Judicial underworld
Judicial underworld
Posted 11:20pm (Mla time) Jan 27, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the January 28, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THERE seems to be a conflict of interpretations of the results of the survey of the Social Weather Stations on judicial corruption. Although one newspaper reported that the survey showed lawyers believing that corruption in the judiciary had lessened compared with 10 years ago, this paper stated otherwise. In any case, if there was a slight improvement in perception, it was negligible. As the SWS press statement said, "Corruption remains a problem."
"Touché," the judges seemed to say. According to the survey of judges, lawyers have become more corrupt.
What we are treated to here is the sight of judicial professionals not only eyeing one another with suspicion, but throwing mud at each other. Neither side seems to know that mud has been in its domain in the first place, so that each side has plenty of mud for ammunition.
A plague on both their houses! Lawyers and judges seem to be impervious to the deepening disenchantment of the public with the workings of justice. If the survey results are any indication, even legal professionals have become disenchanted with one another, so that they can only put down each other. They violate the underworld rule of honor among thieves, and may yet shame the professional criminals. The ultimate Mafioso does not come in pompous suit and cigar, but in judicial robes.
But there's more. The SWS survey disclosed that lawyers felt they couldn't do anything about corruption. "Although half or 49 percent say they know a case in their own city or province where a judge took a bribe, only 8 percent reported the bribery," the SWS firm said. "The main excuse of those who kept silent is that they could not prove it."
Considering this finding, one cannot share the optimism of SWS head Mahar Mangahas on the "idealism" that the members of the bar supposedly have. The pollster said that the survey showed that corruption "remains a serious problem in the judicial system but it is not cultural." He added: "They're saying there's nothing to be done about (corruption) but it's not accepted. There's still idealism."
Frankly, we can't see any idealism there. What we see is resignation and cooptation. The negligible percentage of lawyers who said they reported the bribery of judges means that lawyers would rather go along with the corruption current rather than fight it. Our law schools seem to have produced lawyers without spine and ethics. It seems that for all their long years of study of legal jurisprudence and the intricacies of the law, our law graduates have become so overwhelmed by legal scholarship and technicality that they arrive at a point of stagnancy whenever they are confronted with blatant acts of corruption. To expose or not to expose? To oppose or not to oppose? The Hamletesque dilemma, of course, seems to have been resolved in the direction of stasis. The SWS survey should support the call for a moratorium not only on new law schools, but also new law graduates for 10 years. Our civil law schools are filling the bar with lemons.
The corruption of lawyers and judges-and the gutlessness of members of the bar against graft-are reasons enough to despair about any hope for reforming the system of justice in the Philippines. If all that lawyers could do about judicial corruption is to be sensitive about it-to turn away and let things be but also tell pollsters that they are "idealistic" and frown on bribery and extortion-then there's no hope for justice in this country. No, there's no hope for this country, period.
If lawyers cannot turn up evidence that would stand in court to prove that a judge had extorted money to render a favorable decision, or another lawyer had bribed a judge, then how much less would ordinary people be in a position to produce the evidence and make a strong case against corruption? Should the public have any reason to hope for the coming of good government and a fair administration of justice with lawyers who slink away at the sight of corruption?
One suspects, of course, that the weak-kneed response of lawyers to the corruption of their fellow members of the bar is true to form of the legal establishment that seems to mask its depredations under the veneer of legal punditry, avowals of honor, and correct deportment. Alas, our lawyers seem to have made a mockery of the law they have sworn to uphold. When the lawyers become the lawless, justice cannot be dispensed. Our lawyers have run off with the law, and we are left with nothing but legal gibberish and lawyer's thunder-all signifying nothing.
Posted 11:20pm (Mla time) Jan 27, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the January 28, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THERE seems to be a conflict of interpretations of the results of the survey of the Social Weather Stations on judicial corruption. Although one newspaper reported that the survey showed lawyers believing that corruption in the judiciary had lessened compared with 10 years ago, this paper stated otherwise. In any case, if there was a slight improvement in perception, it was negligible. As the SWS press statement said, "Corruption remains a problem."
"Touché," the judges seemed to say. According to the survey of judges, lawyers have become more corrupt.
What we are treated to here is the sight of judicial professionals not only eyeing one another with suspicion, but throwing mud at each other. Neither side seems to know that mud has been in its domain in the first place, so that each side has plenty of mud for ammunition.
A plague on both their houses! Lawyers and judges seem to be impervious to the deepening disenchantment of the public with the workings of justice. If the survey results are any indication, even legal professionals have become disenchanted with one another, so that they can only put down each other. They violate the underworld rule of honor among thieves, and may yet shame the professional criminals. The ultimate Mafioso does not come in pompous suit and cigar, but in judicial robes.
But there's more. The SWS survey disclosed that lawyers felt they couldn't do anything about corruption. "Although half or 49 percent say they know a case in their own city or province where a judge took a bribe, only 8 percent reported the bribery," the SWS firm said. "The main excuse of those who kept silent is that they could not prove it."
Considering this finding, one cannot share the optimism of SWS head Mahar Mangahas on the "idealism" that the members of the bar supposedly have. The pollster said that the survey showed that corruption "remains a serious problem in the judicial system but it is not cultural." He added: "They're saying there's nothing to be done about (corruption) but it's not accepted. There's still idealism."
Frankly, we can't see any idealism there. What we see is resignation and cooptation. The negligible percentage of lawyers who said they reported the bribery of judges means that lawyers would rather go along with the corruption current rather than fight it. Our law schools seem to have produced lawyers without spine and ethics. It seems that for all their long years of study of legal jurisprudence and the intricacies of the law, our law graduates have become so overwhelmed by legal scholarship and technicality that they arrive at a point of stagnancy whenever they are confronted with blatant acts of corruption. To expose or not to expose? To oppose or not to oppose? The Hamletesque dilemma, of course, seems to have been resolved in the direction of stasis. The SWS survey should support the call for a moratorium not only on new law schools, but also new law graduates for 10 years. Our civil law schools are filling the bar with lemons.
The corruption of lawyers and judges-and the gutlessness of members of the bar against graft-are reasons enough to despair about any hope for reforming the system of justice in the Philippines. If all that lawyers could do about judicial corruption is to be sensitive about it-to turn away and let things be but also tell pollsters that they are "idealistic" and frown on bribery and extortion-then there's no hope for justice in this country. No, there's no hope for this country, period.
If lawyers cannot turn up evidence that would stand in court to prove that a judge had extorted money to render a favorable decision, or another lawyer had bribed a judge, then how much less would ordinary people be in a position to produce the evidence and make a strong case against corruption? Should the public have any reason to hope for the coming of good government and a fair administration of justice with lawyers who slink away at the sight of corruption?
One suspects, of course, that the weak-kneed response of lawyers to the corruption of their fellow members of the bar is true to form of the legal establishment that seems to mask its depredations under the veneer of legal punditry, avowals of honor, and correct deportment. Alas, our lawyers seem to have made a mockery of the law they have sworn to uphold. When the lawyers become the lawless, justice cannot be dispensed. Our lawyers have run off with the law, and we are left with nothing but legal gibberish and lawyer's thunder-all signifying nothing.
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home