The ultimate justice
By TOTO CAUSING
It is common for Filipinos to hear or experience personally injustices in the hands of men of justice.
When I say "men of justice," I refer to persons who are judges, justices of the tribunals, the prosecutors who possess the knowledge of laws and skills to decide whether to hail an accused to the courts, the labor arbiters, the officers of commissions exercising the power to judge although technically called "quasi-judicial" bodies, and the like.
It is common for us to learn of innocent persons convicted or guilty persons acquitted. It is also common to see innocent persons being hailed to court or persons you know who are likely guilty, like Joc-joc Bolante, but absolved by the prosecutors or fiscals. It is common to hear labor arbiters deciding wrongly because of money. The same is true for commissions, including the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Under these circumstances that we are in, the poor who have less in life shall have less in law; in defiance of what then President Magsaysay said: "Those who have less in life should have more in law."
If we have cases, we are often placed in a situation of putting our fate, or our case’s outcome, in the hands of one person: the judge alone or the labor arbiter alone or the prosecutor alone.
If the judge, or the labor arbiter, or the prosecutor was already bought by your opponent, you will never ever win despite the evidence to the contrary.
I saw a lot of poor workers suffer in the hands of labor arbiters dismissing their complaints for illegal dismissal due to employer bribing his way out.
I saw a lot of persons hailed to court by the power of one fiscal or prosecutor even though it is very clear there is lack of evidence to make the case stand in court. This was done with a price—and the prize—from the complainant.
I saw a lot of decisions of commissions overturned by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. These being rampant, I cannot give a reason it was because of honest mistakes; it is more of dishonest minds that make me wonder beyond wild yonder.
There is only one reason for this: Influence.
That influence may be by money or political exertions or fear.
Now, what do you think will happen 10 years from now if the present justice system continues knowing that the bar of morality has been lowered so much and the norm of corruption has been accepted perennial as a grass?
I see no justice would be available in 20 years’ time.
The truth is: the present state is so alarming. However, only a few remain resilient against the onslaught of immorality: they are those who still find joy in honesty on the pain of losing opportunity for money.
As I have espoused in so many column articles I had, which is the idea of "Ravine Theory", that only by putting a stonewall stopgap as a system can prevent our society from breaking down.
Once more, I explain that my "Ravine Theory" is just like putting a man on the edge of a cliff and he will never ever jump to death even without putting policemen to watch him, unless he has become insane.
Applying the theory to know what kind of justice system we should have, I am strongly advancing the idea of a "jury" to decide who should be tried for criminal wrongdoings in every province or city, and the idea of installing a separate "jury" for every court trial, civil or criminal.
Why?
Jury system in deciding who should be charged criminally and a separate jury system to decide the cases tried in courts constitute the "ultimate justice."
It is the ultimate justice because it is the only system that is impermeable against political, financial and tyrannical influences.
It is the ultimate justice because ultimately that is the only system that can survive even in the worst of corruption and the worst of tyranny. To the contrary, one judge to decide a case alone or one fiscal to determine who should be brought to court for trial is very much prone to surrender to the force of money or fear.
It is the ultimate justice because it is the only system that can provide justice and make the scales even between the richest defendant and the person who is last among the ranks of the poor.
Yes, jury systems also have some imperfections. But more is the imperfection in the present system we have: where only one fiscal decides who should be criminally charged in court and only person decides whether he is guilty or not.
Under the jury system, a group of persons chosen by raffle from the list of voters in a province or city is the one that will decide whether to bring to court an individual being subjected to a preliminary investigation. It cannot be influenced because its members are kept secret and the term of their office is specific for only six months, mostly; thereafter to be replaced by the same number of persons chosen by the same mode.
As to the jury in trials, a group of randomly chosen persons, 12 in the US system, is the one authorized to hear the evidence presented in court and decide whether the accused is guilty or who wins a civil case. They are kept secret so that the accused or the accusers cannot influence their decision.
The US has put jury systems since its founding in Philadelphia 221 years ago. These are still the same systems that exist today in every state therein.
For sure, the most difficult persons to unite are blacks and whites. But the US jury systems have no doubt contributed so much in the tearing down of the seemingly insurmountable wall between Black Americans and White Americans. That is the same reason that all races in that country have developed a culture of accepting people who do not look like them and do not pray like them.
The proof: they voted the first Black President in the person of Barack Hussein Obama. They wholeheartedly accepted the Black woman in Oprah Winfrey as the most celebrated television host. They embraced the Black singer in Michael Jackson to become the biggest singer of all time, beating the all-white Beatles and the white man in Elvis Presley.
And if jury systems have succeeded to unite the blacks and the whites, can it succeed in uniting the varied races in the Philippines although there is no difference in the color of their skin?
This is the ultimate justice. This is the most compelling wisdom behind the necessity for the Philippines to adopt jury systems, now!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PLEASE JOIN JURY MOVEMENT! Email me at
totocausing@yahoo.com or send text message to 09299920024.
A jury system
Originally Posted by Vundaboi
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
