. From the rise of consciousness to liberate from our colonizers; from dictators and from poverty and its repetitive cycle we now move to the value of individual rights. All of which as Marx argues, is the product of the clash of the thesis and anti-thesis. This therefore follows that in order to successfully champion the rights of our people and clients, we must as lawyers and law students start to champion human rights in all of its aspect, lest our duties of safeguarding their rights would become a mere illusion in this modern age. Gone are the days when people struggle just for their liberty   and nothing more because today requires a more dynamic lawyer to safeguard the more dynamic and complex lifestyle of our society.

          So the question goes like this, how would I espouse liberty and prosperity under the rule of law? To answer that, allow me to divide the response in a variety of levels and views.

          First, as a law student, I would have to first study by heart that my duty is to learn in every way that I am studying to promote liberty and prosperity. This basic step I believe would be the foundation of translating it into reality. Consequently, this require transforming myself into an advocate of such philosophy. Currently, after being oriented with the value and realizing that liberty and prosperity must indeed be espoused by each and every lawyer, I am already asking myself in each and every legal question that I face on how I would apply the interdependence of liberty and prosperity under the rule of law. This is manifested by the line of questions in my mind that now already works this way “How can I help solve his/her/their legal problem and at the same time help them live a good life after it, by promoting their prosperity?”

          Indeed, this line of thinking perhaps goes out of the norm as of now because students often only think of answering the question at hand without considering the consequence afterwards, but I submit that with sufficient advocates starting from the grassroots which is inside the law school where future lawyers are being honed, liberty and prosperity under the rule of law would eventually be the name of the field.

          An illustration of the above is when I studied the Intellectual Property Law. Normally, I would study it for the purpose of learning the underlying policy and solution answered by the law, like to promote and protect intellectual creations. But nowadays, I am thinking beyond it like responding beyond. I am now more inclined in asking how that law can help promote the prosperity of the stakeholders. For example, on the part of the intellectual property owners, this law would encourage creativity, invention and innovation because of the reward of exclusive rights to their respective creations that can be used to recover the cost and effort of their production. On the other hand, for the part of the government, if this law would be successful in its goal of protecting Intellectual property rights and at the same time of preventing if not eradicating illegal sale and transaction of any product of imitation of intellectual properties, our government funds allocated for the administrative expenses would be minimized and would be used for some other general welfare purposes. Hence, supporting what I have said earlier that our law is beautiful that in espousing both ways—liberty and prosperity.

          Moreover, with respect to our law on transportation I submit that the current proscription to the so called “Kabit system” must be given teeth by a proposed penalty for its violators. For currently, I believe that the law and jurisprudence only caters to the civil aspect of reimbursing the victims as to the damage it directly cause them without considering the public that is still chilled by the fear of being one of the victims of recklessness, the root of which is the lack of check and responsibilities established among this kabit system users. Again, liberty from fear by the public and prosperity by the assurance or security.

          In addition, as a current understudy of the UST Law Review I hope to someday use the journal as an avenue to espouse the philosophy of the foundation by promoting its importance through the journal that is annually published by the Facult. Hence, as a law student, I believe that my enthusiasm for studying criminal law, political law and civil law must likewise flow with my study of the other fields and branches of law on the premise that in order to fully cater the best solution to our society, it warrants that we produce dynamic lawyers and equip them with the tools of espousing liberty and prosperity.

          Second, as a future lawyer, I will apply the philosophy of safeguarding liberty and the nurturing of prosperity under the rule of law by always considering the philosophy as a goal in every area of my work as a lawyer. In civil cases, since it is our duty as lawyers to first examine the merits of every claim before accepting a case, I must bear in my mind and heart, that liberty and prosperity must be achieved. This follows that if the case clearly warrants an honest direct statement that you better just settle it because your side might be on the losing end, I must do it notwithstanding missing the opportunity of gaining work and money. Indeed, the duty mandated by the Code of Ethics must be practiced and must not be left in the papers dormant. Consequently, by being faithful to this ethical requirement at all times (which I submit would be very difficult for most practitioners) the liberty from an unfounded lawsuit would be really realized and at the same time promoting the prosperity of the stakeholders by saving them from the expenses of lawsuit. On the otherhand, with respect to criminal cases, I would be the guardian of the poor faced by criminal charges who cannot afford the benefits of a real counsel who often do the task merely as a work but not as an advocate. I owe my fidelity to God first and foremost, hence, I will do my best in advocating that the pain of penalty must be carefully thought of and examined before it would be imposed to any individual. Hence, I will assure that their rights will be fully protected within the bounds of the law.

          As an illustration, nowadays, many people were charged by cases related to drugs or the airport related dilemma of the “tanim Bala”. To an extent, some are said to be victims of planting of evidence or false accusations. As a lawyer advocate I would pay extra effort and attention to these victims. Consequently, by acting within the bounds of judicial ethics I would offer myself to represent our poor brethren prejudiced by this kind of societal ill. Indeed, in this way I did not only help liberate our poor fellow from these kinds of idle activities but likewise I would be promoting the fight against corruptions by checking the illegal activities which perhaps involve some of our government officials. In this way I believe that the liberty of our people and the general prosperity of our nation is espoused.

