Broqueza, John Kim

CAS 01-701A
Sat & Fri, 4:30-6:00 PM
Number of Words:1,499

ANG HUSTISYA AY PARA LANG SA MAYAMAN: FILIPINOS’ PERCEPTION OF

I was wondering before why the Lady Justice, the symbol of justice, is blindfolded. I
was also questioning if her sight has something to do with balance of the scale. Until
I found out that she is blindfolded to symbolize impartiality of the subjects before the
law and to render justice without the prejudice against the person. But it make me
further ask how does the blindfolded justice system would work and be imposed as
the final and legitimate authority to achieve fairness among the subjects, just like
what her sword in another hand symbolizes. Does her blindness would completely
accomplish the purpose? Or is it just an image of the reality that this justice system is
not an epitome of neutrality, but rather the passivity? I do not really intent to
problematize the ideal concept of the symbol of justice itself, but rather it is just me,
starting to picture out in this way the social problem that the less in life Filipinos are
suffering from. The part of lyrics from the song Tatsulok of Bamboo-“Hanggat
marami ang lugmok sa kahirapan, at ang hustiya ay para lang sa mayaman”- is
really an iconic line to verbalize the social injustice here in the Philippines. It exposes
the struggle of the underprivileged Filipinos in achieving the fairness that they
deserved before the law and legal proceedings. This line from the song has been the
trade mark perception of the Filipinos to the justice system here in the Philippines;
the status quo in which money and power manipulate the weight of the scale. I have
read a survey conducted by the Philstar whether the Filipino respondent still trust the
justice system here in the Philippines or not anymore. It has been evidently showed
that there were Filipinos who lose their trust to the Philippine justice system and few
of them took it for granted in a way that justice system must be something that
people should always rely on without a question. Yes, for the betterment of its
stability, we should still trust its legitimacy as the primmest structure for the
administration of justice. But it is very alarming to think of some people who never
question the possible injustice present in the system. Many articles, columns and
other commentaries have said something negative to the Philippine justice system- it
has been dubbed as slow and corrupt justice. Slow because it would take number of
years and sometimes decade to finally issue the ruling of the case. Corrupt because
the general people believed that at least some lawyers and judges could be bribed
even it is against to their legal ethics and their sworn oath. In addition, even prior to
the trial and during the detention and investigation, poor and indigent person is
always to be an underdog and placed on the disadvantage side. Their incapacity to
the resources would make them susceptible and vulnerable to social injustice
affecting their fate in the legal proceedings. Let me unfold more issues mentioned
that brought our justice system into negative perception.The administration of justice
here in the Philippines is typically find to be slow. Cases that are still pending and
cases that are waiting for the ruling of the judge. A judge is required to make a
judgment within 90 days of a matter being presented for decision. But there are
some cases that proceedings were prolonged for some reasons and the right to the
speedy trial has been set aside. The judge might have the reasonable delay to issue
its decision, and one of it is the overloaded case that they preside. Large number of
population file their lawsuits that are beyond the capacity of the judge to handle on
within the prescribed period thus the extension could be requested. Yes, there is no
significantly direct implication to the indigent aggrieved party, but it would unfairly
affect the poor and underprivileged defendant. Everyone shall be presumed innocent
until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law, but the
proceedings still require a defendant to be in a detention thus the person must still
be in jail. And that is where the disparity of the poor and rich would come in this
instance. Bailing system is apparently not in favor of the poor, according to the law,
bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or
recognizance. Cash bail, as the common one, is unideal and unaffordable for the
indigent defendant. Yes, there are instances that the court still determines the
amount to be paid depending on the economic and financial capacity of the
defendant resulting to decreasing the amount of cash bail. But I still find it
discriminatory and anti-poor. Keeping someone in jail before to trial just because
they cannot pay bail, while others who can afford money are released, is a kind of
social injustice. A person must not be deprived of his physical freedom and liberty for
the reason of poverty. Yes, I understand the fact that the detention is to ensure the
appearance and participation in the court, so a person must be in jail, not really
because he is poor and financial incapable. But I am sure that he still must suffer this
freedom restraint because of his incapacity to pay for the cash bail. The
recognizance bail is meant for this underprivileged in which the temporarily release
would be granted without cash bail, and the custody would be charged to qualified
someone. But the qualification for the custodian is technically strict that excludes the
family of the defendant, so the question arise - who would take the custodial
responsibility without prejudice and discrimination against the defendant? Another
issue of indigency in the legal proceeding is the challenge of the legal client to
acquire a fully committed and very dedicated public lawyer who will fight and pursue
the cause of action until the very end. Public lawyers usually handle and entertain
large population of client sometimes beyond their maximum capability. It has been
portrayed as a culture of kalakaran that public lawyers sometimes advice their client
to give up the lawsuit in exchange for the less sentence and less penalty, in this way
the workloads of the public lawyers lessen or it might be they get something benefits.
Throughout the history of legal field, there were already head of judicial body who
were associated with some criminal allegations and controversies like Chief Justice
Davide, Chief Justice Corona, Chief Justice Sereno, and other legal professionals
not exclusively only for the judges. This controversies have affected the credibility of
the judicial body that instill in the mind of the people to question and doubt the
judicial system here in the Philippines. Thanks for the technology, some
marginalized Filipino finds another platforms where they can address their legal
complaint against somebody. The Raffy Tulfo In Action has been the pseudo-
litigation of the masses. The used popular saying “See you in court” is now changed
to “ See you in Raffy Tulfo” and there are spreading memes in social media that the
said program is now a part of Philippine Judicial System. I think it is a sign of the
Filipinos’ lack of confidence to the official judicial system thus they had to find an
alternative body which is for their own belief is speedier, more accessible, more
affordable, and fairer. And I think that’s the main conflict here in this subject matter-
the perception that the law is not for the poor. Marginalized Filipinos thought that
legal assistance is a noble and an expensive service. They feel the separation and
disparity of the rich to the poor- the justice for the rich sets apart from everyone else.
Indigent people see the elimination of this discrimination and prejudice that is why
they give their trust to just an internet-YouTube program, thus the governing system
of justice should have been able to do so even better because they had all the
power, money, and influence. There was the famous line from the former president
Ramon Magsaysay that those who less in life must more in law. It has been
manifested in the proper legal proceeding that the underprivileged person receive
some vigilant protection from the court that in case of doubt, the doubt must be
resolved in favor of the underdog. But we also never forget that we are governed by
the government of law, not of men thus the law must be for everyone and the
equality before it must be observed without prejudice and discrimination. It would
only be attained by being vigilant and being unblindfolded to see injustice.
Impartiality does not necessarily mean to put the eyes into the darkness only to filter
the biases from the vision, but not completely being eliminated; which only mean
passivity. Neutrality really comes from weighing the biases.