LOOK: President Manuel L. Quezon's speech on the principles of law and justice delivered at the University of Santo Tomas, October 2, 1937.
***
A lawyer’s diploma should be a guaranty to the world that its holder is a living exponent of fair play, an impartial advocate of justice, a God-chosen instrument for the defeat of wrong and the triumph of right—rather than a technician skilled in the art of legal subtleties, for the benefit of a particular client,
Human laws are but the application to human relationships of the eternal principles of divine justice,
I would . . . interpret my oath to “do justice to every man” as imposing upon me the duty not only to do justice in cases where the decision rests with the Executive, but also to see that the other branches of the Government do not commit acts of injustice to any man.
Nothing will give our people greater confidence in their Government and in their public officials—whether of the executive, the legislative or the judicial departments—than the willingness of each department to watch each other and denounce each other’s mistakes or wrongdoings before the bar of public opinion.
—–
Reverend Father-Hector, Mr. Dean, Faculty and Students of the College of Law, Ladies and Gentlemen:
As I address you this evening at the invitation of the students of the College of Law of this ancient institution of higher learning, I feel an inmost satisfaction and pride that what I know of the principles of law and justice, I have learned from this college, and my love and devotion to the lofty ideals and high purposes which underlie and give life to the legal profession, I have imbibed from men, who have graced the professional chairs of this university and whose names will go down in history as the personification, of the best that can be found among judges and professors of law anywhere in the world.
Time there was in our country when the appellative lawyer was taken to mean a champion of human rights, a venerable soldier of truth and justice, an apostle of peace and general well-being, Isaac Fernando de los Rios, Cayetano Arellano, Victorino Mapa, Florentine Torres, Manuel Araullo, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Apolinario Mabini, Rafael del Pan, and many others raised the prestige of the legal profession to that height. They were not only shining lights of their calling but also commanding pillars of right and justice. One or two of them left some fortune, most of them died poor; all of them embraced the profession of law; not so much as a means of livelihood, but because in their hearts there burned a consuming fire urging them to fight wrong and injustice.
As days went by, and as the spiritual and ideal things of life gave way to the inroads of materialism, the legal professional outlook became more and more subjected to materialistic influences, to the extent that the worth of a lawyer nowadays is generally gauged by the amount of money that he earns from his profession, rather than by the moral value of his services to the community.
To those of you who are now preparing yourselves to follow the call of the legal profession, let me say that only those who are willing to sacrifice themselves in the interest of justice should embrace that profession. Law is not a business calling. It is a vocation, an apostleship of justice and fair dealing. A lawyer’s diploma should be a guaranty to the world that its holder is a living exponent of fair play, an impartial advocate of justice, a God-chosen instrument for the defeat of wrong and the triumph of right—rather than a technician skilled in the art of legal subtleties, for the benefit of a particular client.
To know law is not merely to know by heart the civil and criminal codes or the codes of civil and criminal procedure. One may well recite from memory every line of every code that is in force, and yet not really know law. On the other hand, one may have but general ideas as to what the codes contain, and still be in fact a learned and profound jurist.
The study of law requires also the study of logic, psychology and ethics. It requires especially the study of the philosophy of the law, for knowledge of law means familiarity with those fundamental principles of right and justice which must be the foundation of all law, in order that it may deserve the respect and obedience of conscientious men.
It was Saint Thomas Aquinas, the patron of this university, who defined law as “an ordinance of reason, for the common welfare, promulgated by those who govern the community. Ordinatio rationis ad bonum comme ab eo sui curam comunitatis habet promulgata.” Laws differ because the ideas, habits, customs and needs of people differ. But the laws of a civilized and progressive community can have but one source—reason, and but one objective—justice. Rationally considered, and bearing in mind the differences of ideas, practices, needs and conditions of the time, you will find that laws are fundamentally in accord. Distingae tempora et concordavit jura. And it must be so, for human laws are but the application to human relationships of the eternal principles of divine justice.
Where momentous changes in the law have taken place, during the last twenty-five or thirty years, is in the relationship of the state with society and in the relative rights and duties between capital and labor. Indeed, it can be said that the entire political and social make-up of the world has undergone such a transformation, demanding the enactment of new legislation, as no one ever dreamed of, or could have predicted in those days when I was a law student of this college. The irresistible forces of human progress have brought upon us a new philosophy in the science of government, new concepts in the relation of man to man, and an ever increasing application to our social and economic order in all its varied aspects, of that “all men are created equal.”