          Consequently, since college I already envisioned myself speaking before the public espousing a worthwhile advocacy. I view myself as a future professor of law. With liberty and prosperity under the rule of law now embedded within my DNA and personal philosophy, I believe that I would be able to spread and share its value to a wider number of people. Moreover, as a professor of law I view this position as a catalyst of change, since as I have mentioned earlier law school serves as the key institution in which future lawyers were molded and trained. Just like how the container shapes the water, our law institutions shapes what kind of future lawyers we would become.

          Often the masses are plundered and do not know it, that is why they need advocates. Hence, as a lawyer I take the task of minimizing the bondage of poverty and hunger by studying, applying and promoting the rule of law. For after all, as in the words of Bastiat, Claude Frederic–“Life, Liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. – THE LAW (1850).

By: Kevin Ken S. Ganchero

Far Eastern University Institute of Law

Executive Summary

     A common trait of all democratic governments is the recognition that sovereignty resides in the people who directly, or through their duly elected representatives, shape public policy. In these societies, every opinion or dissent ─ is a drop in an ocean of discourse. Ideally, this whole mass of ideas would condense into the best of solutions, laws and actions that the people can collectively pursue. Admittedly, this is a painstaking process.

     Healthy debate is crucial for discourse in this complicated system we call democracy because the laws, policies and even the roster of elected public servants can only be as good as the discourse that put them in place. We are the ones who decide who gets elected, which laws get passed, and which policies are pursued. Before we decide, we always discuss.

      Many, in their rage and frustration from suffering under a government which is perceived to be incompetent and corrupt, and under a society plagued by crimes were blinded from seeing the relevance of the rule of law. Why should we be shackled by rules when our enemies, the criminals, the corrupt, and those who threaten our safety are bound by none? This has become a contagious sentiment among those who openly support extra-judicial killings and making the police less accountable for their operations’ casualties. The idea horrifies reasonable law students but unsurprisingly, it is appealing to people who endured years of crime and corruption. It is a sad reality that when justice is out of reach, frustrated people would put the law in their own hands.

     This problem is a clear effect of a lack of understanding of the law’s purpose. This willful ignorance is even reinforced by the uninformed discourse fueled by rage, disappointment, and frustration. The same emboldens vigilantes and nurtures contempt for the rule of law.

     One way to nip the problem in the bud is through education. Reforms should be made in the current curriculum to encourage critical thinking, social awareness, and understanding of our laws. The solution shouldn’t be confined to government action. Individuals should also chip in and aid in nurturing progressive thinkers who see the bigger picture and who possess the fortitude not to give in to the strong demand for conformity.

     For me, prosperity could only be achieved in a community composed of people who guard their freedoms against arbitrary restrictions from despots and the mob alike. Autocrats may promise prosperity and security but only a free society would guarantee that the mentioned promises would redound to the benefit of all and not just a selected few.

     I intend to promote the foundation’s philosophy by continuing to teach debate, the law, and relevant issues inside and outside our country. I hope that this will create safe spaces for people to speak up and to learn how to cope with criticism. While  speaking in front of others is a frightening experience for most people especially the youth who were raised to respect authority, it is a necessary fear to overcome in order to encourage more participation in public discourse and to keep ignorance in check. This in turn ensures the health of our democracy and our liberty. Despots rise to power when people are silent. Abuses become normal when nobody expresses indignation against them.

         I. Discourse as a keystone of democracy.

          Freedom of speech is the “bright and consummate flower of all liberty.”[1] Beyond prose, this phrase is a reminder for all societies that aspire to be truly democratic: that without freedom of speech, there is no liberty. A common trait of all democratic governments is the recognition that sovereignty resides in the people who directly, or through their duly elected representatives, shape public policy. In these societies, every opinion or dissent ─ is a drop in an ocean of discourse. Ideally, this whole mass of ideas would condense into the best of solutions, laws and actions that the people can collectively pursue. Admittedly, this is a painstaking process. Nevertheless, we pursue this ideal as a promise to ourselves that whatever action we take as group has passed the proverbial test of fire and is, as far as practicable, fair to everyone.

          Since I was a college freshman, I participated in debate tournaments and won my fair share of awards. Initially, it was all about the competition. I had a change in perspective when, in an interview, I was asked a simple but disarming question: “What’s the point of debating? What’s the point of having people talk and clash with one another?” Being relatively unexposed to discourse outside of competitive debate circuits, the answer did not come to me soon enough in order to leave a good impression on my interviewers. Regrettably, the answer came to me when I was already taking up constitutional law in law school. The better answer is that healthy debate is crucial for discourse in this complicated system we call democracy because the entire system which includes the laws, policies and even the roster of elected public servants can only be as good as the discourse that put them in place. We are the ones who decide who gets elected, which laws get passed, and which policies are pursued. Before we decide, we always discuss.

          After that realization, I took on the advocacy of sharing my knowledge of proper argumentation to young people in order to encourage more productive public discussions and to weed out the habits that poison the ocean of discourse early such as cursing, degrading, humiliation and intimidation. These habits do not inspire intelligent discussion that is the foundation of a vibrant democracy. To this end, I’ve retired from competitive debating taught in workshops and seminars here and abroad. I am also a regular judge in local debate tournaments. For me, this is more than just “paying it forward”. It is a personal advocacy borne out of my hope for change. I hope for a future where the daily social and legal dead ends we encounter because we fail to amicably settle and reach a compromise in petty quarrels and in bigger issues, would no longer be a problem.

