Two of my clients escaped last week. Apparently, they were helped by their fellow officers. I won’t dwell on the legalities and technicalities but on the experience of having someone who has trusted you with their lives escape before their cases can be terminated.
I went to the taping of Debate last week and met a particularly repulsive Congressman (I would have wanted to say, “is there any other kind?” but my friends Erin Tanada and Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel are members of Congress and they’re not repulsive and among the nicest persons you will ever meet) who greeted me by asking, “aren’t you offended that your clients escaped, that means they don’t trust you? You should feel betrayed.”
Because he is particularly repulsive, I actually just smiled and said nothing; but on-air, Winnie Monsod also asked me practically the same question.
That got me thinking.
After having witnessed two of my clients killed before my very eyes, I’ve now experienced something new again—to have two clients escape.
Honestly, I don’t know what to think.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Blind and toothless
“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave the world blind and toothless.”
- Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof
For once, I agree with Raul Gonzales—arming judges will not stop the killing of judges.
It is difficult to agree with the utterly illogical statement of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban reminding judges that they can arm themselves. This, in the wake of the killing of Judge Henrick Gingoyon, a former FLAG lawyer from cebu who had to relocate to Manila after his and his family’s safety and security were threatened by the military for his uncompromising stand against human rights abuses.
Giving a judge a gun is not the answer to the violence that sweeps the country now. That it is the Chief Justice of the Philippines saying this bodes ill for all of us.
Neither is the reimposition of the death penalty the solution. The il-logic behind this is that had the State continued to execute people, Henrick Gingoyon would still be alive today. The il-logic behind this is that had the State continued to kill people after January 4, 2000, many of the victims of rape, kidnapping, drugs, murders would not have been victimized.
Really?
When Leo Echegaray was executed on February 5, 1999 and Bobby Andan on October 26, 1999, crime did not grind to a halt thereafter. After the last execution (so far) on January 4, 2000, crime was not wiped off the face of the Philippines (I write this on the 6th year since the de facto moratorium the Philippines has imposed on executions.
The death penalty is not a silver bullet for criminality. Neither is arming judges a wonder pill for violence against judges.
What we will be doing, if we join the rabble for more guns and for more death, is consign each of us—our generation and the generations to come—to the mindless, heartless, hopeless cycle of violence and insanity that we are in. We will be creating what Tevye prophesied—a country that is blind and toothless.
- Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof
For once, I agree with Raul Gonzales—arming judges will not stop the killing of judges.
It is difficult to agree with the utterly illogical statement of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban reminding judges that they can arm themselves. This, in the wake of the killing of Judge Henrick Gingoyon, a former FLAG lawyer from cebu who had to relocate to Manila after his and his family’s safety and security were threatened by the military for his uncompromising stand against human rights abuses.
Giving a judge a gun is not the answer to the violence that sweeps the country now. That it is the Chief Justice of the Philippines saying this bodes ill for all of us.
Neither is the reimposition of the death penalty the solution. The il-logic behind this is that had the State continued to execute people, Henrick Gingoyon would still be alive today. The il-logic behind this is that had the State continued to kill people after January 4, 2000, many of the victims of rape, kidnapping, drugs, murders would not have been victimized.
Really?
When Leo Echegaray was executed on February 5, 1999 and Bobby Andan on October 26, 1999, crime did not grind to a halt thereafter. After the last execution (so far) on January 4, 2000, crime was not wiped off the face of the Philippines (I write this on the 6th year since the de facto moratorium the Philippines has imposed on executions.
The death penalty is not a silver bullet for criminality. Neither is arming judges a wonder pill for violence against judges.
What we will be doing, if we join the rabble for more guns and for more death, is consign each of us—our generation and the generations to come—to the mindless, heartless, hopeless cycle of violence and insanity that we are in. We will be creating what Tevye prophesied—a country that is blind and toothless.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Deeply offended
I blogged about this a few weeks back—the supposed three-way race for Chief Justice. Now, it has come to pass. The race really was a rout. The front-runner had no chance—none at all because Gloria Arroyo is starting to show her true colors: Marcosian.
I have also said this before, she is worse than Marcos and this shows it.
This might get me into a lot of trouble because: 1. I am a lawyer with cases pending before the Supreme Court and I am blogging about Gloria Arroyo’s choice for Chief Justice of the Philippines; 2. I have nothing against Justice Panganiban (I have some of his books because he sends them to me; apparently, I am on his mailing list); 3. I am subject to the discipline of the Supreme Court; and 4. I have friends on Justice Panganiban’s chambers, who might feel bad about my blogging about their boss in this way.
Because lawyering is the only way I know how to put butter on my bread, I will say this: this is not about Justice Panganiban, this is about Gloria Arroyo and the damage she has inflicted on the court and the judicial system because of her senseless and totally trapo (shorthand for “traditional politician” but also very aptly vernacular for “dirty rag”, good only for throwing away) “revolving door” policy.
But because lawyering is also the only way I know how to serve, I will say this: this is also about the Court and the way it’s independence will be determined in the future.
I write about this not because I do not like Justice Panganiban (I have no basis to “not like him” as I do not know him that well personally) or because I do not like Gloria Arroyo but because I am a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Filipino. And I am offended, deeply offended, that Gloria Arroyo would insult everyone by foisting this appointment on us.
I stated before that I am not a rabid fan of Mr. Justice Puno but I do admire his judicial philosophy. We are, if I may be so bold to claim, kindred spirits in espousing greater protection for civil rights and human freedoms. Often, his pen--wielded mightily and consistently--and wit-- manifesting itself very often acerbically--have cut through layers of government-sponsored balderdash to expose and lay bare to the people what is most important to them: the truth. I often do not agree with his decisions but I have yet to find occasion to disrespect him. Of the three who were in the “race”, he was, in my opinion, the best qualified—coincidentally also, the most senior.