It is well to remember in this Catholic University that this principle which has become also the cornerstone of democracy was preached two thousand years ago by the Son of God, although it has taken the world two millenniums to learn that the application in human relationship of the teachings of the Galilean offers humanity the only escape from self-destruction.
We are fortunate indeed that this new nation of ours is coming to life of its own, at a time when we can mold it in accordance with the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith—the basic principle of the true philosophy of law. Our Constitution embodies the living ideas of our time. It contains the solemn declaration that “the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being, and economic security of all the people should be the concern of the State.” And to enable the State to perform this sacred duty, it invests the Government with extraordinary powers so that it may enact and execute laws, designed to promote the well-being of the people and to insure justice in the relationship between capital and labor.
While the powers of government are vested under the Constitution in three co-equal, coordinate and separate branches—the executive, the legislative and the judicial—just as it is in the Government of the United States under its Constitution—we find in the Constitution of the Philippines significant differences in the scope of the power given to each branch of the Government and in the manner in which these powers are to be exercised. Under the Constitution of the Philippines, unlike that of the United States, the Government has been granted specifically the power to enact laws “that will protect labor and will regulate the relations between land owner and tenant and between labor and capital, both in industry and agriculture,” and other powers that are necessary to place in the hands of the Government every means to insure the economic security of the people.
Bearing in mind that the Supreme Court of the United States, by a bare majority of one vote, declared unconstitutional laws enacted by Congress for the promotion of the well-being of the masses, the framers of our Constitution have provided that, in order to declare a law enacted by the National Assembly unconstitutional, and therefore null and void, a two-thirds vote of our Supreme Tribunal is necessary.
Another significant difference in our Constitution is that more extensive powers are vested in our Chief Executive than are granted by the American Constitution to the President of the United States. This is because the responsibility placed upon the Philippine Chief Executive to give life and effectiveness to the political philosophy underlying the Constitution, transcends the responsibility given to the President of the United States under the Constitution of that Government.
Upon the organization of the Government of the Commonwealth, although this Government superseded an already existing one, operating through its three branches—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—the Constitution, instead of providing for the continuance in office of the justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the courts of first instance and justice of the peace, gave to the President of the Philippines the power and responsibility of appointing new justices and judges within a given period of time and virtually entrusted him with the duty of reorganizing the entire judiciary.
This duty was to be performed by the President of the Philippines after he had taken his oath of office wherein he swears or affirms as follows:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscienciously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation.”
Contrast that oath with the simpler one provided for the President of the United States in the United States Constitution, and you will readily see the difference, this is the oath required by the American Constitution of the President of the United States:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, end defend the Constitution of the United States.”
“Do justice, to every man.”—That is the solemn covenant that I have entered into with our people when I took my oath of office as President of the Philippines. These words “do justice to every man” which are found in my oath, do not, of course, mean that the President of the Philippines has been vested with any judicial power to adjudicate cases between the Government and its citizens, or between the citizens themselves. The judicial power is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court and in the inferior courts, now already created or which may be created by the National Assembly. But the words “do justice to every man” mean that the Chief Executive must always be alert and vigilant, so that justice may reign supreme over this land and this he can accomplish only by a careful and conscientious exercise of his power to appoint members of the judiciary, and by his readiness to take action, in the manner prescribed by law, against judges who may be derelict in the performance of their duties, or, short of committing malfeasance in office, to arraign them at the bar of public opinion, whenever in his opinion the denunciation of any wrongful act, even though performed in good faith, would be in the public interest.
In the choice of the judges whom I have appointed to the Supreme Court and to the other inferior courts, I can say with a clear conscience that I have selected the best men that I could find, according to reliable information I had at hand. But even the wisest and most virtuous of men may make mistakes. No matter how lofty his ideals of justice, no matter how pure and unsullen his motives, or how noble his heart, it is not impossible that a judge may commit a grievous error. In such a case, it is not only the right but also the duty of the Chief Executive to disagree with him publicly. When, a few days ago, I criticized a judicial decision which I thought was already final, and publicly so explained it, I was denounced by some people for encroaching upon the independence of the judiciary and violating the principle of the separation of powers. It has been said, that by publicly criticizing a decision of our courts, I undermined the confidence of our people in the judiciary; and have incited the people to take justice in their own hands.