          My advocacy is to make people understand the responsibility that comes with their opinions and that freedom of speech is not the freedom to be irresponsible and to defame, or a license to smear reputation and ruin credibility.

          I understand that my efforts are but tiny drops into a large ocean. Even so, I pursue this ideal because each drop still makes the ocean of discourse less salty. Soon enough, we will be discussing groundbreaking ideas and abstain from toxic discussions that suffocate them.

 II. Liberty and prosperity under the rule of law

          Every day, I have been waking up to a succession of complaints online or otherwise expressing disappointment in the quality of discourse on Philippine politics and laws. I understand that it’s frustrating and infuriating. But we should not let disillusionment prevent us from fighting back with facts and reason with a calm disposition. Those who, in their rage and frustration, call for the circumvention of human rights and the rule of law already have safety in numbers. How can we be vigilant in silence?

          This overwhelming tide of public outrage, while misguided, has inspired a dangerous contempt for fundamental rights namely: the rights to life and due process. Generations of suffering under a government which is perceived to be incompetent and corrupt, and under a society plagued by crimes blinded us from seeing the relevance of the rule of law. Why should we be shackled by rules when our enemies, the criminals, the corrupt, and those who threaten our safety are bound by none? This has become a contagious sentiment among those who openly support extra-judicial killings and making the police less accountable for their operations’ casualties. The idea horrifies reasonable law students but unsurprisingly, it is appealing to people who endured years of crime and corruption. It is a sad reality that when justice is out of reach, frustrated people would put the law in their own hands.

          In simple terms, “rule of law” means that the government is a government of laws and not of men. That everyone in society is bound by the law, including the government. It is a core feature of democracy. Nineteenth century theorists[2] and modern day organizations such as the World Justice Project[3] point to its four fundamental principles:  First, the government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law; Second, the laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including security of persons and property; Third, the process by which laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient; and Fourth, access to justice is provided by competent, independent and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives and judicial officers who are of sufficient numbers, have adequate resources, and reflect the make-up of the community they serve.

          “Liberty and prosperity” which the rule of law aims to keep in place, for me, is relative. While there is no question on what liberty pertains to, prosperity can be many things. For some, it means economic or financial well-being. For me, prosperity could also mean being able to live in a community with people who guard it against arbitrary restrictions.  A prosperous society is where the citizens guard their liberties zealously with the understanding that doing so is the only way they can freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.[4] Autocrats may promise prosperity and security but only a free society would guarantee that the mentioned promises would redound to the benefit of all and not just a selected few.

          In light of the recent developments here and around the world where radical groups coming from disillusioned sectors call for the circumvention of due process to get immediate results,[5] the mentioned list should be expanded to include another principle. The fifth principle is that the people understand the importance of laws for themselves as individuals and as a group. I fully support the first four principles. However, laws would be meaningless when the people to whom these laws apply, do not understand their importance. This is relevant because even the most stable of structures would collapse against an unrelenting tide of skepticism. Civilizing discourse makes sure that the tide is calm and manageable. In fact, this view is shared by many including Professor Richard H. Fallon, Jr. who believes that there must be an element of understanding: “The first element is the capacity of legal rules, standards, or principles to guide people in the conduct of their affairs. People must be able to understand the law and comply with it.”[6]

          Disappointment and disdain against the rule of law is not just a product of slow delivery of justice. Most of the time, it is a result of the people not understanding how it works. The consequence is tragic. For example, here, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) received flak for its strong statements against extra-judicial killings and the rising number of casualties from police operations following the government’s declaration of an all-out war against drugs. Angry people called for its abolition even going as far as calling human rights useless and that they only serve to protect criminals from being delivered to “justice”. They did this without understanding the CHR’s mandate and the fundamental rights that it is tasked to uphold and protect.

          The same problem was observed when people openly supported vigilante justice while brushing aside calls for due process and the presumption of innocence for the accused. They called for blood without realizing that the very rights they seek to set aside are the same rights which guarantee their protection when they find themselves at the receiving end of persecution in the future.

          Even the magistrates of the Supreme Court were not spared from this tide of contempt.[7] Fortunately, the court took the moral high ground by refusing to fight fire with fire and responded instead with a firm but calm admonition of the administration’s approach to the drug problem. However, this fiasco has shown us that no one, even the high court, is immune from the effects of a toxic public discourse which ignores reason and blinds the masses from seeing the adverse consequences of circumventing the law.

          These problems are clear effects of a lack of understanding of the rule of law. This willful ignorance is even reinforced by the uninformed discourse fueled by rage, disappointment, and frustration. The same emboldens vigilantes and nurtures contempt for the rule of law. Without addressing these issues, a system of accountable officials and agents; clear, publicized and stable laws which protect fundamental rights; accessible, fair and efficient administration of the laws; and competent, independent and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives and judicial officers, will always be in constant jeopardy.

          One way to nip the problem in the bud is to address the problem in education. Reforms should be made in the current curriculum to encourage critical thinking, social awareness, and understanding of our laws. The solution shouldn’t be confined to government action, however. Civil society and the private sector should also chip in and aid in nurturing progressive thinkers who see the bigger picture and who possess the fortitude not give in to the strong demand for conformity.

