Alternative court of justice

The determination and maintenance of what is just and right, or what is legal, are primarily judicial functions. Any violation of the law or denial and transgression of individual rights, or abuse of discretion committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government, should be brought to our courts of justice. Our judiciary has the power and authority over anything having to do with the administration of justice. This judicial power is vested in our Supreme Court and in the lower courts established by law.This is what our charter, the basic law of the land,mandates.But today the binding effect of this mandate is like the broken leg of chair being held together by a scots tape.

The bar of public opinion seems to have replaced the judicial bench in determining the legality or justness of certain acts done by individuals or groups in our society. When a person feels aggrieved, his initial threat is no longer ide-demanda kita, but ipami-media kita.

Sufferers of injustices and victims of heinous crimes, or their relatives, tend to air their grievances before the press than in the halls of justice.Other groups use the streets to demand for their rights.In the recent coup attempt, a group of self-righteous soldiers with messianic complex threatened to blow up the prime business district in order to draw public attention to their cause against alleged corruption and other anomalies in the military.The kuya of the coup has convincingly shown us that the best and most effective way to have media access is to go into hiding and be "inaccessible". Our Congressmen and Senators choose to hide behind the cloak of parliamentary immunity to denounce alleged anomalies and violations of law instead of referring the matter to the prosecution arm of the government for filing of proper charges in court. Jose Pidal and Vicky Toh became the latest subjects of ridicule and unsavory gossips when a kuratong massacre suspect aired his charges in the Senate to deflect the heat of an impending court trial that will doom his lofty ambitions. To be sure, these aberrations are understandable.They are due to several factors, founded or unfounded.

Some people bring their grievances and their cases direct to the public through the media to arouse sympathy and support because of lack of confidence or loss of faith in our justice system.And there are valid reasons for such attitude. Primarily, it is due to lack of understanding and working knowledge of how the system works.Complicated and highly technical as they are, the judicial processes have not been adequately explained and communicated to the people at large either because the members of the bench and the bar would rather keep their grasps of these technical subjects within themselves or they are not themselves so well versed on the intricate rules.Secondarily,this attitude is engendered by a feeling that justice has eluded them already because of the long and tedious litigations of the cases filed.And thirdly,the nasty perception of corruption, incompetence and bias within the judiciary still prevails despite the earnest efforts of the Supreme Court to rid its ranks of the "hoodlums in robes".

The current practice of using the press instead of going to court to resolve justiciable controversies has therefore both valid and baseless reasons. The court and the media are in a position to correct this detrimental practice. Enhancing the communication between the judiciary and the people as well as a more intensified campaign to rid itself of the corrupt and the unfit are steps for the court to take more vigorously.Media on the other hand should be more circumspect and prudent in seeing to it that they are not used to advance the hidden political agenda of certain politicians.

E-mail: [email protected]