The Battle
"Lawyering is about as close to knighthood as you can get." -- Atty. Dante Gatmaytan, Professor, UP Law
Being a hopeless romantic doesn't necessarily mean the falling-in-love-forever-type of person. A romantic is a person so full of passion and ideals that it consumes his/her very person and fights for that which he/she believes in. For example, knights during the medieval period were romantics, not merely because they were in search of damsels in distress, but also because they fought fervently for a cause (whether it be for religion, peace, justice or immortality). Early this schoolyear, A very respected (and feared) professor of mine uttered the line quoted above, and I couldn't agree with him more.
Lawyers are supposed to be (though highly doubtful in this day and age) the most idealistic people alive. Their sole purpose on earth must be to go beyond any selfish motives and instead strive for justice at every possible occasion. Thus is the self-sacrificing life a lawyer must lead -- not one which is inspired by worldly aspirations. However, there seems to be a conflict between the lawyer and his/her ultimate goal. That is, there exists, since the beginning of man, an enduring battle between Law and Justice.
Yes, the idea seems ridiculous, especially since the law was indeed made to attain justice; but herein, in this idea of law, lies the problem. Laws are made, whileas justice is an ideal. And, as we've so often seen in history's course, ideals can never be attained nor be made by man -- they are rather guides, like the stars, forever desired to be reached but never to be held -- like perfection, peace, liberty and so on.
Laws are man-made. They are objective, with set rules, which when broken leads to consequences such as punishment. They are prone to manipulation and distortion. They can be changed with the snap of a finger. Moreover, they are controlled by but a few select people -- educated people lucky enough to have passed the bar or to have been elected into government positions. Not everyone has the power over law, no matter what most democracy-loving people say. In fact, according to Philippine law, not even the people have power over the law, unless done in accordance to its rules. It might sound confusing, I agree. The bottom line is, the law is the law! "dura lex sed lex" The Law may be hard but it is the law. Break it and your screwed!
Justice on the other hand is supposed to be enjoyed by all but held by none. As an ideal, it is subjective, with each individual having his/her own view of what justice is. Like the concept of "right vs. wrong", justice is relative. What might be just for one may not be just for another. It cannot be manipulated by anyone since it is pure in concept. And unlike the law, it allows for certain intangibles, such as compassion, humanity and love. True justice is that unaffected by human selfishness or ill-motive, and it can be defined only through agreement of all men (arguably an impossibility).
These are the lines by which the battle is drawn.
As a law student, I am supposed to uphold the law no matter what. Given any situation, I must apply that which the law states. There are no gray areas. It's either the law allows it or not. It's either you're guilty or innocent. In this study of law, what's wrong and what is right is measurable; and justice is reduced to a resolution -- a sentence which declares one party as winner and the other as loser. I am a student of the law and thus, I must live and die by it.
However, I am also a romantic and I likewise live according to ideals. I understand that there are things which the law fails to contemplate, circumstances such as poverty and pain. When I see laws such as our vagrancy laws (which punish poor sidewalk vendors, among others), I try desperately to look for the justice in it. In my search for this ideal, I encounter laws which seem to be useless and laws which seem to be unfair. There are some actions and decisions by the branches of our government which I question (though as a law student, I feel I should not). And thus I become confused.
On what side am I suppose to fight? On the side of the justice of the law, or that of the law of justice?
This question is one in which I still haven't found an answer; and I feel it would be some time before I learn the answer. (Although I feel that if I am to know what it is I am to do with my life, I need to find it out as soon as possible) Anyway, my thoughts alone would make no difference. Or will it?
Another professor of mine has said that "injustice occurs because there aren't enough people who complain and there are more of those who choose to do nothing." The "anti-rally" part of me wishes to scream out and disagree. The ideal part nods in concurrence. I wonder what others think..
Only time could tell.
Being a hopeless romantic doesn't necessarily mean the falling-in-love-forever-type of person. A romantic is a person so full of passion and ideals that it consumes his/her very person and fights for that which he/she believes in. For example, knights during the medieval period were romantics, not merely because they were in search of damsels in distress, but also because they fought fervently for a cause (whether it be for religion, peace, justice or immortality). Early this schoolyear, A very respected (and feared) professor of mine uttered the line quoted above, and I couldn't agree with him more.
Lawyers are supposed to be (though highly doubtful in this day and age) the most idealistic people alive. Their sole purpose on earth must be to go beyond any selfish motives and instead strive for justice at every possible occasion. Thus is the self-sacrificing life a lawyer must lead -- not one which is inspired by worldly aspirations. However, there seems to be a conflict between the lawyer and his/her ultimate goal. That is, there exists, since the beginning of man, an enduring battle between Law and Justice.
Yes, the idea seems ridiculous, especially since the law was indeed made to attain justice; but herein, in this idea of law, lies the problem. Laws are made, whileas justice is an ideal. And, as we've so often seen in history's course, ideals can never be attained nor be made by man -- they are rather guides, like the stars, forever desired to be reached but never to be held -- like perfection, peace, liberty and so on.
Laws are man-made. They are objective, with set rules, which when broken leads to consequences such as punishment. They are prone to manipulation and distortion. They can be changed with the snap of a finger. Moreover, they are controlled by but a few select people -- educated people lucky enough to have passed the bar or to have been elected into government positions. Not everyone has the power over law, no matter what most democracy-loving people say. In fact, according to Philippine law, not even the people have power over the law, unless done in accordance to its rules. It might sound confusing, I agree. The bottom line is, the law is the law! "dura lex sed lex" The Law may be hard but it is the law. Break it and your screwed!
Justice on the other hand is supposed to be enjoyed by all but held by none. As an ideal, it is subjective, with each individual having his/her own view of what justice is. Like the concept of "right vs. wrong", justice is relative. What might be just for one may not be just for another. It cannot be manipulated by anyone since it is pure in concept. And unlike the law, it allows for certain intangibles, such as compassion, humanity and love. True justice is that unaffected by human selfishness or ill-motive, and it can be defined only through agreement of all men (arguably an impossibility).
These are the lines by which the battle is drawn.
As a law student, I am supposed to uphold the law no matter what. Given any situation, I must apply that which the law states. There are no gray areas. It's either the law allows it or not. It's either you're guilty or innocent. In this study of law, what's wrong and what is right is measurable; and justice is reduced to a resolution -- a sentence which declares one party as winner and the other as loser. I am a student of the law and thus, I must live and die by it.
However, I am also a romantic and I likewise live according to ideals. I understand that there are things which the law fails to contemplate, circumstances such as poverty and pain. When I see laws such as our vagrancy laws (which punish poor sidewalk vendors, among others), I try desperately to look for the justice in it. In my search for this ideal, I encounter laws which seem to be useless and laws which seem to be unfair. There are some actions and decisions by the branches of our government which I question (though as a law student, I feel I should not). And thus I become confused.
On what side am I suppose to fight? On the side of the justice of the law, or that of the law of justice?
This question is one in which I still haven't found an answer; and I feel it would be some time before I learn the answer. (Although I feel that if I am to know what it is I am to do with my life, I need to find it out as soon as possible) Anyway, my thoughts alone would make no difference. Or will it?
Another professor of mine has said that "injustice occurs because there aren't enough people who complain and there are more of those who choose to do nothing." The "anti-rally" part of me wishes to scream out and disagree. The ideal part nods in concurrence. I wonder what others think..
Only time could tell.