“PASSION FOR JUSTICE”

Reshaping our nation’s direction and destiny*

 

Rev. Fr. Rector Anscar Chupungco, Dean Atty. Virgilio Jara, Vice Dean Atty. Domingo Navarro, Prefect of Students Atty. Marciano Delson, Distinguished Members of the Faculty, Ladies and Gentlemen.

 

          From a contemporary translation of the “Rule of St. Benedict”, one will find this excerpt from the First Rule:

 

          “Live life, and do whatever is done in a spirit of thanksgiving.”

 

          To honor St. Benedict, I would like to begin my address to the Class of 2006 with thanksgiving: first, to the Almighty God who has continued to hold this, our Beloved Nation, in the gentle palm of His hand; second, to the Administration of the San Beda College of Law who graciously invited me to be part of these ceremonies which mark both an end and a new beginning in your life-journey; and third, to you, the Class of 2006 who have welcomed me with ears – and hearts – ready to listen.

 

          It might interest you all to know that the author of the contemporary interpretation of the Rule of St. Benedict from which I quoted my introduction is actually a modern-day lawyer from Memphis, Tennessee – a legal practitioner by the name of John McQuiston II.

 

McQuiston translated the Rule of St. Benedict into a best-selling devotional entitled “Always We Begin Again”.

 

My dear Class of 2006: Today, you mark the end of four or five years of intense studies, stressful recitations, research and preparation for your daily class. Sacrifice has been the hallmark of the past few years. Today, you receive the reward of your toil.

 

Congratulations.

 

You, my beloved graduates, are fortunate, for you have had the opportunity of having your minds and spirits trained in the Benedictine tradition. You, therefore, are well-prepared for the task of helping reshape the direction and destiny of our nation.

 

There are many distinguished Bedan lawyers who before you unselfishly gave their best to that task: Raul Roco, Filipino statesman; Supreme Court Justices Florenz Regalado and Romeo Callejo, legal luminaries both; Avelino Cruz and Rene Saguisag, respected law practitioners; and many others.

 

I pray – and believe – that from, you, the Class of 2006 would come many more  names that would grace this distinguished roster of Filipinos who love their country with unequalled passion.

 

          I am sure many of those names would belong to women lawyers – Filipinas who would lead in the task of reshaping the legal profession and our Nation.

 

No doubt, the destiny and direction of our nation need to be reshaped. Many would share the view that today is like a ship adrift in a stormy ocean of protracted conflict – rudderless and without the North Star in sight.

 

          Indeed, women in the legal profession have become a major force for the reshaping of our Nation.

 

          To this, the San Beda College of Law has significantly contributed. To this venerable Institution, therefore, I say congratulations.

 

          Congratulations for the courage you have shown in breaking barriers and breaking new ground.

 

          Ladies and gentlemen, the growth of this potent women force is amazing if not phenomenal.

 

          During the past five years – except in 2003 -, I noted that San Beda College of Law has produced more women graduates than men. The Class of 2004 had the highest ratio at 60.87 percent. It was 57.33 percent for the Class of 2005. It is 56.81 percent for your batch, the Class of 2006.

 

          The same trend is taking place in the “other” law schools: the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo Law School. Some 59.46 percent of UP Class of 2005 were women; it was 53 percent for the Ateneo Law School. The UP College of Law registered its highest percentage of women graduates in 2003 at 61.22 percent. Ateneo Law School marked this feat in 2002 at 60 percent flat.

 

Indeed, statistics would show that the legal profession is now among the career paths preferred by Filipino women.

 

          The entry of more Filipino women into the legal profession has been marked by another remarkable development. It is evident that women have dominated the top 10 spots of Bar Examination results from 1995 to 2005.

         

          In 1995, seven women captured the top 10 spots. The feat was duplicated five years later in 2000. In 1996 and 2002, six women were in the top 10. It was a 5-5 split last year.  And as a matter of fact, for years 1995 to 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, and including this year, women have landed the number 1 spot.

 

          Indeed, it is evident that women are determined to excel in the legal profession.

 

          Ladies and gentlemen, it is not my purpose today to simply extol the successful “invasion” of the legal profession by women lawyers.

 

Rather, my aim is to share with you my insights on the importance and significance of this trend. In so doing, I hope I can inspire the Class of 2006, both men and women, to emulate a diminishing yet important value in the practice of law.

 

This value I call “Passion for Justice”. The growing leadership of women in the legal profession provides us with a good perspective with which to appreciate this value.