III. Promoting this philosophy as a student and in my future legal career.

          This is why, as a student, I intend to promote the foundation’s philosophy by continuing to teach debate, the law, and relevant issues inside and outside our country. The growth of debate culture will create safe spaces for people to speak up and to learn how to cope with criticism. While  speaking in front of others is a frightening experience for most people especially the youth who were raised to respect authority, it is a necessary fear to overcome in order to encourage more participation in public discourse and to keep ignorance in check. This in turn ensures the health of our democracy and our liberty. Despots rise to power when people are silent. Abuses become normal when nobody expresses indignation against them.

          In my future legal career I still plan teach and volunteer as a lecturer in legal education workshops for non-law students. My background in policy and law will help me in making people understand the relationship between law, policy, and discourse. I plan to teach both in law school and in college. In law school, I want my future students to learn that the law must be appreciated in light of reality because legalese devoid of reality is counterproductive. Aspiring lawyers should learn that the law is not a lifeless body of rules. It is reason given life. Apart from teaching, I also plan to work as a government lawyer. I believe that the government needs young blood. It needs young people who still have some optimism left in them who have the energy and enthusiasm to propose reforms when necessary.

          Laws and policies change as often as public officials come and go. What I hope to achieve is to make a substantial contribution towards enriching public discourse by encouraging people to become more responsible and reasonable participants ─ to see beyond petty differences and mistakes and look at the bigger picture. I want people to understand the important role of their opinion in affecting policy and that they should be responsible for their opinions and criticisms no matter how small these are in comparison to the much larger ocean of discourse. I want them to realize that “the aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory but progress.”[8]

[1] Wendell Philips

[2] See for instance the works of Albert Van Dicey and of Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom 72 (U Chicago, 1944) and Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty 208 (U Chicago, 1960) cited by Todd J. Zywicki, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law in Rule of Law, Freedom and Prosperity: A Symposium Sponsored By the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law: The Rule of Law, Freedom and Prosperity, 10 S. Ct. Econ. Rev. 1 (2002).

[3] The World Justice Project® is an independent, non-profit organization advancing the rule of law worldwide available at http://worldjusticeproject.org/who-we-are last accessed September 13, 2016.

[4] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 [ICCPR].

[5] See Donald Trump’s Contempt for the Rule of Law available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/opinion/the-judicial-system-according-to-donald-trump.html?_r=0 ; The EU and the Rise of Extremism and Populism: How to protect democracy and the rule of law in Europe? available at http://humanistfederation.eu/our-work.php?page=the-european-union-and-the-challenge-of-extremism-and-populism.

[6] The ‘Rule of Law’ as a Concept of Constitutional Discourse, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1997).

[7] Ramos M., Alconaba N., “Duterte Defies Supreme Court” available at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/804700/duterte-defies-supreme-court.

[8] Joseph Joubert

By: Vanessa Gloria S. Vergara

Ateneo de Manila University School of Law

Executive Summary

     As powerful as the law is, I have come to realize that it means nothing if it doesn’t address the actual realities that people live in. Well-worded laws on civil liberties mean nothing if they exist in a society where people are abused economically, where people don’t have a voice in society because they’re too hungry to speak. Further, the best laws on access to basic services and protection of trade would be in vain if they didn’t come with real improvements in the civil and political freedoms of the most marginalized members of society. If the law is to mean anything, it has to be sensitive to the actual realities of the people, and to adjust to what we really need.

     To my mind and little as I know of the actual experience of the legal profession, men and women of the law can play a role in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and prosperity especially in three aspects. The first is in the upholding of the importance of dialogue and deliberation. The second is in our capacity to represent other people’s points of view. The third is in our role of support in the everyday lives of people.

     As to the first: we’ve all heard stories about how lawyers are scumbags of the earth. Sometimes, these stories involve a lawyer representing a guilty/criminal/evil person. But my law school education so far has really driven home to me the idea that even well-meaning people can get a justice verdict wrong, because nobody has a monopoly on the truth. The idea of which person is innocent or guilty or which verdict is just, further, is too important a matter to leave to just one person, or to a group of people who have not thought it out, to decide. Thus we have the justice system, which involves the threshing out of both sides of an issue – even of the side which most people believe to be wrong. It involves dialogue, debate, and careful deliberation. It involves second-guessing our own long-standing opinions.

     As to the second: it is notable that lawyers, quite apart from taking part in deliberations on justice, also have the job of representing others in the process.

     I recall reading Hannah Arendt’s account of the plight of the millions of stateless people in Europe after the end of the first World War, who were deprived of their citizenship and thus had to live outside the jurisdiction and without the protection of the law.[1] These people, being outside the pale of the law, roaming from the borders of one country to another or living in interment camps, could be argued to have more freedom of movement and speech than their contemporaries who lived in totalitarian countries.[2] And yet, their so-called freedoms mattered little in their attainment of justice.