What offends me about Gloria Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Panganiban as Chief Justice of the Philippines is that she cheapens the Judiciary by making the highest post open to the simple expediency of accommodation. What offends me about Gloria Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Panganiban as Chief Justice of the Philippines is that she would choose not the best qualified and also the most senior but that she would choose based on a policy of appeasement. What offends me about this appointment is not that Justice Panganiban was chosen over Justice Puno but that Gloria Arroyo thinks that the rule of law should be made subject to a simplistic and “simpletonic” (my own word; don’t bother looking it up) policy of “giving everyone a chance.”
The direction of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch should be determined by a vision, not by political accommodation and expediency. It should be charted by someone who has a clear grasp of where the Court should go and how it should get there; it should be led by one who has a firm and long view of how law may help change and shape society.
It should not be charted by one who is, effective from the date of his appointment, a lame duck. This, unfortunately, is the situation that Gloria Arroyo has placed Justice Panganiban in. By not putting a premium on seniority as well as vision but instead stressing accommodation and by highlighting that Justice Puno would still have another chance to be Chief Justice when Justice Panganiban retires in 2006, Gloria Arroyo has put a lame duck in the Supreme Court. Starting today, everyone knows the clock is ticking and that Justice Panganiban is a seat warmer--that is an insult Justice Panganiban does not deserve, that is an insult the Court does not deserve, that is another offense by Gloria Arroyo against the Filipino people for which she should not be forgiven.
I have been a lawyer for 15 years and a law professor for almost 10 and I love the law and the rule of law. Thus, Gloria Arroyo’s insult, I take personally. She is singlehandedly destroying all the democratic institutions that generations of martyrs had shed blood for. There are no two ways about it: she must go.
I end this blog entry with my Congratulations to Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice, Panganiban. May his one year as Chief Justice be fruitful and may he strive mightily, with God’s help, to do what is right, not only what is popular or what is expected of him by Gloria Arroyo. May he, in his one year as Chief Justice, rise above the unfair label that Gloria Arroyo has pinned on him and prove me—and all the others who believe Justice Puno should have gotten the appointment—wrong. I would be the happiest Filipino in one year’s time should this happen.
In the meantime, sic Gloria transit mundi; this too, will pass. So will Gloria Arroyo.
I have also said this before, she is worse than Marcos and this shows it.
This might get me into a lot of trouble because: 1. I am a lawyer with cases pending before the Supreme Court and I am blogging about Gloria Arroyo’s choice for Chief Justice of the Philippines; 2. I have nothing against Justice Panganiban (I have some of his books because he sends them to me; apparently, I am on his mailing list); 3. I am subject to the discipline of the Supreme Court; and 4. I have friends on Justice Panganiban’s chambers, who might feel bad about my blogging about their boss in this way.
Because lawyering is the only way I know how to put butter on my bread, I will say this: this is not about Justice Panganiban, this is about Gloria Arroyo and the damage she has inflicted on the court and the judicial system because of her senseless and totally trapo (shorthand for “traditional politician” but also very aptly vernacular for “dirty rag”, good only for throwing away) “revolving door” policy.
But because lawyering is also the only way I know how to serve, I will say this: this is also about the Court and the way it’s independence will be determined in the future.
I write about this not because I do not like Justice Panganiban (I have no basis to “not like him” as I do not know him that well personally) or because I do not like Gloria Arroyo but because I am a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Filipino. And I am offended, deeply offended, that Gloria Arroyo would insult everyone by foisting this appointment on us.
I stated before that I am not a rabid fan of Mr. Justice Puno but I do admire his judicial philosophy. We are, if I may be so bold to claim, kindred spirits in espousing greater protection for civil rights and human freedoms. Often, his pen--wielded mightily and consistently--and wit-- manifesting itself very often acerbically--have cut through layers of government-sponsored balderdash to expose and lay bare to the people what is most important to them: the truth. I often do not agree with his decisions but I have yet to find occasion to disrespect him. Of the three who were in the “race”, he was, in my opinion, the best qualified—coincidentally also, the most senior.
What offends me about Gloria Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Panganiban as Chief Justice of the Philippines is that she cheapens the Judiciary by making the highest post open to the simple expediency of accommodation. What offends me about Gloria Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Panganiban as Chief Justice of the Philippines is that she would choose not the best qualified and also the most senior but that she would choose based on a policy of appeasement. What offends me about this appointment is not that Justice Panganiban was chosen over Justice Puno but that Gloria Arroyo thinks that the rule of law should be made subject to a simplistic and “simpletonic” (my own word; don’t bother looking it up) policy of “giving everyone a chance.”
The direction of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Branch should be determined by a vision, not by political accommodation and expediency. It should be charted by someone who has a clear grasp of where the Court should go and how it should get there; it should be led by one who has a firm and long view of how law may help change and shape society.
It should not be charted by one who is, effective from the date of his appointment, a lame duck. This, unfortunately, is the situation that Gloria Arroyo has placed Justice Panganiban in. By not putting a premium on seniority as well as vision but instead stressing accommodation and by highlighting that Justice Puno would still have another chance to be Chief Justice when Justice Panganiban retires in 2006, Gloria Arroyo has put a lame duck in the Supreme Court. Starting today, everyone knows the clock is ticking and that Justice Panganiban is a seat warmer--that is an insult Justice Panganiban does not deserve, that is an insult the Court does not deserve, that is another offense by Gloria Arroyo against the Filipino people for which she should not be forgiven.
I have been a lawyer for 15 years and a law professor for almost 10 and I love the law and the rule of law. Thus, Gloria Arroyo’s insult, I take personally. She is singlehandedly destroying all the democratic institutions that generations of martyrs had shed blood for. There are no two ways about it: she must go.
I end this blog entry with my Congratulations to Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice, Panganiban. May his one year as Chief Justice be fruitful and may he strive mightily, with God’s help, to do what is right, not only what is popular or what is expected of him by Gloria Arroyo. May he, in his one year as Chief Justice, rise above the unfair label that Gloria Arroyo has pinned on him and prove me—and all the others who believe Justice Puno should have gotten the appointment—wrong. I would be the happiest Filipino in one year’s time should this happen.
