Righting wrongs

The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. xxx The law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries xxx The substance of the law at any given time pretty nearly corresponds, so far as it goes, with what is then understood to be convenient; but its form and machinery, and the degree to which it is able to work out desired results, depend very much upon its past. - The Common Law, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1881)

For the first time in the nearly 80 years of our Revised Penal Code’s existence, through the initiative of the Department of Justice and with support from the USAID, a “Criminal Code Committee” has been convened to undertake a comprehensive study to draft a new Criminal Code. (Stating the fact that our Revised Penal Code was a 1932 amendment of our Penal Code of 1887 is to call attention to the unfortunate misnomer.)

This ambitious undertaking is consistent with what has become a running theme of our columns past. Indeed, there is truth to the oft-repeated refrain that we have enough laws and what we lack is their faithful execution and proper implementation. But the fact remains that some of our laws have become so antiquated that they now give rise to illogical results - and bear little relevance and significance to our contemporary human experience. Indeed, while our legislators should be “futuristic” in orientation and craft laws that would address and anticipate societal needs, they should also not forget past laws which are in need of reconfiguration and retooling.  

*      *      *      *

Speaking of Crimes. Integral to our system of laws is the principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance. (The reason for this is pragmatic: we foreclose the possibility that anyone can, by the mere expedient of claiming “sorry, I didn’t know,” defeat or circumvent the law.) The corollary is that the law should not be inscrutable, so as to make ignorant fools of those who should understand them, i.e. everyone. Nowhere is this more imperative than in our criminal laws, for they are as much about and for law-abiding citizens, as they are about criminals (and crimes). Law-abiding citizens have as much of an interest in knowing what is legally acceptable, permissible, and mandated, just as criminals are often said - or at least, they try - to be one step ahead of legislation.

To this subject matter bear relevance the studies being undertaken by Prof. Paul Robinson (University of Pennsylvania Law School) and his Criminal Law Research Group. Their recent study on New Jersey’s criminal code revealed that there was a disjunct between what the citizens thought to be the appropriate punishments for certain crimes. As observed by Prof. Robinson, “people across demographics feel quite strongly that the relative seriousness of a particular offense ought to affect, or control, the amount of punishment meted out.”

*      *      *      *

It’s Time. Until the Criminal Code Committee’s efforts went underway earlier this year, under our Revised Penal Code, it is only the court that has such a say. (In fact, it is the “twin-duty” of the court - in connection with acts which should be repressed but are not covered by the law, and when a strict application of the RPC would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty - to make a report of such situations to the President, through the Department of Justice.)

The language of our laws - in its expression, substance, and wisdom - reflect and embody our shared values and worldview. The RPC, insofar as it now appears outdated, is, too, a veritable historical account of our collective experience. Concededly, contemporary readers of our RPC would probably be inclined to suppress a chuckle when they read of the now “measly” sums (or the apparently “petty objects,” such as coconuts or fish taken from a fishpond). Reading these disparate legal provisions together and holistically, and appreciating them in the context of the life of The Law will reveal that, indeed, the RPC is a geriatric piece of legislation in need of a major overhaul.

*      *      *      *

Meaning What We Say, Without Being Mean. One of our regular readers, Richard Bautista (no relation to this column) wrote to comment on the column entitled “August 21.” Taking off from the concerns that I raised, i.e. our youth’s remembrance of times and things past, he referenced the work of a fellow by the name of James Soriano (and the reader alerted me to the tempest in a teapot that that author’s article had started to stir).

As I later learned, the link that the reader sent me was, actually, to an article different from the one that’s been the subject of much consternation (in the cyberworld, mainly).

*      *      *      *

Mr. Soriano wrote an article (that was published in another major daily newspaper) entitled, “Language, learning, identity, and privilege.” In it, the author made bold claims, such as: “English is the language of the learned,” while “[Filipino] is not the language of privilege.”

To be fair, the article in question (and under attack) could very well have been appreciated as a satire of sorts. Unfortunately, where satires go, it faltered. The author’s comments and observations on “the language of the privileged” would have been satirical, if only it did not sound as though it came from someone with a sense of entitlement, as when he said that “I may be disconnected from my being Filipino, but with a tongue of privilege I will always have my connections”).

That’s as much as Mr. Soriano can benefit from my doubt. In fact, in light of his 2008 article entitled, Filipino as a second language, where he wrote on the same topic and made similar observations - “English is the language of the professional. It is the key to getting employed.” - I have serious doubts if it was really just a failed attempt at satire, or that he wrote it, exactly as he meant to.

*      *      *      *

“An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.” - Oscar Wilde

Email: [email protected]