     “[T]heir freedom of movement, if they have it at all, gives them no right to residence which even the jailed criminal enjoys as a matter of course; and their freedom of opinion is a fool’s freedom, for nothing they think matters anyhow…The fundamental deprivation of human rights is manifested first and above all in the deprivation of a place in the world which makes opinions significant and actions effective…/the loss, in other words, of some of the most essential characteristics of human life.”[3]

     Indeed, the chance to direct our own lives, to have lives that matter, to have opinions and points of view that are recognized as legitimate by others – in short, the chance for our humanity to be recognized – I believe this to be the end of justice.

     As to the third: one useful thing about the legal profession is that it can be intimately involved in every aspect of life. Thus, we men and women of the law have a duty to use our everyday positions in society to pursue justice. This is true not only for those involved in government work or in litigation where the civil rights of clients are at issue, but also for those who involve themselves in corporate work and business. Wherever we are, whatever we choose to involve ourselves in, we have a duty to work towards liberty and prosperity.

[1] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism 286 (1973).

[2] Id. at 296.

[3] Id. at 296-297.

          Mud was a movie that was showing on television a few days before my first official day in law school. The movie really didn’t have anything to do with law, except that in one scene the young protagonist is sitting by the river, watching agents from the river development authority demolish the house that he and his family had been living in along the riverbanks. His best friend passes by and asks him why they’re demolishing his house.

The boy answers plainly: “that’s the law.”

The best friend replies: “that’s bullshit.”

          I don’t know, but this exchange of words between the two boys, and the helplessness with which they watched the demolition continue, has always stayed with me a little. Not that I think that the law is bullshit, only that I understand how it can feel absurd. It’s a bunch of words on paper, written by strangers far away, and yet it’s powerful enough to take people’s homes away from them. It’s so powerful that it can affect whether we have a place to go home to everyday, whether we get to eat or go to school, and ultimately whether we feel safe and included in society.

          Indeed, the scene above, I think, perfectly illustrates how law can affect both liberty and prosperity – liberty, in the way it can affect our sense of helplessness and impotence, our lack of freedom in directing our own lives; prosperity, in the way it can make real decisions about our basic means of living. Use law in the right way, and it can mean that people are well-fed, have a home, are educated, and feel secure in their civil liberties. Used in the wrong way, and it can make people hungry, vulnerable, impotent, and helpless. In fact, law, in the way it interplays with both liberty and prosperity, can alter drastically the way we feel about our own humanity and dignity.

          It’s difficult for me to grasp if I really think about it. It’s difficult to fully comprehend how something can be so powerful, and how such a powerful tool can be so easily used for both positive and destructive ends.

          At the same time, as powerful as the law is, I have also come to realize that it can mean nothing if it doesn’t adjust itself to and address the actual realities that people live in. Well-worded laws on civil liberties mean nothing if they exist in a society where people are abused economically, where people don’t have a voice in society because they’re too hungry to speak. Further, the best laws on access to basic services, jobs, and protection of trade and business would be in vain if they also didn’t come with real improvements in the civil and political freedoms of the most marginalized members of society. If the law is to mean anything, it has to be sensitive to the actual realities of the people, and to adjust to what we really need. Only then can law be said to be perpetuating a society that is truly just, where both liberty and prosperity are upheld.

          One of the lessons from our first year Philosophy of Law class that I’ve really drilled into my long-term memory is the idea that the law is not always the same as justice. Robert Kidder’s writings on Critical Legal Theory, for instance, expound on the way law can be a device of domination, utilized by the ruling class to establish and maintain their dominance over others.[1] Sen evoked the concept of nyaya, a Sanskrit word for justice, which asserts that justice goes beyond the law, and that it manifests itself not only in the law, but more importantly in “the world that actually emerges.”[2] In fact a law, no matter how well written, would still constitute injustice if it indeed caused injustice in the real world.[3]

          Following Kidder, if the law is not the same as justice, then it is our job to challenge the assumptions behind the law and reveal the conflicts behind it.[4] We must work, not simply to live by and uphold the law, but to see to its improvement – if needed, “to further just arrangements not yet established.”[5] Our duty is not to the law, but to justice – including the pursuit of both true liberty and prosperity.

          To my mind and little as I know of the actual experience of the legal profession, men and women of the law can play a role in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and prosperity especially in three aspects. The first is in the upholding of the importance of dialogue and deliberation. The second is in our capacity to represent other people’s points of view. The third is in our role of support in the everyday lives of people.

          As to the first: we’ve all heard the stories about how lawyers are scumbags of the earth. Sometimes, these stories involve a lawyer representing a guilty/criminal/evil person. But my law school education so far has really driven home to me the idea that even well-meaning people can get a justice verdict wrong, because nobody has a monopoly on the truth. The idea of which person is innocent or guilty or which verdict is just, further, is too important a matter to leave to just one person, or to a group of people who have not thought it out, to decide. Thus we have the justice system, which involves the threshing out of both sides of an issue – even of the side which most people believe to be wrong. It involves dialogue, debate, and careful deliberation. It involves second-guessing our own long-standing opinions. Hopefully, in law school, we are trained well enough in the art of deliberation so as to be able to use it even outside the courts.

