A spiritual take on DAP and the Supreme Court

I have no legal background whatsoever. I just “feel” things. When something is not right, my stomach turns. I view things not so much with my mind but on a more profound energetic level. This is my take. Underneath, and at the source of everything we do is what one calls consciousness. If one’s consciousness is out of sync, it manifests in the activities that ensue from that state.

What we ultimately want to be able to achieve is consciousness that is aligned with the Divine — where we feel harmony with one another, and with the universe. Then wars will stop. Then greed and selfishness which is the root cause of most our problems will take a back seat to compassion. That is the goal. And it is a good one. My conviction is that this is what God — the Divine — wants for Humanity. The incorrigible optimist that I am, I also believe it can happen.

When good people who are able to do good things are ostracized on a national policy level, the country’s humanity suffers — in a significant way.

Consciousness: when governance makes decisions that do not appreciate the good things — because of fear of what might be — consciousness suffers. When an institution stubbornly entrenches itself in rigid thinking without the open-mindedness to look for itself, consciousness suffers.

In the issue of the President’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), funds were realigned to have more productive use. And the data shows it has been able to achieve that. Yet the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional? In terms of what? Of legalities? How about the spirit of the Constitution? Which is to do good by our people. How can we make a judgment that says processes are far more important than the good achieved? On the basis of what? Fear that if these processes will not be followed, all hell will break loose? If we do not honor the human spirit, and the good that it achieves, all hell will break lose.

Consciousness: when decisions are made in the spirit of fairness, consciousness has something to rest on. It feels safe. When something has been done for almost 30 years, then all of a sudden the Supreme Court decides that it is wrong — and takes an institution and the people concerned to task even if the good of our people has arisen from it — in a childhood term that, nonetheless, sometimes carries an inherent wisdom, that is not fair! It really isn’t. It isn’t fair.

Post-martial law, every administration has realigned funds. Now all of a sudden, it’s “unconstitutional”? The ruling has left me with a big question. How does the highest court in the land deliberate? What is the pivotal principle on which they make their decisions? Pieces of paper or the good of our people? Laws are made in particular circumstances and with a particular reasoning. There may be instances where those laws are not applicable to a situation in the future. It would be the duty of the Supreme Court to allow for these unique evolutions to come into play when they deliberate.

If they were to do this consistently, we might have the enviable situation I have in my meditation school, in which there are zero “rules,” yet there is integrity. Thus, I can leave an expensive camera, or lots of money in a public area and it will never get touched. I have left my suitcase there unlocked for more than a decade and it is never touched. That is a testament to human spirit.

The Supreme Court rulings have an effect on the consciousness of the land, therefore human spirit and human consciousness must prevail in all decisions. I find it ironic that, instead of allowing good government to continue doing good, the SC pulls the rug out from under its feet.

The more important question is why? Because of the need to uphold certain laws? But are we a society of robots? Why can’t the highest court of the land exercise intuitive intelligence, more comprehensive thinking than just looking at laws? Or find a law out there — and there are oh-so-many — that supports the common good! What concerns me is the perceived commitment to paper, rather than to the spirit of the law, the spirit of the Constitution.

Are we then saying that it is better to follow the law than to do good?

The question arises: what if we had a really bad president and he did monkey business? Then he would realign these funds and wreak havoc. Okay. But now that we have a good one, why do we stop him from doing good? Because of the fear that a bad president might come along someday? Then we are handicapping good governance because of the fear of what might be. There has never been any great institution or any great achievement that has materialized from fear: from sports, to creative genius, all great things have been done with an innate confidence in the human spirit.

That is how the Supreme Court should function. Everything is a leap of faith. But what great thing in life is not? Why not let the President do what he can do, what he wants to do? Support him completely and arrange systems and structures so that, should a bad president come along, we can catch him more easily? There is the argument of order. So we follow order — and nothing much happens.

There is also the order of the human spirit. I truly feel that the highest court of the land must go beyond laws, must go beyond rules and regulations into the sphere of enlightened reasoning. It must not limit its deliberations to what is on paper. For each situation has unique features. And true justice can be only done when one takes into account these unique features. The overriding and non-negotiable commitment should be the common good.

One might argue: “common good” is a very broad term. Not really. It’s quite simple — the good of all. Faced with a situation, should we leave money in the bank because of some regulation instead of using it productively to benefit the people? The answer for me is quite simple. Use it. My grandfather once said — and I remember his words often — the value of money is in its use. If money is stagnant, it is useless.

If at every point in time, decisions are made with the rationale that this will bring the maximum good to the maximum number of people, then we create an order of the human spirit. We establish the culture. The message that what is important is that we fulfill the reason for which laws are made.

The Supreme Court rationale in making any decision must necessarily include the common good. That is a must. It must ensure that in all their decisions, it is not fear of what might be, but the good of the situation that wins out. If it does this, then the spiritual consciousness of this Court (as opposed to a merely legalistic, intellectual frame of mind) that deliberates on the law can have a profound spiritual impact in our country — for generations to come.

* * *

I can be reached at regina_lopez@abs-cbn.com.