Inequality before the law

Our Charter says that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws. This simply means that laws do not discriminate or treat individuals differently because of who or what they are or what they have. Justice is for all because of the equality of all persons before the law. This is the very reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded.

In this country however the blindfold of this Lady is full of holes. One of the oft repeated observations about our justice system is that it is compartmentalized. It is an observation borne out by the judicial processes and their outcome. For the well heeled and the affluent who can afford expensive lawyers and the high cost of the litigation, or the influential who has the right connection, the "triumph of justice" invariably means winning even a hopeless case, getting acquitted from air tight accusation or simply prolonging the proceeding to wear down the opposition until they are forced to accept a settlement. For the indigent and the lowly who cannot afford a Makati Law Firm or shoulder the expenses of a court suit, "triumph of justice" usually means giving up on a winning case or getting convicted more on a perception of susceptibility to commit an offense because of poverty than on proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Over the years, this observation has seemingly been validated and confirmed. Apparently, there is no equality of all persons before the law. The rich are more equal than the poor.

One of the widely accepted reasons for this split-level kind of justice is the weak and dependent judiciary who are obviously overworked and underpaid. There is really a need to increase the compensation of our judges and justices to make them more independent and to insulate them from the pressures arising from economic needs. Hence the enactment of RA 9227 was hailed as the much needed legislation to achieve this very laudable purpose of reforming the judiciary and shaping a well oiled wheel of justice as it increases the compensation of the entire members of the judiciary.

On closer look however RA 9227 seems to have aggravated the inequality before the law as it rendered the cost of seeking and obtaining justice more expensive. This law indeed doubled the compensation of the members of the judiciary but it provided that the increase shall be sourced from the increase in the existing legal fees being charged to have access to our courts as well as from the new fees it authorized the courts to impose. Even victims of crimes will now find it more expensive to prosecute the offenders as another law was enacted (RA 9279) adopting the same method of imposing fees to fund the increase in the salaries of the prosecutors and the personnel of the Department of Justice.

To be sure, access to courts which dispense justice has never been free. Filing fees or docket fees are imposed and collected for initiating court suits or appealing or questioning court decisions and for other transactions involving the judicial process. But these fees are just nominal and are not intended to fully defray the expenses in the administration and dispensation of justice. Such expenses are mainly shouldered by the government out of the revenues collected from the citizens. The payment of these revenues imposes upon the government the corresponding duty to provide the court rooms and the judicial facilities and equipments and to shoulder the main bulk of the expenses consisting of salaries and emoluments of court personnel, the prosecutors and the judges and justices. In other words, the government is expected to ensure that justice is accessible to all citizens because of the revenues collected from them rather than the legal fees collected from court litigants or offended parties. This is done through an appropriation bill that originates exclusively from the House of Representatives.

Both RA 9227 and 9279 veered away from this process. RA 9227 originated from the Senate in the guise of a "Judiciary Reform Measure" when it should have been an appropriation bill originating from the House and sourced from the revenues paid by the citizens, not from fees for the filing of complaints, motions and other papers in courts. The fact alone that these laws have rendered justice inaccessible to a greater number of our people, makes it imperative that they should be reviewed and revised.

E-mail: [email protected]