In the legal community, the chatter over the week was all about purple ribbons.
No, nothing to do with hair and styling. Nor did it have anything to do with the Pride month of June. The purple ribbon signifies something more radical and revolutionary. Apparently, this was the accessory of choice for new lawyers at their oath-taking ceremonies this first of June.
What was it all about? As reported by media outlets, several graduates of the UP College of Law wore the ribbons on their hands and wrists to "remind" them of a quote from former Supreme Court justice JBL Reyes, which states "No master but law. No guide but conscience. No aim but justice."
This was done by the UP alumni amidst a warning from the sitting Supreme Court justices. In a notice by Justice Lucas Bersamin, prospective oathtakers and lawyer wannabes were warned that they should not do any act that would undermine the oath taking or disturb the "due decorum" thereof. Otherwise (and here it comes!), violators would be "punished with direct contempt and shall be dealt with summarily." (Gulp!)
And so, the new lawyers picked the purple ribbon as a way of voicing out their views, without falling afoul (hopefully) of what the Supreme Court considers disruptive or contemptuous.
Is it, though? Would this attract the attention of the justices and subject the ribbon wearers to sanctions? Or does that fall within the constitutional freedom of expression that everybody enjoys?
Note that this symbolic gesture comes at a time of turmoil in the high court, where the chief justice has just been ousted by a split majority of her colleagues via Quo Warranto. The division has spilled over to other branches of government, with congressmen and senators debating what to do.
Even the United Nations Rapporteur Diego Garcia-Sayan has taken that development to mean the judicial independence of the country was under attack, considering that the removal of the chief justice came two days after the president told her she was an enemy, and should resign. Or be removed. And removed, she was.
Did this turmoil have anything to do with Justice Bersamin's speech, where he reminded the lawyers to "always detest and reprove a fellow lawyer who joins a public demand for disrespecting the courts and their rulings"? In that speech, the justice urged them to "rethink that strategy, lest (the disrespectful lawyer) become unworthy of the Lawyer's Oath. If that happens, you would thereby assault the Judiciary of which you are but its mere officers."
Was that intended to be a message to lawyers to stop clamoring for a reversal of the Quo Warranto decision, or to stop issuing public calls for certain justices to recuse themselves from deciding on the motion for reconsideration filed by the chief justice, or to stop using social media to ventilate their ire on the justices?
Ordinarily, at this welcome event to new members of the bar, we would have been hearing inspirational and uplifting messages. Lofty examples of notable judges and practitioners would have been held up for acclamation. Selfless service to the public would have been a normal theme, (and considering how bad the reputations of lawyers are), there might even be reminders of the principles of honor, and morals, and values.
This year though, we heard warnings. And the purple ribbon became the defining symbol. Now, I dread the thought that this symbol is here to stay.