Technicalities vs substantive justice

Many years ago, under the Commonwealth, a Provincial Governor was presiding at an administrative trial in which the defendants were two policemen accused of a crime. The prosecutor was the town mayor (a lawyer). The accused were represented by counsel. The judges were the Governor and the two members of the provincial Board. In those days, an administrative investigation was conducted like a court trial, and in the courthouse.

Both prosecution and defense had rested their cases and the final pleadings had been made. Then one of the policemen asked to be allowed to speak. He said that within a few days (he mentioned the date) a person would arrive who could give important testimony in his defense. He asked that verdict be deferred until that testimony was heard.

The prosecutor of course objected. It was against the rules of procedure. The trial was over. The time for giving testimony had elapsed. The Governor (a lawyer himself), granted the policeman’s request and postponed the verdict until the new testimony could be heard.

I was present at the trial and the emphasis that was given by the Governor (my father) on substantive justice as against procedural technicality deeply impressed my young mind.

An analogous situation arose many years later, this time in Manila. After being sentenced to a prison term, the defendant asked that his going to prison be deferred some four days so that he could dispose of pending matters which otherwise would suffer and third parties would be affected. The judge granted the request. The Supreme Court sentenced that judge to a one-year suspension for not strictly adhering to procedural technicality.

That judge was one of the best professors of law in the country, and a very upright person. I asked him why he had granted the four-day delay in imprisonment. He said, _I judged that the ends of justice would be better served if the prisoner were allowed to complete pending matters before beginning his prison term. The judge believed in substantive justice. The Supreme Court demanded strict Court adherence to procedural technicality.

That was not the only instance where the Supreme Court upheld procedural technicalities over substantive justice. One instance resulted in the closing of a very fine university. A labor union was demanding over a hundred million pesos. The university argued that the demand was unreasonable. The Supreme Court (through one of its sections) ruled that the university had submitted one of the required documents after the required date. On that technicality the case was decided against the university. The university asked for a hearing before the Supreme Court en banc. The petition was denied. To pay the required amount to the labor union the university (one of the better ones in the country) had to close down.

I am not a lawyer and I am in no position to condemn or to approve what the Supreme Court decided. But one of my constant prayers is that one day not too far away we may have a judiciary that aims at promoting real justice. A judiciary that believes that, while technicalities are important for well-ordered proceedings, technicalities should aid "not impede" substantive justice. Would it not be a monstrous parody of justice, if, for the sake of a technicality, our courts inflicted serious "injustice?"