Equal justice for both the least and the mightiest

To our mind, the most essential hallmark of a truly working democracy is the continuing assurance that, under our system of government, there shall be equal justice for all. The equal protection of the law is one of the strongest dictum in our Bill of Rights, designed, as it was, to assure what the Preamble of our Constitution declares to be the ultimate vision of the sovereign Filipino people, which is to build a just and humane society. Tested vis-a-vis today’s realities, isn’t this hallmark, this dictum, in this jurisdiction, more honored in breach than in compliance?

With all due respect, the Highest Court of the land, based on an array of labor jurisprudence, has been too strict to small guys accused of petty misfeasance or small malfeasance, not involving millions of dollars. Their dismissals were forthwith approved, even if there was no observance of due process. People are immediately charged even without evidence, like that room boy in a Metro Manila hotel who was thought to have stolen a few yen from a visiting Japanese. There was no direct evidence, no positive eyewitness testimony, no document directly linking him to the act. But he was condemned with loss of job, loss of livelihood, loss of honor.

There were many salesmen of soft drinks and beer companies who failed to deposit their collections immediately. For being late in deposits for a day or so, they lost their jobs. They were found guilty and dismissed from employment. There were waiters who engaged in fistfight or were impolite to supervisors. They too were dismissed. There were linemen of telephone companies and electric firms who were ousted unceremoniously, for accepting a few thousand pesos offered by customers. They too were deemed to be unworthy of the trust of their employers. Maybe this line of jurisprudence is well taken because the law is the law even if it is too harsh. But should this same strict measure be applied to both the poor and the powerful?

There were small-time judges of lower courts whose employment were ordered terminated due to some misconduct, ranging from failure to decide cases on time to sexual harassment. The Supreme Court has been unforgiving to them. There was even a judge in the Caraga region who was just recently ordered dismissed for delay in resolving pending cases. He turned out to have died years ago. There was a judge who was ordered dismissed for failure to include in his SALN his beneficial interest a small inherited property. All his retirement benefits were ordered forfeited and he was perpetually disqualified from holding both elective and appointive government posts. The High Court then appears to be too unforgiving to the small guys.

Now that no less than the Chief Magistrate is on trial for alleged acts related to some supposed millions in alleged dollar deposits, as testified to by no less than the Ombudsman, based on a supposed official document from a duly constituted authority, why is there too much delay, too much equivocation, too much respectful concern for the sensitivities of the respondent. Isn’t ours a government of laws and not of men? Is there any powerful man who is above the law, or beyond the mantle of that dictum of equal justice for all? Why then is there too much condescension, too much patronizing of the respondent? He would have to be assured that he would be treated with respect before he would honor the court with his presence and testimony. 

In this country, when a small guy is caught bringing out a small piece of material, believed by him to be a “res nullius,’’ he is forthwith arrested, booked, handcuffed, jailed even before he is charged. But when she is the wife of a general or a senator who brings out some thousands of dollars, or millions of them, the case is reduced to the barest minimum charge, or forgotten by a selectively forgetful authorities. When a small fry borrows money from government institutions and fails to amortize his loan, because he lost his job by retrenchment, his mortgage would be foreclosed. He would end up homeless, jobless, hopeless and too angry. But when he is a billionaire-politician who owns many real estate firms, and borrows money, his interests might even be written off.

There is no question then that those who have lost their trust in the government would seek redress elsewhere. Justice seems to be compartmentalized. The poor are just being used and abused in election sabotage. Workers wait for 20 years before their cases are resolved. The powerful who is accused of plunder and other high crimes are given free accommodations in hospitals maintained by public fund. The rich who are in prisons, allegedly can come in and out like free men, and have luxurious cottages with all the amenities. The poor detention prisoners are condemned in dirty, congested and very hot, stinking jail rooms. 

And yet we have a Constitution that promises a just and humane society.  We have a Bill of Rights that assures equal justice for all.  As Mark Anthony cried:” Oh, judgment, thou art fled to brutish beast, and men have lost their reason.” We have to pause then for any reply.