 

At the outset, I would like to underscore that the phenomenal growth of the number of women in the legal profession has nothing to do with women’s liberation or some imagined quest for equality with men.

 

The truth is the Filipina has always been liberated. We are products of the tradition personified by Gabriela Silang, Princess Urduja and Melchora Aquino. We manage the Filipino home well. We banner Filipina pulchritude. But when there is war, we unsheathe our bolos and we fight alongside our men. History shows we are no less heroic than our male counterpart.

 

That the Filipina has always been liberated and equal to men was the message heard loud by the world as early as 1902. That year, Clemencia Lopez, outstanding suffragette and patriot from Batangas, went to the United States to speak before the US senate. Her mission was to call attention to the violation of human rights in the Philippines committed by American soldiers.

 

Before her testimony in the US Senate, Clemencia Lopez addressed the New England Suffrage Association in Boston. There, she gave a beautiful description of the Filipino woman in these words:

 

“Mentally, socially and in almost all the relations of life, our women are regarded as the equals of our men. You will be surprised to know that this equality of women in the Philippines is not a new thing. It was not introduced from Europe, but was innate and the natural expression of the love and respect which a man ought to feel toward his mother, wife and daughter.”

 

So, there you are. The influx of women into the country’s legal profession is not a fight for equality. What then would explain the trend? I am sure social statisticians would say the growth is merely a reflection of the lopsided female to male ratio in our population.

 

I say it is more than that.

 

Here is how I view this trend. You see, there is a saying that “the woman’s place is the home”. I believe what is happening is that when women entered the legal field, she actually “came home”.

 

The legal profession, women discovered, is a natural venue for the expression of an important aspect of our person and character. This aspect is called “Passion”. Passion means when we commit to something, we give it our all. We are not skilled in the art of the half-baked or the half-hearted. Compromise on anything is something very difficult for us.

 

Passion also reflects our nurturing character. We are created and equipped to carry life and see that life blossom. Nurturing life requires that we give it our all – including our own life. This is why loving unconditionally is second nature to us. There is, perhaps, nothing we do without passion.

 

And the legal profession has given us a home where we can express our most important passion – passion for justice.

 

This has been proven from the time the country swore in its first woman lawyer at the run of the 20th century – Maria Francisco de Villacerna.

 

 This expression of this same passion was witnessed by the nation in the feistiness of the late Justice Lourdes San Diego in the 60s, and in the sterling public service record of Justice Milagros German in the 70s.

 

Yes, passion for justice is the hallmark of the women in the legal profession.

 

The tradition reached new heights when the late Cecilia Munoz Palma took her rightful place in the Supreme Court in 1973. There, she proved her mettle, provided a brave voice of dissent during the Martial Law era, and gave richer meaning to the word “passion for justice”.

 

Undoubtedly, she did all her countrymen proud, both women and men.

 

I am proud of the late Justice Palma. And you, the Class of 2006, must be proud of her, too. Justice Palma was an icon of breaking barriers and breaking ground: she was the first Filipina bar topnotcher; the first Filipina prosecutor; the first Filipina judge in a Court of First Instance.

 

But what should really make you proud is the fact that Justice Palma was schooled and reared in the same Benedictine tradition under which you obtained your law degree.

 

Justice Palma, I am sure you are aware, was a product of St. Scholastica’s College, a respected educational institution named after the twin sister of St. Benedict, himself.

 

As a Filipino, I am proud to point out that Justice Palma was already a Supreme Court Justice long before the United States and Canada nominated their counterpart: Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Bertha Wilson, respectively.

 

I am proud, too, that the torch lighted by Justice Palma has been passed on to the many other Filipina Supreme Court justices who followed the trail she blazed: from Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera in 1975; to Justice Irene Cortes in 1987; to the five Filipina justices who sit in the Supreme Court today.

 

 This tribute to the outstanding feat of Filipina lawyers are by no means an attempt to belittle the achievement of our male colleagues. I am not exactly an advocate of the Yin-Yang concept or the Venus versus Mars dichotomy. The tribute is an attempt at pointing out the virtue and value of passion for justice which, because of her nature, has been marked in the lives of these great Filipinas.

 

So, let there be no mistake: this sense of pride is not gender-inspired. Rather, it stems from the fine example of passion for justice which characterized the life of Justice Palma and others like her, both men and women. All of us, regardless of sex, are bound to be inspired by them.