In the meantime, sic Gloria transit mundi; this too, will pass. So will Gloria Arroyo.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Retroactive 5.0 for Miriam in Evidence
As one who has been teaching Evidence for some time, I am ashamed of myself.
I must apologize to all my students, present and past, for failing to tell them that triple hearsay is not only admissible but is also impressed with high probative weight. I must confess that since I never had the “brilliant” Miriam Defensor-Santiago as my professor for Evidence, I really missed that particular legal principle. I feel that I must commit the academic equivalent of hara kiri by turning in my teaching license, as it were, and make a public apology to all my students, present and past, for misleading them.
Hah, she wishes.
Miriam is the one who is a monumental embarrassment to the name of U.P. and particularly the College of Law. She’s not even funny anymore—even when she goes from her “lucid intervals” to her “normal state”—she’s tiresome and tiring; a total waste of taxpayer’s money.
She should be given a retroactive 5.0 for Evidence and her diploma as a UP graduate should be withdrawn.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
A gag order by any other name . . .
MALACAÑANG
Manila
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464
ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWER, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION UNDER THE COSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Constitution guarantees the separation of powers of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government;
WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution provides that heads of departments may, with the prior consent of the President, appear before and be heard by either House of Congress on any matter pertaining to their departments and, when the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the president so states in writing, such appearance shall be conducted in executive session;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the rule of executive privilege, the President and those who assist her must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions since this is fundamental to the operation of the government and is rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution;
WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution mandates that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate or House of Representatives shall be respected;
WHEREAS, recent events, particularly with respect to the invitation of a member of the Cabinet by the Senate as well as various heads of offices, civilian and military, have highlighted the need to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of persons appearing in such inquiries in aid of legislation and due regard to constitutional mandate;
WHEREAS, there is a need to prevent such inquiries in aid of legislation from being used for partisan political purposes, disrupting diplomatic relations with foreign governments, and weakening the stability of the State, thereby impeding the efforts of the government to generate and attract foreign investments;
WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest;
WHEREAS, Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits any public officer from revealing any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity or wrongfully delivering papers or copies thereof which he may have charge and which should not be published;
WHEREAS, the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987 provide that the President shall have control of all government departments, bureaus and offices and shall ensure that all the laws be faithfully executed.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by the powers vested I me by law, do hereby order:
Section 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. – In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions o separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in executive session.
Section 2. Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege. –
(a) Nature and Scope. – The rule of confidentiality based on executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separations of powers under the Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest.
Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive order, including:
WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution provides that heads of departments may, with the prior consent of the President, appear before and be heard by either House of Congress on any matter pertaining to their departments and, when the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the president so states in writing, such appearance shall be conducted in executive session;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the rule of executive privilege, the President and those who assist her must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions since this is fundamental to the operation of the government and is rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution;
WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution mandates that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate or House of Representatives shall be respected;
WHEREAS, recent events, particularly with respect to the invitation of a member of the Cabinet by the Senate as well as various heads of offices, civilian and military, have highlighted the need to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of persons appearing in such inquiries in aid of legislation and due regard to constitutional mandate;
WHEREAS, there is a need to prevent such inquiries in aid of legislation from being used for partisan political purposes, disrupting diplomatic relations with foreign governments, and weakening the stability of the State, thereby impeding the efforts of the government to generate and attract foreign investments;
WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest;
WHEREAS, Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits any public officer from revealing any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity or wrongfully delivering papers or copies thereof which he may have charge and which should not be published;
WHEREAS, the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987 provide that the President shall have control of all government departments, bureaus and offices and shall ensure that all the laws be faithfully executed.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by the powers vested I me by law, do hereby order:
Section 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. – In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions o separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in executive session.
Section 2. Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege. –
(a) Nature and Scope. – The rule of confidentiality based on executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separations of powers under the Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest.
Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive order, including:
- Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public officials covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002);
- Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
- Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
- Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002).
(b) Who are covered. - The following are covered by this executive order:
- Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
- Generals ad flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;
- Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege;
- Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
- Such other officers as may be determined by the President.
Section 3. Appearance of Other Public Officials Before Congress. – All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation.
Section 4. Repealing Clause. – All executive issuances, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 5. Separability Clause. – If any section or provision of this executive order shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 6. Effectivity. – This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 28th day of September in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Five.
By the President:
(Signed)
EDUARDO R. ERMITA
Executive Secretary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may ask, why should I care--I'm not a member of Congress. You are a particle of sovereignty though--and, for this reason alone, you should care.
Tyrants creep in when apathy reigns. The greatest danger we face isn't from Gloria, it's from our own apathy, indifference, disillusionment and cynicism. Care enough to find out what's really going on, care enough to think about it, form an opinion about it and care enough to take a stand and defend it. That, and God's grace, is what is going to save this beautiful but benighted country.
Section 4. Repealing Clause. – All executive issuances, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 5. Separability Clause. – If any section or provision of this executive order shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 6. Effectivity. – This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 28th day of September in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Five.
(Signed) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
By the President:
(Signed)
EDUARDO R. ERMITA
Executive Secretary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may ask, why should I care--I'm not a member of Congress. You are a particle of sovereignty though--and, for this reason alone, you should care.
Tyrants creep in when apathy reigns. The greatest danger we face isn't from Gloria, it's from our own apathy, indifference, disillusionment and cynicism. Care enough to find out what's really going on, care enough to think about it, form an opinion about it and care enough to take a stand and defend it. That, and God's grace, is what is going to save this beautiful but benighted country.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Slaying Kingsfield
(A sort-of welcome for the entering class at Malcolm Hall, 2000)
Each of you has come to law school, fueled by the desire to become a lawyer. Most of you have been inspired by role models, culled from your own experiences. Perhaps your parents or relatives who are lawyers; or actual experience with real lawyers in actual cases; or perhaps from conversations with graduates of the U.P. College of Law; or even from fictional role models taken from such diverse fare as The Practice, Ally McBeal, John Grisham’s books or the real-life stories of the lives of Clarence Darrow or Oliver Wendell Holmes. Whatever or whoever has been your inspiration for taking this most important step in your young lives, you are now faced with one reality: you are now officially in law school; and one question: what do I do next?