          In the Apology, Socrates asserts that the wisest person is the one who knows that his wisdom is “worth nothing,” and then he spends the rest of his life trying to talk to people in order to get them to see the limitations of their own perspectives.[6] In the same vein, Sen talks about the need for reasoning in order for us to check if our actions, although not intended to be injurious, have that effect.[7] He says that to prevent catastrophes and injustices, “we need critical scrutiny, not just goodwill towards others.” [8] He further says that any theory of justice “depend[s] on contributions from discussion and discourse.”[9]

          The importance placed on the role of discussion and discourse in the pursuit of justice has got me to thinking that justice isn’t so much found in the result or decision of an issue, as in the process itself. That is, justice is not just giving someone what is his due, but more than that – allowing him the chance to be a part of the process. I believe this is embodied in Socrates’ dying wish at the end of the Apology. He implores his audience, when his sons have grown up, “to trouble [my sons] as I have troubled you… And if you do this, I and my sons will have received justice at your hands.”[10] Socrates saw justice in the act of troubling itself.

          As to the second: it is notable that lawyers, quite apart from taking part in deliberations on justice themselves, also have the job of representing others in the process. I believe this to be the end of justice.

          I recall recently reading Hannah Arendt’s account of the plight of the millions of stateless people in Europe after the end of the first World War, who were deprived of their citizenship and thus had to live outside the jurisdiction and without the protection of the law.[11] These people, being outside the pale of the law, roaming from the borders of one country to another or living in interment camps, could be argued to have more freedom of movement and speech than their contemporaries who lived in totalitarian countries. [12] And yet, their so-called freedoms mattered little in their attainment of justice.

“[T]heir freedom of movement, if they have it at all, gives them no right to residence which even the jailed criminal enjoys as a matter of course; and their freedom of opinion is a fool’s freedom, for nothing they think matters anyhow…The fundamental deprivation of human rights is manifested first and above all in the deprivation of a place in the world which makes opinions significant and actions effective…/the loss, in other words, of some of the most essential characteristics of human life.”[13]

          Further, I recall an incident I experienced while working for an organization which handled the matter of a conflict between a planned government project and an indigenous cultural community. It was this one day I was with the members of the community, and we were all so absorbed in discussing the issue that night fully set in before we looked up from our talk and the heads of the families remembered that none of them had started to prepare dinner yet. The members of the community were trying to explain to me that they didn’t want the government project because it clashed with their own vision of how their land should develop. I remember all the stars were out over the forest, and there were fireflies hovering over the trees that surrounded us. I think it was that night that it really struck me how the heart of the conflict was a difference in point of view, and that the people who lived there very badly wanted their point of view to be recognized.

          Indeed, the chance to direct our own lives, to have lives that matter, to have opinions and points of view that are recognized as legitimate by others – in short, the chance for our humanity to be recognized – these are what constitute the fabric of justice.

          Further, if freedom and the ability to be human are what constitute justice, then poverty or injustice is, for Sen, the deprivation of capability. [14]In the pursuit of justice, more attention has to be given to those who experience the short end of the inequality of capabilities, those who make up the marginalized of society.[15] Rawls, too, writes that society must favor those who are in the less favorable social positions.[16] It is to these people, above all, that we must answer to in whatever work we end up pursuing as men and women of the law. By helping to include them in the process towards justice, we are in the position to help the most marginalized assert their humanity.

          As to the third: one useful thing about the legal profession is that it is involved in every aspect of life, and it has an impact in every aspect of life. Lawyers are not just there for when we want to get out of jail, but in fact they can be intimately involved in the everyday matters of life. Thus, we men and women of the law have a duty to use our everyday positions in society to pursue justice. This is true not only for those involved in government work or in litigation where the civil rights of clients are at issue, but also for those who involve themselves in corporate work and business. Wherever we are, whatever we choose to involve ourselves in, we have a duty to work towards liberty and prosperity.

          My vision is of a society where people feel truly human, and where people can pursue their humanity to its fullest potential. This means a world where even the most marginalized members of society can believe that they can control their own destiny, that they can pursue their higher dreams of life, whatever those may be. It also means, necessarily, a world where people are free from poverty, hunger, and the denial of their basic rights. This society can only be achieved where the law is reflective of and responsive to the actual situations of the people, and addresses the pursuit of both liberty and prosperity, and where men and women of the law must be conscious of their role in upholding the law, liberty, and prosperity.

[1] Robert L. Kidder, The Origins of Law: Conflict, The Critical Perspective, in CONNECTING LAW AND SOCIETY 83, 89 (1983).

[2] AMARTYA SEN, THE IDEA OF JUSTICE 20 (2009).

[3] at 20-21.

[4] Kidder, supra note 1, at 87.

[5] JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 99 (2^nd 1990).

[6] Plato, Apology, available at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html (last accessed Oct. 9, 2014).

[7] SEN, supra note 2, at 46-47.

[8] at 48.

[9] at 88-89.

[10] Plato, supra note 8.

[11] HANNAH ARENDT, THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM 286 (1973).

[12] at 296.

[13] at 296-297.

[14] SEN, supra note 2, at 256.

[15] Id. at 232

[16] RAWLS, supra note 7, at 86.

By: Violeta M. Najarro, Jr.

San Beda College Alabang College of Law

Executive Summary

     Each of us can choose what to like and unlike. We have the option to see things as moral or immoral, good or bad. Thanks to the rule of law, anybody has the free will of what he wants to do or not.

