Folks, have you all tried reading a file of legal papers submitted to the Supreme Court? My goodness, volumes of Xerox paper abound there you would wish the lawyers could have just used font 12 pts and double space and then donated the rest of the unused ones to schoolchildren in the marginalized areas unable to buy notebooks for their classes.
Yesterday, I spent time at the Judgment Division looking over some past files and I could hardly make heads or tails of the written arguments of one party against another. The writing styles seem to have been derived fom one obscure legal school which does not have teachings about grammar aand simplicity in writing. After using up four hours at the division, I came to the conclusion that indeed there are a lot to be overhauled in the justice system, foremost of which is how to write arguments, conclusions and decisions.
I came across one file where a lawyer from some obscure law office, a certain “Obdulio” or “Obdulia,” used ad hominem arguments according to a legal luminary, the other party. What happened there – did the Supreme Court decision – written by a certain “Nastura” chastise the lawyer or even deny the petition of that lawyer? No, not at all. The decision made it win the case hands down.
There you can see Folks that a certain Justice need not be able to distinguish what is a correct from an incorrect argument which makes rocking the judiciary more imperative as ever.
Now, may I suggest to the Supreme Court when writing their decisions on the pink papers. Kindly format the decision in this style for better readability and understanding:
1. Number of the case;
2. Names of petitioners and respondents;
3. Subject of petition – who is petitioning what and who is the respondent;’
4. Decision of the court;
5. Why – brief reasons for the decision of the court;
6. Action needed by the court.
If the decision of the court is written in this manner, then we need not go to the previous papers, except when we want a more detailed understanding of the case. Moreover, any common tao would be able to read and understand what the legal tussle is all about. Likewise, we would be empowering them to be able to understand if by the decision of the court, their lawyer has done a good job serving them and not the other party.
Now, in the case of the lawyers’ pleadings and what have you, may I suggest to the Integrated Bar of the Philippine to send those lawyers to grammar workshops as many could not even differentiate which subject needs what verb, nor when and how a sentence should end. They can include that in their MCLE where most of the time the speaker only reads and looks at the papers, without interacting with the participants. Indeed how boring those classes are. By the way those MCLE speakers should undergo lessons on how to speak before the public, or how to teach more effectively without treating the participants as disciplined sponges.
But what I cannot understand is the clamming up of the lawyers regarding certain glaring mistreatment of poor clients.
Someone accompanied a friend who has been jailed yet she was innocent of the charges and that it should have been her husband who should have gone instead. A clerk in the judicial staff asked her in an imposing and suspicious tone if her address is correct. Someone called her attention to be more respectful of the client. She even added, “When you yourself reach the age of the elderly, you would be treated in the same manner.”
Immediately she asked for the sheriff to let out the latter. Instead the latter laughed out loud and said, “Ha ha ha, how funny.” Then this clerk told the client, in a more humble tone, “Next time, Ma’am, bring another alalay.” The friend said, “I am not an alalay. I am a fighter for human rights.”
While this was going on, several lawyers were inside that room who were just mum about what was going on, stunned or not stunned? No, they were siguristas – they did not want to rock the boat because the clerk could get back at them in one way or the other – by losing their papers, changing the contents of their papers, or oiling or making the judge decide against their clients, etcetera, etcetera.
So, right inside the august halls of the judiciary could be found some clerks and lower staff who do not know how to serve humbly and who view their positions as power seats to oppress verbally (if not financially) any poor or poor-looking client.
But allow me to commend a clerk of court in Quezon City who because of her advice just through a phone call was able to influence a case indirectly or directly. A decision on the case was rightly decided right there stopping a certain action which could have quashed the case altogether without giving just benefits to the aggrieved parties. And so the case continues to be argued, hopefully, not forever.
Really now, Folks, let us treat every space in our society as schools of thought and understanding not only for ourselves but for the majority of our people, many of whom cannot even read nor write, and thus get dependent on their lawyers who charge them a huge fee, or the PAO, which offers free legal assistance yet have a very low budgetary allocation every year.
By the way, I think that the PAO really needs help because their lawyers do not charge their clients at all and yet offer legal advice freely, unlike some “de campanillas” who cannot even open their mouths without expecting silver dollars falling on their palms.
Let the courts start the cleansing of their ranks and education or re-education on the value of imbibing the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as acting with speed on cases involving their violation.
Let the blindfolded Justice set aright and hold up the scales with greater pride and brilliance.
No comments:
Post a Comment