The answer to that question may be answered by a scene from the prototypical film about law school, The Paper Chase (1973). This scene demonstrates how it is to study law.
In this scene, the antagonist of the film, the despotic Professor in Contracts, Mr. Kingsfield, is concluding his exercise of humiliating the law students in his class; on deck is the hero of the film, Mr. Hart, a first year law student at Harvard, who has failed to answer his questions. In a dull, flat monotone dripping with sarcasm, Kingsfield intones, “Mr. Hart, here is a penny, call your mother and tell her that her son will not become a lawyer.” Hart, who was just about to bolt the room and quit law school after being humiliated so publicly by Kingsfield, turns around, stares Kingsfield in the eye, and, in emphatic and plain language, tells Kingsfield, “You, Kingsfield, are a son of a bitch.” In the stunned silence that follows, Kingsfield very calmly tells Hart, “That, Mr. Hart, is the most intelligent thing you have ever said in this class. Sit down.”
During your first weeks in law school, you will find yourself, like the hapless Hart, confronting Kingsfield, in various guises, shapes and sizes. The challenge for you is to overcome your own Kingsfields for unless you do so, then you will just have to tell your father or mother that you will not become a lawyer. This early in your life as a law student, when you have yet to open your first case report or law book, you must ask yourself if, like Hart, you have–or are capable of obtaining–the values, skills, traits and character to slay the Kingsfields you will meet in law school. (Hart’s emphatic language to Kingsfield is not encouraged though, for all that it will most certainly get you are either : [1] a 5.0, [2] kicked out of the class and law school, [3] sued for libel and defamation or [4] possibly all three, in that order). Slaying your own Kingsfields will be the first skill you need to survive law school and become a lawyer.
To slay your own Kingsfields and become a lawyer will demand of you a great deal of sacrifice, commitment, skill and character; there is a need for a genuine self-appraisal on your part. It is easiest to judge others but most difficult to evaluate oneself. To help you in your self-appraisal, before you meet your Kingsfields, draw from the thoughts of one of the foremost criminal lawyers of his time, the late Senator Jose W. Diokno, the beloved Ka Pepe.
Answering Popoy, his eldest son who asked him whether he (Popoy) should study law, Ka Pepe wrote a deeply insightful, compelling, descriptive, and very moving letter; in his letter, he bares to Popoy his unique insights on what a lawyer is, how it is to study law and what kind of person you have to be or may have to become in order to be a great lawyer. It is an eloquent and inspiring testimonial to one man’s love for country, people, profession and family written in detention during the darkest days of martial law.
Allow me to share his letter with you:
Dear Popoy,
When you asked me about a month ago, for a list of books that you could read to start studying law, I was loathe to prepare the list because I felt that you would be wasting your time studying law in this “new society.”
I am still not sure that it would be worth your while to do so.
A few days ago, while chatting with a soldier, he asked, in all seriousness and sincerity, “Pero sir, kailangan pa ba ang mga abogado ngayon?” And in a way that perhaps he did not intend, he raised a perfectly valid question.
A lawyer lives in and by the law; and there is no law when society is ruled, not by reason, but by will–worse, by the will of one man.
A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men and women are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without trial.
A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear and criticism silenced by force.
A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no truth when facts are suppressed, news is manipulated and charges are fabricated.
Worse, when the Constitution is invoked to justify outrages against freedom, truth and justice, when democracy is destroyed under the pretext of saving it, law is not only denied–it is perverted.
And what need do our people have for men and women who would practice perversion?
Yet the truth remains true that 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; who tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and need never resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer. Otherwise, “what you are speaks so loudly, cannot hear what you say.”
For men and women of this kind, our country will always have need–and now more than ever. True, there is little that men of goodwill can do now to end the madness that holds our nation in its grip. But we can,even now, scrutinize our past; try to pinpoint where we went wrong; determine what led to this madness and what nurtured it; and how, when it ends, we can make sure that it need never happen again.
For this madness must end–if not in my lifetime, at least in yours. We Filipinos are proverbially patient, but we are also infinitely tough and ingeniously resourceful. Our entire history as a people has been a quest for freedom and dignity; and we will not be denied our dreams.
So this madness will end; the rule of force will yield to the rule of law. Then the country will need its great lawyers, its great engineers,its great economists and managers, the best of its men and women to clear the shambles and restore the foundations of that noble and truly Filipino society for which our forefathers fought, bled and died.
So, there are two sides to the question of whether it is worth your while to study law; and, in the end, it is a question that only you can answer.
Just be sure, that, whatever be your decision, it is truly yours, that it is truly what you want, not a choice dictated by a sense of duty to follow in my footsteps.
To help you decide, I suggest that you read:
(a) The Attorney’s Oath, Form No, 28 appended to our Rules of Court; and the duties of an attorney, Rule 138, sec. 20 of the Rules of Court, which you can ask from my office;
(b) “The Five Functions of a Lawyer” in Arthur T. Vandervilt’s “Cases and Materials on Modern Procedure.”
(c) “The Chicago Lawyer’s Pledge” on p. 395, and “The Crafts of Law Re-valued” on pp. 316-322 of Karl Llewellyn’s “Jurisprudence.”
(d) “The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times” by Roscoe Pound.
(e) “Men of Law” by William Seagle.
These should give you an idea of what a lawyer should be and what he has been in the past. What he is in our country, you have an idea;
(f) Martin Mayer’s “The Lawyers”, tells you what he is in the United States; and
(g) Brian Abel-Smith’s “Lawyers and Courts”, what he is in England.
