2 weeks Ago By SunStar Cebu
By Gabriel T. Ingles, former Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals IN MY previous article entitled “Lawyering is not Business But a Noble Profession,” I have shared my thoughts on lawyering or the function and role of the bar, through its members called lawyers, in administering justice. But justice cannot be actually properly administered through lawyers alone, as their role is limited to articulation in their pleadings of the contentions or allegations of their respective clients, and presentation of their evidence during trial to prove said contending allegations and summation of their respective case with arguments to help the court.
On the other hand, it is the judge who will determine and conclude what facts had been proven by the evidence presented, then apply the law and/or jurisprudence to said facts in order to arrive at a judgment. Thus, two noted constitutionalists, former Supreme Court Justice, Isagani A. Cruz and his son Carlo L.
Cruz, have written: “Although holding ‘neither purse nor sword,’ the judiciary occupies a vital and indispensable part in our system of government, for it is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. The political departments, if only because of the nature of their powers, have a tendency to bend if not actually break the laws, sometimes for the best of motives or out of mistaken zeal, but more often because of a desire for self-aggrandizement. When they do so, the judiciary is expected to rectify the wrong and affirm its ‘sacred and solemn duty’ to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.
” (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW By Isagani A. Cruz, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and Carlo L. Cruz p.
33, 2024 Ed.) There is a need, therefore, for the public to understand this role of the Bench, and its limitations. Before discussing that, however, the public must first know and understand certain fundamental principles underlying our Constitution, and how they guide and limit the exercise of any people’s right and also of any power of government.
These fundamental principles are as follows: 1). The supremacy of the Constitution We accept that the Constitution is the supreme or fundamental law in our country because it does not only define the powers of government but also limits them. It is the standard by which the legality of all government actions is measured.
It posits that a) constitutional text may not be enacted, repealed or amended by Congress; and b) constitutional provisions supersede conflicting national legislation. In Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. La Trinidad Water District, G.
R. No. 166471, March 22, 2011, the Court explained that under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution, that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative branch or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force and effect.
Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount, and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. Where should that issue of constitutionality be raised? When the validity or the constitutionality of a statute is in question or is alleged to be in violation of the fundamental law, such issue must be brought or raised before the judiciary as it is not only its right but more so its duty to determine the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of any act of government or of any individual. That power is what is called judicial review.
It is defined as “an aspect of judicial power that allows this Court every opportunity to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments or orders of lower courts and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.” (Andal v. People, G.
R. No. 138268, May 26, 1999).
The supremacy of the Constitution then is enforced by the courts through the exercise of judicial review, which is “an aspect of judicial power.” But this power cannot be exercised unless a proper case is filed. In Dueñas v.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
185401, July 21, 2009, it was ruled that under our constitutional scheme the Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, particularly of the allocation of powers, the guarantees of individual liberties and the assurance of the people’s sovereignty. The Court has the distinguished but delicate duty of determining and defining constitutional meaning, divining constitutional intent, and deciding Constitutional disputes. Nonetheless, its judicial supremacy is never judicial superiority (for it is co-equal with the other branches of government) or judicial tyranny (for it is supposed to be the least dangerous branch).
Instead, judicial supremacy is the conscious and cautious awareness and acceptance of its proper place in the overall scheme of government with the objective of asserting and promoting the supremacy of the Constitution. Thus, whenever the Court exercises its function of checking the exercises of any branch of government, it is also duty-bound to check itself. Otherwise, who will guard the guardian? 2).
Government of laws and not of men It follows, therefore, that we are also bound by the principle that ours is a government of laws and not of men. This was explained in Yick Woo vs. Hopkins, 118 U.
S. 356, 30, L. ed.
, 220). It said that a government of laws, as contrasted to a government of men, implies a limited government. It is the anti-thesis of authoritarianism, because- a.
Its powers are defined and limited by the Constitution and law; b. Every governmental act, therefore, however worthy the ends may be, must be founded upon some provision of the Constitution or legislative enactment. Only then could there be a rule of law and not a reign of men without law.
Worthy ends should not be achieved through unconstitutional shortcuts. Therefore, 1.Every person, however high and mighty his station may be must bow before the majesty of the law; 2.
The humblest citizen must realize that he has rights protected by the law; 3.The most powerful official, and even judges and justices, must recognize that no one is above, or beyond the law. For every member of the bench, the law is his/her high office to administer.
Rule of law This principle “government of laws and not of men” is now simply expressed as “rule of law.” The purpose of adhering to such principle “rule of law” is to insure individual rights against the powers of government which can be oppressive and tyrannical, and, to enable the State and citizen to uphold the dignity of every man. “Rule of law” commands that we: a.
must be guided by the Constitution and our laws, both substantive and procedural, so that we may enjoy a government of laws, and not of men. b. that the powers of government, whether legislative, executive or judicial, particularly the first – should not be exercised oppressively against individual rights and personal freedoms of citizens.
In other words, the rule of law is the shield against the powers of government that may be arbitrarily exercised to oppress rather than defend individual rights and freedoms. Hence, in order for both to be real guardians and stewards of justice, the Bench and the Bar are mandated by the noble end they serve, to observe the highest principles that promote the dignity of their office as mandated and stated in the said Canons of Legal and Judicial Ethics. To judges and lawyers, integrity, honesty, and decency should not be mere choices subject to personal whim and fancy.
According to Don Vicente J. Francisco, the Bench and the Bar have one and the same reason for being, their duty to uphold the law and to advance justice. What is justice? “Justice has been defined as rendering to each person and human community their own and due by right.
” (Fr. Karl H. Peschke, SVD, Christian Ethics, Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican) The basic forms of justice distinguished are: 1.
Attributive justice. To be just means to leave to another what is his own by right, and attribute to him/her what he/she really is or ought to be or what she really is not or ought not to be; 2. Proportional justice.
To be just requires that one has to render to another what is due to him/her by right. 3. Retributive or vindicatory justice.
It states that for men to coexist and develop, it is required that every injury or damage caused to another must be indemnified and every offense committed by one must be punished. Since the goal in every case is justice, it can only be achieved by searching for the truth using law as a common tool. Hence, “proper administration of justice” requires the Bench through the judge or justice to give the parties their due according to law, and based on truth or facts.
Such specific power granted to the Bench, represented by the judge or justice, is called Judicial Power. Judicial power is ordinarily understood as “the power to apply the laws to contests or disputes concerning legally recognized rights or duties between the state and persons, or between individual litigants, in cases properly brought before the judicial tribunals, Our Constitution defines it, thus: “Section 1. X x x Judicial power includes the duty of the Courts of Justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
” (ART. VIII, 1987 Constitution) In sum: The Bench and the Bar: use one instrument (that is law), search for one object (that is truth), and pursue one goal (that is justice). “Truth is justice’s handmaid, freedom is its child, peace is its companion, safety walks in its steps, victory follows in its train; it is the brightest emanation from the gospel; it is the attribute of God.
” (Sydney Smith in Lady Holland’s Memoir) To be real guardians and stewards of justice, the Bench and the Bar are mandated by the noble end they serve–to observe the highest principles that promote the dignity of their office. To judges and lawyers—integrity, honesty, and decency should not be mere choices subject to personal whim and fancy. Respect for the truth must be the highest legal virtue and quality of a good lawyer and a good judge.
Thus, the standards and guidelines set forth in the codes of ethics and professional conduct of lawyers and of judges have as their premise and predicate a reverence for the truth..