Strange as it may seem, some of my critics, indeed, many of my critics, belong to the legal profession and should therefore, know enough of political science and constitutional law as not to exhibit such a lack of understanding of the theory of separation of powers and the meaning of the independence of the judiciary. I have noted, however, with great satisfaction that not a single word has been uttered by these self-appointed guardians of judicial independence against the position I have taken in that case—that fundamental justice had been subordinated to technicalities.
It is contended, then, that judicial decisions may not be criticized by private citizens, or that while private citizens may have such a right, the Chief Executive should be denied it?
It will be found that the right of the public to criticize judicial decisions has been recognized by some of the best judges in the world. It was the English Lord Chancellor Parker who said a long time ago: “Let all people be at liberty to know that I found my judgment upon; that, so when I have given it in any cause, others may be at liberty to judge me.”
The late Chief Justice W.H. Taft, when a United States circuit judge, wrote:
“The opportunity freely and publicly to criticize judicial action is of vastly more importance to the body politic than the immunity of courts and judges from unjust aspersions and attack. Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their decisions and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act of theirs is to be subjected to intelligent .scrutiny and candid criticism of their fellowmen. Such criticism is beneficial In proportion is it is fair dispassionate, discriminating, and based aria knowledge of sound legal principles. The comments made by learned text writers and the acute editors of the various law reviews upon judicial decisions are, therefore, highly useful. Such critics constitute more or less impartial tribunals of professional opinion before which each judgment is made to stand or fall on its merits, and thus exert a strong influence to secure uniformity of decision. But nonprofessional criticism also is by no means without its good uses, even if accomplished, as it often is, by a direct attack upon the judicial fairness and motives of the occupants of the bench; for if the law is but the essence of common sense, the protest of many average men may evidence a defect in a judicial conclusion, tho based on the nicest legal reasoning and profoundest learning. The two important elements of moral character in a judge are an earnest desire to reach a just conclusion and courage to enforce it. Insofar as fear of public comment does not affect the courage of a judge, but only spurs him on to search his conscience and to reach the result which approves itself to his inmost heart, such comment serves a useful purpose. There are few men, whether they are judges for life or for a shorter term, who do not prefer to earn and hold the respect of all, and who cannot be reached and made to pause and deliberate by hostile public criticism. In the case of judges having a life tenure, indeed, their very independence makes the right freely to comment on their decisions of greater importance, because it is the only practical and available instrument in the hands of a free people to keep such judges alive to the reasonable demands of those they serve.
“On the other hand, the danger of destroying the proper influence of judicial decisions by creating unfounded prejudices against the courts justified and requires that unjust attacks shall be met and answered. Courts must ultimately rest their defense upon the inherent strength of the opinions they deliver as the ground for their conclusions and must trust to the calm and deliberate judgment of all the people as their best vindication.”
President Theodore Roosevelt, in one of his annual messages to Congress, among other things said:
“It may be the highest duty of a judge at any given moment to disregard, not merely the wishes of individuals of great political or financial power, but the overwhelming tide of public sentiment; and the judge who does thus disregard public sentiment when it is wrong, who brushes aside the plea of any special interest when the pleading is not founded on righteousness performs the highest service to the country. Such a judge is deserving of all honor; and all honor cannot be paid to the wise and fearless judge if we permit the growth of an absurd convention which would forbid any criticism of the judge of another type, who shows himself timid in the presence of arrogant disorder, or who on insufficient grounds grants an injunction that does grave injustice, or who in his capacity as a construer, and, therefore, in part a maker, of law, in flagrant fashion thwarts the cause of decent government. The judge has a power over which no reviews can be exercised; he himself sits in review upon the acts of both the executive and legislative branches of the Government; save in the most extraordinary cases he is amenable only at the bar of public opinion; and it is unwise to maintain that public opinion in reference to a man with such power shall neither be expressed nor led.”