Read either and compare with our practice. And for a critique of lawyers, of courts, and even of law, read,
(h) “Law against the People,” by Robert Lefcourt.
As you read, cultivate the habit I have never been able to school myself to do of taking notes of your reading–not only of the gist of what the author says, or quotations of thoughts he felicitously expresses, but also of your reactions to his work (where you agree or disagree or suspend judgment, and why) and of the thoughts he arouses in you. File your notes in orderly fashion. They will become invaluable to you as you mature.
After you have read enough to give you an idea of what a lawyer is and does, but before you firmly commit yourself, one way or the other, discuss the matter with your wife and your friends, always bearing these things in mind:
– That the law is a demanding profession, exacting a constant and unswerving devotion that is always a thinking obedience to its ideals, and that is much harder to give than blind obedience;
– That the rewards of the law as a profession are not in wealth or even in fame, but in the respect of your peers, in the excitement of the chase after justice, and in the satisfaction not only of service to your clients but of having somehow shaped the future by molding the law of today.
This has been a long letter on a short question–whether to study law–and is not an example to be emulated should you decide in favor of law. My excuse is that time lies heavy on my hands in these days of detention, and since we can talk only in snatches when you visit, I have written at length in the hope of anticipating some of your questions.
You may suspect that, by stressing the difficulties of the law profession and by suggesting that you read some eight books before making up your mind, I am trying to discourage you from studying law. I am not. In a rather heavy-handed way, I am trying to paint the lawyer’s role as accurately as I can and show you that, if you do decide to become a lawyer, you must prepare yourself for a lifetime of study,reading, weighing and deciding, while at the same time acting and doing. It sounds impossible–but every day it has been and is being done.
I have loved the law; and I have always been proud of being a lawyer. But I have never been prouder than the day, five Sundays ago, that you told me that you wanted to study law. Regardless of what you may finally decide, the fact that you even thought of becoming a lawyer, despite my arrest and detention, allows me to hope that I have not failed as a lawyer and as a father.
For that, son, thanks.
Your father,
PEPE
This was written in detention by Sen. Jose W. Diokno to his eldest son, Jose Ramon I. Diokno on 23 October 1972 almost one month after martial law was declared in the country.
Ka Pepe spoke of several things in his letter to Popoy that may prove valuable to your stay in the college of law.
First, he tells his son that “there are two sides to the question of whether it is worth your while to study law; and, in the end, it is a question that only you can answer. Just be sure, that, whatever be your decision, it is truly yours, that it is truly what you want, not a choice dictated by a sense of duty to follow in my footsteps.” This is especially important for those of you, in this room, who are here simply because you feel that it is your duty to continue a family tradition of producing lawyers. The study of law is such an exacting discipline that coming into the College half-heartedly will most certainly ensure that you will eventually leave the College without a degree. As he reminds Popoy in another part of his letter, “the law is a demanding profession, exacting a constant and unswerving devotion that is always a thinking obedience to its ideals, and that is much harder to give than blind obedience.” You have made a decision to study law; in order for you to succeed, you must ensure that it is a decision that is completely yours. Anything less than that will mean that you may not gather enough resolve to slay Kingsfield and will simply phone home to tell your parents that their son or daughter will not become a lawyer.
Second, Ka Pepe tells us what kind of a person would make a great lawyer:
"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; who tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and need never resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer. Otherwise, 'what you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.'"
Now that you have made your decision to study law, you must know yourself. Know your weaknesses and your strengths; work on your weaknesses as well as your strengths. Do not forsake or abandon your other interests–your life is not and should not only be the college of law (although, it will certainly feel like that)--read, dance, sing, watch movies, play Tekken, work out, play a sport, climb a rock, join a rally, march to Mendiola, raise your fist in protest, lift your hands in praise, join your hands in prayer. As in everything, there must be a balance in our life. The challenge for you is to try to incorporate all of these things that are integral and important to your life within your new chosen life as a law student. It is these traits and values that you develop from all the varied fields of interest that make you a complete and multi-dimensional person and will ensure that you become a great lawyer.
Third, Ka Pepe speaks of developing very good study habits and being organized. In his words,
"As you read, cultivate the habit . . .of taking notes of your reading–not only of the gist of what the author says, or quotations of thoughts he felicitously expresses, but also of your reactions to his work (where you agree or disagree or suspend judgment, and why) and of the thoughts he arouses in you. File your notes in orderly fashion. They will become invaluable to you as you mature."
Indeed, those who have passed through the portals of the College of Law and those who are still within its portals will tell you that the most important weapon you have in the College of Law is not your raw intelligence (because you are all disputably presumed to have that in abundance or you would not be here listening to me) but how you develop, hone, challenge and transform that intelligence into a discipline of critical, analytical, logical, organized and coherent thought. And without study habits–of any form–all your native intelligence will be for naught. Ka Pepe presents you with a way of studying law which is healthy to cultivate: not only should you read, with a view to reciting the cases or the law verbatim, but you should read with a view to understanding and thinking about what you read.
It is in this context that Ka Pepe speaks of the study and the practice of law as being “demanding”; and, indeed, the discipline is demanding. For it is not enough that you should know the law and practice it well but that you should also know why the law is what it is, how to question the law, if necessary, and to move for changes in the law to make the law what it should be. Thus, your study of the law should not only be rote learning but critical learning. As he reminded Popoy, “the law is a demanding profession, exacting a constant and unswerving devotion that is always a thinking obedience to its ideals, and that is much harder to give than blind obedience.” It takes courage to stand and remain as a majority of one and there will be times when that is what the study of law will ask you to do–to maintain a critical and thinking obedience to its ideals and challenge the law as it is written with the hope it may be transformed into the law that it ought to be.
