The just society

I must congratulate my alma mater, the Ateneo de Manila University, for having the good sense to confer a Doctorate of Laws, Honoris Causa, upon the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin. While it may be her 22nd honorary LL.D., it is clear she deserves this not superfluous honor, not only for being the first lady Chief Justice of Canada, but also for having a clear vision of what law is all about.

In her remarks accepting the honorary degree, Chief Justice McLachlin expounded on the idea of "the just society." The phrase, she acknowledged, was introduced almost four decades ago by then Justice Minister, and later Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau. It is a vision, she says, shared by Canadians and Filipinos.

A just society may be a shared vision, but as she correctly notes, they are not mere words "to fill the pages of elegant speeches," but "goals to be assiduously pursued."

A vision which must be assiduously pursued: These are notions Filipinos need to accept. Mere paeans to the vision, no matter how elegant the rhetoric in Presidential inaugural speeches at the Luneta Grandstand, don’t make it real in our national life.

After 50 years of "independence," I still cannot be certain we truly have a consensus on that vision – on the level of real commitment, not on that of mere speechifying, upon receiving one’s umpteenth plaque of recognition.

What does "the just society" mean? McLachlin replies, "It means a society governed by the rule of law, and built on the values of democracy, equality, and liberty. It means a society in which all can participate, where all can pursue a dream, where all enjoy basic liberties of expression, association and movement. It means a society where everyone, regardless of race, creed or ethnic background, has a place." So far, this sounds like Poli Sci 101.

But how do we create the just society? According to the Chief Justice, we do it "through social policy, through education, through economic reform and better health care," but "most fundamentally...through the law."

Then follows what I consider a key paragraph in her speech: "The law expresses, in a permanent and commanding way, the values that will help us build better societies grounded in the ethic of mutual respect and accommodation. The law unites the community in all its disparate elements, and insists that the values of democracy, equality and liberty be respected.

"Democracy – the sharing of governance, responsibility in an ethos of accountability. Equality – the basic belief that each human being has essential dignity and worth and must be respected. Liberty – the belief not just in my freedom to speak, or associate, or not to be imprisoned without a fair hearing, but the freedom of my fellow man and woman, to enjoy these things."

McLachlin reminds us that Canada is a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. The country was created in the union of a French-speaking, Roman Catholic east and an English-speaking, Protestant west, "overlain on a complex mosaic of aboriginal groups." Canada is also one of the more hospitable host countries to immigrants, as thousands of our countrymen who have found new homes in that large country will attest to.

But her somewhat surprising point is that, "Canada was not based on nationalism, but on the improbable premise that different peoples could realize their aspirations and live in harmony within a single nation." The instrument to realize this premise, she says, was the law: "Over more than 250 years, a series of laws and constitutional amendments have secured minority rights and recognized the need for accommodation without discrimination. It is a long process, and it isn’t over yet." (Itals. ours)

Chief Justice McLachlin could have been speaking to Filipinos when she counseled: "If a divided society is to overcome conflict, credible legal structures based on democracy, equality, and liberty must be built. These may be enshrined in the Constitution. I am aware of the discussions now going on in this country regarding changes to the Constitution as work towards the ideals on representativeness, effectiveness and accountability."

She said this before our own Supreme Court junked the People’s Initiative in a disturbingly narrow vote, thus arguably forestalling, for now at least, the logical conclusion to those "discussions."

McLachlin was one of several top world jurists who were invited to our Supreme Court’s conference on the theme Liberty and Prosperity. In reference to that conference, she reiterated an important note: "It is wrong to think of liberty and prosperity in terms of the individual. At base, these are social, collective concepts. One man’s liberty is another’s bondage. One woman’s prosperity, unmoderated, is another’s poverty." (Emphasis the Justice’s)

And in an echo of a speech to the conference on the difference between "rule of law" and "rule by law," which we commented on in a previous column, she argued, "The law can be misused to curtail liberty and perpetuate poverty."

In a country like ours, nominally democratic but saddled with widespread poverty allegedly at the hands of an inordinately wealthy and monopolistic elite, and politically unstable due to deep social class fissures and a perception of unremitting injustice, all these words of Chief Justice McLachlin have special resonance.

As the chief jurist of a foreign country, she wouldn’t think of making comments on whether the vision of a just society is being assiduously pursued by our society, particularly as seen in the recent legal controversy over people’s initiative.

But I am under no similar constraint.

Although the Supreme Court has indeed spoken, albeit in the narrowest of majorities, and the law and jurisprudence on the matter is established, unless and until reversed at some future time, no one is saying the issue of Charter change is dead.

Moreover, for the sake of the health of our democracy, I would hope that not even people’s initiative is deemed finally exterminated and cremated.

The rumors of the demise of people’s initiative seem greatly exaggerated. The ideas of Chief Justice McLachlin enable me to segue neatly to that subject, next time.