As regards the right of the Chief Executive to criticize court decisions, American history records that from the early days of the Government of the United States, there have been Presidents who have disagreed with and criticized decisions of the Supreme Court. President Jefferson is acknowledged as one of the greatest apostles of democracy while Marshall is known as the greatest Chief Justice of America. President Lincoln was practically elected upon the issue of his disagreement with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the famous Dred Scott case. Indeed, President Lincoln went to the extent of charging Chief Justice Taney, who wrote the opinion for the majority, with having been influenced in his decision by his pro-slave views and he further said that the “decision was in part based on assuming historical facts which were not really true.” President Jackson refused to enforce a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and the late President Theodore Roosevelt was so exasperated by judicial frustration of measures enacted in the public interest that he advocated the recall of judicial decisions.
The most recent case of an American Chief Executive criticizing the Supreme Court of the United States is that of the present incumbent. In the face of several decisions promulgated by the Supreme Court nullifying important legislation designed to protect the interests of the laboring class as well as to promote the general well-being of the large mass of the suffering public dependent upon agriculture, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, personally and through the entire administration, had to wage a tremendous campaign against the attitude of the Court in steadfastly voting down such legislation. Immediately after the rendition by the Supreme Court of its decision invalidating the National Recovery Act—the case of Schechter Poultry Corporation versus the United States—the President, in a press conference (just as it happened in my case), that attracted wide attention went to the extent of characterizing the Court’s interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution as dating back to the “horse and buggy” days of American history. Because of these forceful and unwavering attacks, which in time gained the support of a large sector of the American press, the Supreme Court was at last forced to revise its views on these vital social questions, so that the Court in March and April of this year promulgated decisions which in effect reversed its previous stand on much of the social legislation in which the administration was deeply interested, notably the decision sustaining the validity of the Wagner Labor Act. Here is a case where the opinion of the Chief Executive, backed up by public demand, exerted a wholesome effect upon the Court, and the democratic and sober people of America found no ground for alleging an encroachment upon the independence of the judiciary or the violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers. Indeed, one justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, recognizing that the majority of the Court was at variance with the administration on important social and economic questions, resigned shortly thereafter—he being one of those who disagreed with the President—and in this way the President was given the opportunity to constitute a majority in the Court, that would uphold the policies of the administration. In one recorded case, another justice disavowed the view taken by him in a former case, saved a minimum wage law from invalidity, and thereby permitted the Supreme Court of the United States to give an interpretation of the law in the light of contemporary economic and social forces, as advocated by President Roosevelt. What would our lawyers say if any of the incidents above related were to occur here? That alas! democracy is gone, the temple of justice profaned! After such a cry, one cannot but wonder how ignorance can be so rampant!
The opposition to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Court reform plan was due, not to his criticism of the Supreme Court, but to the belief sustained by his opponents that he was attempting to effect a constitutional change by an unconstitutional method. And the President’s case was further weakened when Justice Van Devanter resigned, for this resignation made it unnecessary, in the opinion of many, to adopt the reforms which President Roosevelt so strongly advocated.
From what has been said, you will see that there are ample precedents with which I could justify myself for criticizing a judicial decision. But what I want to say frankly that, even if I did not have any such precedents to follow, I would still not be silent in the face of what in my conscience I might consider a wrong decision or an act of injustice. For, even assuming that, under the theory of separation of powers and the postulate of judicial independence, the Chief Executive may in no case utter a word in connection with the acts of the other branches of the Government, I would still interpret my oath to “do justice to every man” as imposing upon me the duty not only to do justice in cases where the decision rests with the Executive, but also to see that the other branches of the Government do not commit acts of injustice to any man.
This is not the first time that I have criticized a judge for doing what, in my opinion is wrong. When a judge of the Courts of First Instance, on technical grounds, absolved a man who caused the death of his servant—an old woman—by inflicting upon her cruel punishment all night long, I denounced the judge on the floor of the Senate and succeeded later in getting him out of the service. It will also be recalled that I have dismissed a judge from office, despite the fact that the Supreme Court only recommended that he be allowed to resign, when I found out that said recommendation was predicated upon the findings of the Supreme Court that he was guilty of the charges preferred against him, including acts of abuse in the treatment of litigants and witnesses, especially the poor and the ignorant.