Finally, Ka Pepe speaks of the rewards of studying law : “the rewards of the law as a profession are not in wealth or even in fame, but in the respect of your peers, in the excitement of the chase after justice, and in the satisfaction not only of service to your clients but of having somehow shaped the future by molding the law of today.” These are not only beautiful words and ideals but are also stirring realities. And, if there is any inspiration that may be drawn from Ka Pepe’s words, it is the knowledge that by studying law, and by studying law in the U.P. College of Law, you will play a part in shaping the future by molding the law of today.
You have entered a public law school–one that is steeped in the highest traditions of excellence in all fields of the law. The U.P. College of Law has produced the finest lawyers engaged in advocacy for various interests, private and public. The College has also produced Presidents of the Philippines (the first President of the Republic was also the President of the first law class; the last President produced by the College was also the first dictator the country has officially produced), Chief Justices (of course, the present Chief Justice is a U.P. graduate), Senate Presidents (the present Senate President is also a U.P. graduate), Speakers of the House; the College has also produced scholars, academics and intellectuals who have contributed directly to the country–for good or worse–through their research and writings; and finally, the College has also produced lawyers for the People who have committed their life to working for the rights of those among our people who are on the shorter end of the stick–the laborers, the urban poor, the peasants and farmers, the indigenous peoples, the poor and defenseless accused; you have but to look at a list of non-governmental organizations and people’s organizations engaged in various advocacies to see a list of U.P. lawyers who have committed their lives to the people.
With this tradition comes a great deal of responsibility. The responsibility is not only to live up to the tradition but to surpass it. There is a saying oft-quoted by the Supreme Court, “the spring cannot rise higher than its source.” I refuse to accept that when it comes to legal education. The spring must rise higher than the source for it is only in doing so that we ensure that the traditions of excellence are not only maintained but surpassed. I do not consider it a failing on my part if my students become better than I; on the contrary, I consider it a source of great fulfilment and unending inspiration that I have contributed to the shaping of the future by molding the lawyers of today.
It was Ka Pepe’s letter–alternately an answer to his son’s question, treatise on the legal profession, discourse on the national situation prevailing at that time, and a showcase of a lifetime of insights on how to study law–that gave a young and idealistic activist, unsure of his decision to pursue law, the first insight that law and activism, law and advocacy, law and social change, law and a lifetime of meaningful service could co-exist. Fourteen years later, that slightly older but still idealistic activist is now a lawyer actively engaged in human rights practice and the teaching of law in what Holmes calls "the grand manner."
In the same manner that his letter challenged me, I would ask you, after hearing Ka Pepe’s letter to Popoy, to ask yourself if you are the person he describes; ask yourself if you want to become the lawyer he describes; ask yourself if you are capable of becoming the lawyer and the person he describes.
If, after asking yourself all these, you decide that you are not the person he describes: Good luck and Godspeed then, in whatever you may decide to do with your life.
But if, after reading his letter, you decide to continue with law school and bid to slay your own Kingsfields, then, WELCOME TO THE U.P. COLLEGE OF LAW, MR./MS. HART !
Each of you has come to law school, fueled by the desire to become a lawyer. Most of you have been inspired by role models, culled from your own experiences. Perhaps your parents or relatives who are lawyers; or actual experience with real lawyers in actual cases; or perhaps from conversations with graduates of the U.P. College of Law; or even from fictional role models taken from such diverse fare as The Practice, Ally McBeal, John Grisham’s books or the real-life stories of the lives of Clarence Darrow or Oliver Wendell Holmes. Whatever or whoever has been your inspiration for taking this most important step in your young lives, you are now faced with one reality: you are now officially in law school; and one question: what do I do next?
The answer to that question may be answered by a scene from the prototypical film about law school, The Paper Chase (1973). This scene demonstrates how it is to study law.
In this scene, the antagonist of the film, the despotic Professor in Contracts, Mr. Kingsfield, is concluding his exercise of humiliating the law students in his class; on deck is the hero of the film, Mr. Hart, a first year law student at Harvard, who has failed to answer his questions. In a dull, flat monotone dripping with sarcasm, Kingsfield intones, “Mr. Hart, here is a penny, call your mother and tell her that her son will not become a lawyer.” Hart, who was just about to bolt the room and quit law school after being humiliated so publicly by Kingsfield, turns around, stares Kingsfield in the eye, and, in emphatic and plain language, tells Kingsfield, “You, Kingsfield, are a son of a bitch.” In the stunned silence that follows, Kingsfield very calmly tells Hart, “That, Mr. Hart, is the most intelligent thing you have ever said in this class. Sit down.”
During your first weeks in law school, you will find yourself, like the hapless Hart, confronting Kingsfield, in various guises, shapes and sizes. The challenge for you is to overcome your own Kingsfields for unless you do so, then you will just have to tell your father or mother that you will not become a lawyer. This early in your life as a law student, when you have yet to open your first case report or law book, you must ask yourself if, like Hart, you have–or are capable of obtaining–the values, skills, traits and character to slay the Kingsfields you will meet in law school. (Hart’s emphatic language to Kingsfield is not encouraged though, for all that it will most certainly get you are either : [1] a 5.0, [2] kicked out of the class and law school, [3] sued for libel and defamation or [4] possibly all three, in that order). Slaying your own Kingsfields will be the first skill you need to survive law school and become a lawyer.
To slay your own Kingsfields and become a lawyer will demand of you a great deal of sacrifice, commitment, skill and character; there is a need for a genuine self-appraisal on your part. It is easiest to judge others but most difficult to evaluate oneself. To help you in your self-appraisal, before you meet your Kingsfields, draw from the thoughts of one of the foremost criminal lawyers of his time, the late Senator Jose W. Diokno, the beloved Ka Pepe.
Answering Popoy, his eldest son who asked him whether he (Popoy) should study law, Ka Pepe wrote a deeply insightful, compelling, descriptive, and very moving letter; in his letter, he bares to Popoy his unique insights on what a lawyer is, how it is to study law and what kind of person you have to be or may have to become in order to be a great lawyer. It is an eloquent and inspiring testimonial to one man’s love for country, people, profession and family written in detention during the darkest days of martial law.