     Basically, the rule of law tells us when our actions may be punishable. It draws the line and lets us know our boundaries. Thus, we must have ready access to it. Laws must be made known to us before it can be implemented. If we can’t find or predict the law, our acts will be limited because no one will gamble doing anything which might be illegal. This is why we have a requirement of publication under the Civil Code. The rule of law means equality before the law. The Law is the King, and no one is above it. Each one of us is subject to it. It should always be for the best interest of the common good.

     Passing along Metro Manila, we see buildings, billboards, hotels, motels and even night clubs. Entering a store, we see a variety of goods, from liquors to cigarettes, and magazines to videotapes, we see all these and their different classes. Interestingly, though some may find these things unhealthy, unpleasant, or even sinful, these things still stand legally because of rule of law.

     Thanks to the rule of law, we have the liberty to move and act without unnecessary restraint. I believe that it is only with maximum liberty that a person can truly attain prosperity. Liberty and prosperity are inseparable. For it is only with liberty that a man can utilize his human experience. But we should keep in mind that our liberty is limited by the same liberty exercised by others. Liberty is achieved when the rule of law is equally applicable to all people. As Lord Acton said, Liberty is the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and custom and opinion. For this reason, he declared that the securing of liberty “is the highest political end”.

     This leaves us the duty of protecting liberty and prosperity under the rule of law. This is not an easy task for we are faced with different challenges. This is why whenever there are threats to our freedom, we instantly object and criticize. Relatively, seeing the news today, we see people expressing their opinions. They may support or criticize any public official. They may write articles, assemble in Luneta, or even rally in front of Malacañang. They can do all of these without being punished, because the law allows them to do so.

     Although now, maybe there is nothing much I can do, I believe it is important to engage in intelligent discussions about this. It is always exciting to interact with experienced people themselves. I remember when I was taking Constitutional Law II during my first year in law school. My professor was the lawyer of a well-known accused then. I saw the fury of most people for “defending” a “criminal”. Back then, I couldn’t understand why he had to be the lawyer for such person. But while we were on the topic of due process, he told us how we was able to acquit a drug pusher. He was not proud of it, for he knew his client was guilty, but the explained that the police officers spent and replaced the marked money, causing the mismatch of the serial numbers on record.  Applying due process, his client was acquitted. I then understood the concept of rule of law, that it applies to everyone, even to the evilest of all.

     As I study the law deeper, I am seeing the connection of the subjects to one another and the more I appreciate studying it. I know that I have a lot more to learn but this doesn’t stop me from giving importance to the rule of law. I may still be a student, trying my very best to pass each subject I take, but I am not just a student. Above all, I am a citizen, freely exercising and enjoying this liberty that was granted to us by law and the prosperity that comes with it, and I know that I have the duty to protect it in any way I can.

          Each one of us can choose what to like and unlike. We all have the choice to see things as moral or immoral, good or bad. Thanks to the rule of law, anybody has the choice of what he wants and what he does not.

          Basically, the rule of law tells us when our actions may be considered punishable. The rule of law gives us the draw line of where things become illegal. This way, we all know our limitations. We all know our boundaries. We have an idea where to stop and we have the choice if we really want to get into that trouble.

          By this, it follows that each of us must have ready access to the law. Laws must be made known and available to the people before it can be implemented. This way, we know what can and cannot be done. If we can’t find or predict the law, then our acts will be limited as to what we think is legal because we will not gamble doing something which might be illegal. We may not even engage in contracts because we do not know the law. It cannot be considered a rule if it is unknown. This is why there is the specific requirement of publication provided by the Civil Code before a law may take effect. This is basically, due process and part of which is that laws must apply prospectively and never retroactively. Thanks to the rule of law, each of us are protected from the dangers of the strong power of the State.

          The rule of law means equality before the law. The Law is the King and no one is above it. Each one of us is subject to the rule of law. However, the law cannot control everything because if that is the case, then the law should be able to provide for all conditions existing and conditions yet to come. It must contain all the details and circumstances of implementation which is, clearly, impossible to fulfill. For we know that by its nature, at the time of the creation of a law, there are future events yet unknown. At the time a law leaves the legislature, it has little spaces for implementation which shall be later provided by administrative agencies. Moreover, if laws are so voluminous or so incoherent, then it cannot be understood by the people, especially the common people, whom the law is trying to protect. These are the limitations on our law makers. The law must be clear of ambiguities, publicized, stable, non-contradictory, accessible, and must not be impossible to adhere to. It should always be for the best interest of the greatest number of people, of the common good, and not only for the special interest of specific individuals.

          As we drive and pass along the streets of even just Metro Manila, we see a number of people and things. We see buildings of great height, billboards of various types, some may even be of mature content, hotels, motels and even night clubs. We see ordinary people, businessmen and even beggars roaming around the streets and knocking on our car’s windows, selling different items. As we enter into a store, we see different classes of goods. From liquors to cigarettes, and magazines to videotapes, we see all these, and their different classes. Interestingly, even though a number of us may find some of these things unhealthy, unpleasant, or even sinful, these things still stand legally because of rule of law, because the law allows it to do so.