It has been said that with my criticism of the decision in the Barredo case, I have embarrassed the members of the Supreme Court, for if they should reverse the decision of the lower courts, they would be considered as a mere “appendix of the Chief Executive,” and if they should uphold the former decision, they would be accused of favoring the rich as against the poor.
I have already stated that when I was led on the subject through a question propounded by a press representative, I was unaware of the fact that the case was still sub judice, so I need not repeat the statement now. But I have no hesitancy in saying that, while I wish I had not expressed any opinion on this matter, yet having done so, I am not in the least fearful that the Supreme Court will not render the decision that it would have rendered had I kept my peace on the subject. I have appointed every man on the Supreme Bench, from the Chief Justice to the junior member, Justice Conception. I have reappointed those who were already occupying their positions at the time, not because they were already there, but because I would have chosen them just the same even if I were then organizing for the first time the highest tribunal of the land. And I appointed Justices Laurel and Conception, not only because the Secretary of Justice had recommended them to me, and because the Chief Justice and the other members of the Court had expressed their approval of their selection, but because I knew them personally and I was certain in my own conscience that I was making the best possible choice.
May I say, in passing, that our Chief Justice typifies in his own person the best that there is or has ever been in the judiciary, whether in the Philippines or in any other country. No Chief Justice or any court anywhere in the world can by comparison tower above the Chief Justice who graces the Supreme Bench of our country. His knowledge of the law is acknowledged by all and his integrity is recognized throughout the breadth and length of our land. But I can say more: having known him intimately since our student days, no more fearless man has ever come from the hand of God than Chief Justice Avanceña when passing judgment upon any question before his Court. And the members of that Court are worthy associates of their Chief. I am, therefore, positive that everyone of them will consider the Barredo case with complete detachment from the rumpus that has been created, and will render their verdict as if I or anybody else had said nothing about it. And I also know that the Filipino people will accept their decision as an expression of their fearless conviction.
Not I, but those who have expressed the fear that the Supreme Court might be embarrassed by my declaration, show very little faith in the independence of our judiciary.
Let me tell the lawyers of the Philippines that if they are interested in upholding the prestige of the Philippine judiciary, it is not by protesting against any publicly uttered criticism of the bench that they can accomplish this worthy end. It is by helping the courts to ascertain the facts and to properly apply the law in cases in which they intervene. It is with the help of lawyers who love justice more than fees, rather than of lawyers who would feign resentment against any attack upon the judiciary however justified, that the judiciary may attain the highest standards and “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”
To those who fear that a public denunciation by the Executive, of wrong doing on the part of the judges, may have the effect of encouraging the people to acts of violence or to take justice in their own hands, especially when the masses of the people are the victims, or any one of them I say: Nothing will give our people greater confidence in their Government and in their public officials—whether of the executive, the legislative or the judicial departments—than the willingness of each department to watch each other and denounce each other’s mistakes or wrongdoings before the bar of public opinion.
The independence of the three branches of the Government from each other and the separation of their powers are intended precisely for the protection of the people from any concerted action which these departments may undertake to deprive or deny the people of their rights and liberties. It is the duty of every branch of the Government not only to perform those functions which, under the Constitution, are within its own province, but also to check each other from abusing its constitutional powers.
My administration is committed, by its preelection platform, to ameliorate the lot of the common man. The Constitution of the Philippines imposes upon this Government the inescapable duty of promoting social justice. As the head of this Government, it is my duty to exert my influence to secure the cooperation of every branch of the Government to redeem our pledges and, above all, to carry into effect the mandate of the Constitution. Were I to keep silent in the face of what I consider a disregard of rights vouchsafed by the Constitution and the laws, not only would I be recreant to my duty but also the people would lose faith in their Government. This must not and shall not happen, if I can help it.
I come from the masses. My ancestors were of the poor class. I am not afraid nor ashamed to confess that my heart beats in unison with the hearts of the needy and for them. Justice shall be done to the poor and the humble in this country so long as I am the President. I am determined to fight for the rights of everyone, rich and poor alike, but more particularly for those who are unable to pay handsomely for expensive lawyers. And let it be known that I shall use all the powers of my office to win this fight. But even if I should fail now, victory would only be a question of time, for justice always will triumph, “God’s justice, tardy though it prove perchance, rests never on the track until it reaches its destination.”
news.mikeligalig.comLinkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=122896.0
