Final verdict

In some contests where victory or defeat depends on the decisions of judges like boxing bouts, the protagonist who wants to win sees to it that his victory is clear cut by showing much superior skills as to leave the judges no other choice but give him the nod. Knocking out the opponent in the ring is of course the surest way to leave no room for doubt in the minds of judges. A knockout even convinces the opponent that he lost to the better man. This is just what Pacquiao did to Morales via a 3rd round knockout.

Sometimes however both protagonists show almost equal skills so the decision may be split or the judges may call it a draw. Boxing bouts therefore do not always end up with winners and losers. Whatever may be the decision however, el fallo del juez es inapelable, the judges decision is final. And the boxers are fully aware of such rule. They know that once they step into the ring they willingly submit themselves and unconditionally accept the judges’ decision no matter how disagreeable it is by their own assessments. This is the essence of sportsmanship deeply etched in the minds and hearts of every individual engaged in any sports.

In some ways, boxing bouts are similar to legal battles. In both contests victory or defeat is decided by judges. The decision may also be closely split. Defeats may also be caused by TKO due to violation of the technical rules or by KO due to the meritorious pursuit of the case by a better trained, more skillful or well prepared and better equipped lawyer. But this is as far as the similarities go.

Unlike boxing, court room squabbles invariably end up with winners and losers. There are no return bouts or draw decisions in court cases involving the same issues of fact and of law although in some instances the parties to the case are required to go back to square one for a rehearing or re-trial and determination of the real winner. In boxing however, return bouts are usually held especially if the judges’ decision could have gone either way. And when the loser in the first bout wins in the return bout, a third and decisive bout, the "grand finale" is conducted to determine once and for all, who is the better boxer between them as in the Pacquiao-Morales showdown where Pacquiao has proven his mastery of Morales. Each of the bout in the boxing ring ends once the decision is handed down by the judges. This is not so in court cases. Since there are no return bouts, the judges’ decision may be changed. Sometimes "winners" eventually become "losers" and "losers" ultimately emerge as "winners". In other words, the judges are allowed to change their minds and reconsider their decisions. So in the courts, the bout is not over yet if any of the parties disagree with the decision. Sportsmanship is not strictly observed in legal battles as disgruntled parties usually question the ruling against them even if it is obviously correct.

These dissimilarities between boxing bouts and court fights are best illustrated by the recent peoples’ initiative petition filed by Sigaw and Ulap with the Supreme Court (SC). Actually all of the 15 SC Justices saw no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for dismissing their peoples’ initiative petition. Yet they still asked the SC to reconsider its ruling by capitalizing on the close 8-7 votes of the Justices regarding another issue on the doubtful authenticity of the 6.3 million signatures which they should have established in the first place before going to the SC. In other words they are asking the SC to reconsider its ruling so that their own omissions and failures can be cured. In boxing, the boxer who suffered a knockout blow by putting his guard down can not later on ask the referee to allow him to continue the fight.

The bigger dissimilarity is in the way the judges’ decision is accepted. When a boxer steps into the ring, he submits himself to the judges’ decision and accepts the verdict without question. In court actions the losing party is indeed allowed to question the court decision and ask the court for reconsideration. But in this case of the peoples’ initiative, the losing party also assails the Justices for being biased even as they ask them to reconsider their ruling. First they go to the SC and asked it to rule on their petition. When the ruling is against them, they not only question the decision but still assail the Justices for being biased. Worse is that they even asked the Justices who ruled against them to inhibit themselves and threaten them with impeachment using political clout rather than legitimate causes. They are resorting to every means, fair and foul and would not stop until they get a favorable decision. This is a clear affront to the Court and its magistrates. It is seriously detrimental to our justice system as it jeopardizes the finality of judicial verdict. In a sense the verdict in the boxing ring is more conclusive than the verdict in a court room.  The legal profession should take a stand and put a stop to such pernicious practices.

E-mail us at [email protected] or [email protected]