Allow me to share his letter with you:
Dear Popoy,
When you asked me about a month ago, for a list of books that you could read to start studying law, I was loathe to prepare the list because I felt that you would be wasting your time studying law in this “new society.”
I am still not sure that it would be worth your while to do so.
A few days ago, while chatting with a soldier, he asked, in all seriousness and sincerity, “Pero sir, kailangan pa ba ang mga abogado ngayon?” And in a way that perhaps he did not intend, he raised a perfectly valid question.
A lawyer lives in and by the law; and there is no law when society is ruled, not by reason, but by will–worse, by the will of one man.
A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men and women are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without trial.
A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear and criticism silenced by force.
A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no truth when facts are suppressed, news is manipulated and charges are fabricated.
Worse, when the Constitution is invoked to justify outrages against freedom, truth and justice, when democracy is destroyed under the pretext of saving it, law is not only denied–it is perverted.
And what need do our people have for men and women who would practice perversion?
Yet the truth remains true that 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; who tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and need never resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer. Otherwise, “what you are speaks so loudly, cannot hear what you say.”
For men and women of this kind, our country will always have need–and now more than ever. True, there is little that men of goodwill can do now to end the madness that holds our nation in its grip. But we can,even now, scrutinize our past; try to pinpoint where we went wrong; determine what led to this madness and what nurtured it; and how, when it ends, we can make sure that it need never happen again.
For this madness must end–if not in my lifetime, at least in yours. We Filipinos are proverbially patient, but we are also infinitely tough and ingeniously resourceful. Our entire history as a people has been a quest for freedom and dignity; and we will not be denied our dreams.
So this madness will end; the rule of force will yield to the rule of law. Then the country will need its great lawyers, its great engineers,its great economists and managers, the best of its men and women to clear the shambles and restore the foundations of that noble and truly Filipino society for which our forefathers fought, bled and died.
So, there are two sides to the question of whether it is worth your while to study law; and, in the end, it is a question that only you can answer.
Just be sure, that, whatever be your decision, it is truly yours, that it is truly what you want, not a choice dictated by a sense of duty to follow in my footsteps.
To help you decide, I suggest that you read:
(a) The Attorney’s Oath, Form No, 28 appended to our Rules of Court; and the duties of an attorney, Rule 138, sec. 20 of the Rules of Court, which you can ask from my office;
(b) “The Five Functions of a Lawyer” in Arthur T. Vandervilt’s “Cases and Materials on Modern Procedure.”
(c) “The Chicago Lawyer’s Pledge” on p. 395, and “The Crafts of Law Re-valued” on pp. 316-322 of Karl Llewellyn’s “Jurisprudence.”
(d) “The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times” by Roscoe Pound.
(e) “Men of Law” by William Seagle.
These should give you an idea of what a lawyer should be and what he has been in the past. What he is in our country, you have an idea;
(f) Martin Mayer’s “The Lawyers”, tells you what he is in the United States; and
(g) Brian Abel-Smith’s “Lawyers and Courts”, what he is in England.
Read either and compare with our practice. And for a critique of lawyers, of courts, and even of law, read,
(h) “Law against the People,” by Robert Lefcourt.
As you read, cultivate the habit I have never been able to school myself to do of taking notes of your reading–not only of the gist of what the author says, or quotations of thoughts he felicitously expresses, but also of your reactions to his work (where you agree or disagree or suspend judgment, and why) and of the thoughts he arouses in you. File your notes in orderly fashion. They will become invaluable to you as you mature.
After you have read enough to give you an idea of what a lawyer is and does, but before you firmly commit yourself, one way or the other, discuss the matter with your wife and your friends, always bearing these things in mind:
– That the law is a demanding profession, exacting a constant and unswerving devotion that is always a thinking obedience to its ideals, and that is much harder to give than blind obedience;
– That the rewards of the law as a profession are not in wealth or even in fame, but in the respect of your peers, in the excitement of the chase after justice, and in the satisfaction not only of service to your clients but of having somehow shaped the future by molding the law of today.
This has been a long letter on a short question–whether to study law–and is not an example to be emulated should you decide in favor of law. My excuse is that time lies heavy on my hands in these days of detention, and since we can talk only in snatches when you visit, I have written at length in the hope of anticipating some of your questions.
You may suspect that, by stressing the difficulties of the law profession and by suggesting that you read some eight books before making up your mind, I am trying to discourage you from studying law. I am not. In a rather heavy-handed way, I am trying to paint the lawyer’s role as accurately as I can and show you that, if you do decide to become a lawyer, you must prepare yourself for a lifetime of study,reading, weighing and deciding, while at the same time acting and doing. It sounds impossible–but every day it has been and is being done.
I have loved the law; and I have always been proud of being a lawyer. But I have never been prouder than the day, five Sundays ago, that you told me that you wanted to study law. Regardless of what you may finally decide, the fact that you even thought of becoming a lawyer, despite my arrest and detention, allows me to hope that I have not failed as a lawyer and as a father.
For that, son, thanks.
Your father,
PEPE
This was written in detention by Sen. Jose W. Diokno to his eldest son, Jose Ramon I. Diokno on 23 October 1972 almost one month after martial law was declared in the country.
Ka Pepe spoke of several things in his letter to Popoy that may prove valuable to your stay in the college of law.
First, he tells his son that “there are two sides to the question of whether it is worth your while to study law; and, in the end, it is a question that only you can answer. Just be sure, that, whatever be your decision, it is truly yours, that it is truly what you want, not a choice dictated by a sense of duty to follow in my footsteps.” This is especially important for those of you, in this room, who are here simply because you feel that it is your duty to continue a family tradition of producing lawyers. The study of law is such an exacting discipline that coming into the College half-heartedly will most certainly ensure that you will eventually leave the College without a degree. As he reminds Popoy in another part of his letter, “the law is a demanding profession, exacting a constant and unswerving devotion that is always a thinking obedience to its ideals, and that is much harder to give than blind obedience.” You have made a decision to study law; in order for you to succeed, you must ensure that it is a decision that is completely yours. Anything less than that will mean that you may not gather enough resolve to slay Kingsfield and will simply phone home to tell your parents that their son or daughter will not become a lawyer.