          Thanks to the rule of law, we have the liberty to move and to act without unnecessary restraint. Liberty gives us the choice, to choose or not to choose at all. I believe that it is only with maximum liberty that a person can truly attain prosperity. Liberty and prosperity are inseparable. For it is only with liberty that a man can exercise and utilize his human experience. With liberty, the choices are laid in front of him and it is up to him to choose what he thinks will benefit him. With liberty, a person can live up to his full potential and be the greatest he can be. Thanks to the rule of law, a person has the freedom to make use of his life, liberty, and property as he deems fit and for all the purposes he may have. But we should keep in mind that our liberty is limited by the same liberty possessed and exercised by all the other individuals of our society. Liberty is achieved when the rule of law is equally applicable to each individual in society. As Lord Acton said, liberty is the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and custom, and opinion. For this reason, he declared that the securing of liberty “is the highest political end”.

          This leaves us the duty of protecting liberty and prosperity under the rule of law. We all know that this is not an easy task. More often than not, we are faced with difficult situations and challenged by different circumstances. We do not want to lose this liberty because we want to achieve such prosperity that comes with it. This is why whenever there are threats to our freedom, we are fast to object and criticize. Relatively, today, as we watch the news and read the newspapers, or even as we log in to our social media accounts, we see variety of people voicing out and expressing their different opinions. Some even exchange words to convince each other to see their side. They may be for or against the actions of the government. They may support or criticize any and all public officials of their liking,  including the highest officer of the land. They may do these through writing different articles, assembling in Luneta, or even rallying in front of Malacañang. They can do all of these with liberty, without being punished, because that is the essence of rule of law. The law allows them to.

          Although now, maybe there is nothing much I can do, I believe that it is important to engage in active and intelligent discussions about this, to learn more of its significance and impact to the society. We always learn a piece or two by discussing with other people. It is important to share our ideas to those whose ears and minds are open and at the same time, to open our ears and minds to those who share theirs. Although we can also earn ideas and knowledge from the books, it is much more exciting to listen and interact to experienced people themselves. I remember when I was taking Constitutional Law 2 during my first year in the School of Law. My professor then, was the lawyer of a well-known accused that time. I would always see in the comment sections of news articles, the fury of most people at my professor for “defending” a “criminal”. Back then, I, too, couldn’t understand why he had to be lawyer for such person. But while discussing the topic of due process, he once told us a story of how we was able acquit a drug pusher. He was not proud of it, but he cannot do anything about it because it was his job to ensure that the law applies accordingly. He knew his client deserved to be convicted but he explained that it was not his fault if the arresting officers spent the marked money and replaced it, causing the mismatch of the serial numbers of the marked money on record and that which was presented in court.  He knew that his client was guilty but because he had to apply the rule of law, the accused was acquitted. It was then that I understood and appreciated the rule of law. That it applies to each one of us, even to the evilest of all. The more I wanted to become a lawyer.

          Last summer, during my short stint as one of the Legal Interns at the Office of the Solicitor General, I was exposed to the reality that it is so easy to be consumed by the spoiled system. That because of the large workload, it is tempting to see each case as just another case, and an addition to the pile of so many cases pending therein. I was tasked to make drafts of Appellee’s briefs, mostly for drug cases. My supervising lawyer taught me that if I that think the prosecutor is wrong, then I don’t have to agree with him. He told me that he had, on many times in the past, reversed the findings of a prosecutor and acquitted several accused when he deemed fit. He emphasized that I should never forget that the primary goal is not always the conviction of the accused but the primacy and administration of justice.

          These are just some of the many situations that made me a fan of learning from other people sharing lessons from their actual experiences. I appreciate listening to my professor’s stories and encouragements, I enjoy listening to different speakers’ speeches whenever I have the opportunity. I gain inspiration from them and their stories always make me wonder what I would have done and what I will do if I will be put in those situations. Will I do the right thing? Is the right thing for me really the right thing? The questions that come to my mind. I aspire to be able to share my own experiences and learnings, too, in the future. This is also one of the reasons I applied for this scholarship. Because I know that for now, my knowledge is still limited. Mostly from the books and from the four corners of the classrooms. I want to deepen my understanding. With many issues our government is facing, I want to be enlightened and not be limited by the insufficient knowledge that I have. I know that if I will be blessed to be one of the awardee, I will be able to fully appreciate and learn liberty and prosperity with greater depth with the help of the foundation. So that in time, it will be my turn to enlighten others in return. For now, as soon as I acquire my third year completion, I will join the Legal Aid Center in our school to have more exposure in the application of law.

          As soon as I become part of the legal profession, I want to, and I will, give back to the society. I hope to become someone who will be of service to other people. My goal is to serve and not be served, to give and not to receive. I aspire to be part of different conferences and forums and be able to contribute fully and meaningfully to the discussions with other professionals as well. So that later on, I will be able to impart what I learned to the ordinary people, in simplified terms, the importance of liberty and prosperity under the rule of law.

           As I study the law deeper, and longer in time, each and every subject makes more sense to me. Little by little, I see the connection of the subjects to one another and the more I appreciate the study of law. I know that I have a lot more to learn and God knows I am not even halfway there but this fact doesn’t stop me from knowing the importance of the rule of law. I may still be a student, trying my very best to pass each subject I take, but I am not just a student of law. Above all, I am a citizen, freely exercising and enjoying this liberty that was granted to us by law and the prosperity that comes with it, and I know that I have the duty to protect it in any way I can.