Lawyers and the “Rule of Law”

After a delay, the Supreme Court finally released the bar exam results. A new generation of Filipino lawyers is enrolled in the roster of lawyers. And when these lawyers take their oath in the presence of the justices of the Supreme Court at the Philippine International Convention Center, many, if not all, must know that their profession finds itself, once more, standing before the bar of history.

The law is more than a profession, it is a vocation; it is not just about winning, but how everyone plays the game. The greatest leveler should be the law, and this is precisely what the phrase “rule of law” strongly implies: that it is the rules—the rules that provide for a system that aims at securing justice for all—and not those whose power gives them temporary supremacy, that are supreme.

We say temporary, because the President of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, periodically insists she’s only in office temporarily; she claims one of her achievements will be stepping down when her term expires on June 30, 2010. And yet, no president has done more to elevate—or aggrandize—the powers of the office; and she has done so, in large part, with the help of lawyers who crafted executive issuances previously beyond the imagination of members of their profession.

These government lawyers, some of whom are now justices of the Supreme Court, have pushed the envelope, so to speak. Some of them plagiarized Ferdinand Marcos’ Proclamation 1081, to proclaim a state of emergency in 2006; or, as we’ve been seeing, radically expanded the definition and application of executive privilege; others readily used their skills to publicly defend this expansion of presidential powers and privileges, more particularly in relation to the other branches of government.

Lawyers outside government haven’t taken this sitting down. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is just one of many lawyers’ groups that have consistently, and forcefully, spoken out on how the Arroyo administration makes lofty appeals invoking the majesty of the law while wielding legal principles as battering rams to demolish our constitutional system of checks and balances.

No one should forget how lawyers took to the streets and rallied at the Edsa Shrine to protest the calibrated preemptive response policy of the government. We understand that many in the legal community are similarly up in arms over the Supreme Court’s recent decision on Neri vs Senate Committee. This is a case so consequential that it demands of all—not just some—lawyers, a public expression of opinion, right now.

Cynthia Ozick, in her essay, “Of Christian Heroism,” reflecting on the Holocaust, wrote, “Three ‘participant’ categories of the Holocaust are commonly named: murderers, victims, bystanders. Imagination demands a choosing. Which, of this entangled trio, are we? Which are we most likely to become?”

She was speaking of an unprecedented time, and of an unprecedented dilemma that faced Christian civilization. In writing about that time, she identified an enduring dilemma for all times.

“When a whole population,” she said, “takes on the status of bystander, the victims are without allies; the criminals, unchecked, are strengthened; and only then do we need to speak of heroes. When a field is filled from end to end with sheep, a stag stands out. When a continent is filled end to end with the compliant, we learn what heroism is. And alas for the society that requires heroes.”

But alas, our society does require heroes, though times are such that simply taking on heartily the responsibilities of citizenship has become heroic.

Not since 1973 has the Supreme Court faced such a grave crisis of confidence as it does now; and not since the days of martial law has the public needed illumination from all who have been called to the bar.

A profession must find in itself the courage to speak up.