Second, Ka Pepe tells us what kind of a person would make a great lawyer:
"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; who tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and need never resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer. Otherwise, 'what you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.'"
Now that you have made your decision to study law, you must know yourself. Know your weaknesses and your strengths; work on your weaknesses as well as your strengths. Do not forsake or abandon your other interests–your life is not and should not only be the college of law (although, it will certainly feel like that)--read, dance, sing, watch movies, play Tekken, work out, play a sport, climb a rock, join a rally, march to Mendiola, raise your fist in protest, lift your hands in praise, join your hands in prayer. As in everything, there must be a balance in our life. The challenge for you is to try to incorporate all of these things that are integral and important to your life within your new chosen life as a law student. It is these traits and values that you develop from all the varied fields of interest that make you a complete and multi-dimensional person and will ensure that you become a great lawyer.
Third, Ka Pepe speaks of developing very good study habits and being organized. In his words,
"As you read, cultivate the habit . . .of taking notes of your reading–not only of the gist of what the author says, or quotations of thoughts he felicitously expresses, but also of your reactions to his work (where you agree or disagree or suspend judgment, and why) and of the thoughts he arouses in you. File your notes in orderly fashion. They will become invaluable to you as you mature."
Indeed, those who have passed through the portals of the College of Law and those who are still within its portals will tell you that the most important weapon you have in the College of Law is not your raw intelligence (because you are all disputably presumed to have that in abundance or you would not be here listening to me) but how you develop, hone, challenge and transform that intelligence into a discipline of critical, analytical, logical, organized and coherent thought. And without study habits–of any form–all your native intelligence will be for naught. Ka Pepe presents you with a way of studying law which is healthy to cultivate: not only should you read, with a view to reciting the cases or the law verbatim, but you should read with a view to understanding and thinking about what you read.
It is in this context that Ka Pepe speaks of the study and the practice of law as being “demanding”; and, indeed, the discipline is demanding. For it is not enough that you should know the law and practice it well but that you should also know why the law is what it is, how to question the law, if necessary, and to move for changes in the law to make the law what it should be. Thus, your study of the law should not only be rote learning but critical learning. As he reminded Popoy, “the law is a demanding profession, exacting a constant and unswerving devotion that is always a thinking obedience to its ideals, and that is much harder to give than blind obedience.” It takes courage to stand and remain as a majority of one and there will be times when that is what the study of law will ask you to do–to maintain a critical and thinking obedience to its ideals and challenge the law as it is written with the hope it may be transformed into the law that it ought to be.
Finally, Ka Pepe speaks of the rewards of studying law : “the rewards of the law as a profession are not in wealth or even in fame, but in the respect of your peers, in the excitement of the chase after justice, and in the satisfaction not only of service to your clients but of having somehow shaped the future by molding the law of today.” These are not only beautiful words and ideals but are also stirring realities. And, if there is any inspiration that may be drawn from Ka Pepe’s words, it is the knowledge that by studying law, and by studying law in the U.P. College of Law, you will play a part in shaping the future by molding the law of today.
You have entered a public law school–one that is steeped in the highest traditions of excellence in all fields of the law. The U.P. College of Law has produced the finest lawyers engaged in advocacy for various interests, private and public. The College has also produced Presidents of the Philippines (the first President of the Republic was also the President of the first law class; the last President produced by the College was also the first dictator the country has officially produced), Chief Justices (of course, the present Chief Justice is a U.P. graduate), Senate Presidents (the present Senate President is also a U.P. graduate), Speakers of the House; the College has also produced scholars, academics and intellectuals who have contributed directly to the country–for good or worse–through their research and writings; and finally, the College has also produced lawyers for the People who have committed their life to working for the rights of those among our people who are on the shorter end of the stick–the laborers, the urban poor, the peasants and farmers, the indigenous peoples, the poor and defenseless accused; you have but to look at a list of non-governmental organizations and people’s organizations engaged in various advocacies to see a list of U.P. lawyers who have committed their lives to the people.
With this tradition comes a great deal of responsibility. The responsibility is not only to live up to the tradition but to surpass it. There is a saying oft-quoted by the Supreme Court, “the spring cannot rise higher than its source.” I refuse to accept that when it comes to legal education. The spring must rise higher than the source for it is only in doing so that we ensure that the traditions of excellence are not only maintained but surpassed. I do not consider it a failing on my part if my students become better than I; on the contrary, I consider it a source of great fulfilment and unending inspiration that I have contributed to the shaping of the future by molding the lawyers of today.
It was Ka Pepe’s letter–alternately an answer to his son’s question, treatise on the legal profession, discourse on the national situation prevailing at that time, and a showcase of a lifetime of insights on how to study law–that gave a young and idealistic activist, unsure of his decision to pursue law, the first insight that law and activism, law and advocacy, law and social change, law and a lifetime of meaningful service could co-exist. Fourteen years later, that slightly older but still idealistic activist is now a lawyer actively engaged in human rights practice and the teaching of law in what Holmes calls "the grand manner."
In the same manner that his letter challenged me, I would ask you, after hearing Ka Pepe’s letter to Popoy, to ask yourself if you are the person he describes; ask yourself if you want to become the lawyer he describes; ask yourself if you are capable of becoming the lawyer and the person he describes.
If, after asking yourself all these, you decide that you are not the person he describes: Good luck and Godspeed then, in whatever you may decide to do with your life.
But if, after reading his letter, you decide to continue with law school and bid to slay your own Kingsfields, then, WELCOME TO THE U.P. COLLEGE OF LAW, MR./MS. HART !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)