 

At the end of the day, passion for justice knows no gender. It is not exclusive. It is something we must all share. It is something we must uphold if the direction and destiny of our nation are to be reshaped.

 

          Perhaps, more than ever, we need Filipinos – both and men and women who would mirror the Palma and Benedictine legacies of courage. The legacy must be summoned as we battle a culture of compromise and as we attempt to raise the bar of moral and ethical standards in the legal profession, in the corporate world and in public service.

 

          We are counting on the Class of 2006 to join us in this battle.

 

          And our shared passion for justice and truth shall be our weapon.

 

          For starters, I recommend that you cultivate a sense of courage to adopt a dissenting view. In a culture of compromise, dissent is viewed as obstruction. Do not succumb to this definition. Dissent is not obstruction. It is not merely a display of maverick propensities. It is not saying I disagree for the sake of being different.

 

          Let me share my own definition. Dissent, for me, is an adherence to one’s honest belief of what is true, just and fair. That is the key word: “honest”. One can dissent courageously when one can begin the statement of your stand with the words “I honestly believe…”.

 

          I honestly, and firmly believe that the legal profession and the nation as a whole can reshape its direction and destiny by adopting the “I honestly believe” approach.

 

          This is, perhaps, the most potent antidote to a pervasive national syndrome called “denial”, or what author Jonathan Swift calls “the felicitous state of self-deception”. Many today, deny what they “honestly believe” about the country, its leadership, its abused democratic processes, and its current state and direction.

 

          I urge you, Class of 2006, to resist the syndrome. Some nefarious elements in the legal profession would tell you it could be profitable to compromise truth, to “play the game”. Or, to look the other way. Or to use the brilliance of your legal mind to justify what you actually “do not honestly believe”.

 

          Unfortunately, there are public figures in our midst today who have made a science and an art out of trying to make right what they do not honestly believe.

 

          Dissenting when one makes a stand for what one honestly believes requires a passionate love for the truth. An honest dissent is a sacred act of service. In more ways than one, this was what the Fathers of Monasticism did centuries ago. St. Benedict’s way of life was a loud dissent to the pervasive moral decay of his time. His Rule was a protest against the corrupt way of life adopted by the rich and powerful of his era.

         

          I personally found fulfillment in the application of this philosophy. If you had followed recent developments, you would be aware of my dissenting opinions in two landmark cases.

 

          You will recall that I departed from the majority opinion on the constitutionality of the Absentee Voting law. You would also remember that I opted to dissent from the majority view in the classic People of the Philippines versus Marivic Genosa where most of my colleagues stood by the position that the battered wife syndrome is merely a mitigating circumstance and could not acquit a battered wife who killed her husband. In the latter, I dissented and said Marivic Genosa should be acquitted on the basis of the battered wife syndrome.

 

          I dissented from the majority opinion on the Absentee Voting law issue because I “honestly believed” in the principle that the law is the law. It was my honest belief that Congress, in passing the bill, “watered down the constitutional requirements”.

 

My unambiguous and honest belief is that the intent of the Constitution should not be made ambiguous to serve the purpose of a single interest.

 

          I dissented on the Marivic Genosa case because I “honestly believed” that the continuous battering of a woman by an oppressive husband created a mental state of fear. It was my honest belief that such state of fear spurred the natural instinct for valid self-defense.

 

          These are honest beliefs that can – and must be applied – to the various facets of what many would describe as our current national crisis.

 

          I hold fast to the honest belief that the Law is the law and must not be arbitrarily subjected to change just to serve the interest of one person or of a few vested interests. I honestly believe that the manipulation of the law, most especially the highest law of the land – the Constitution – is a perilous expedition.

 

          I hold fast to the honest belief that any form of constant and consistent infliction of mental battering is evil. I honestly believe that if women can be subjected to the battered wife syndrome, so can the entire country be subjected to what can be called “the battered nation syndrome”.

 

          The objective of wife-battering is to crush the woman’s will and eliminate mental resistance, reducing her woman into a willing object of manipulation. I honestly believe an entire nation could be reduced to the same state unless there is a resort to valid self-defense.

 

          The Genosa case showed that, for the most part, battering is not merely a physical act. It is a mental process. It is sustained. Consistent. When a people is consistently exposed to daily acts of mental dishonesty and half-truths by those who wield authority, that, too, could be viewed as a form of battering.

 

          My dear Class of 2006, graduation day marks the start of many decisions that need to be made. Among them, decisions on career, employment, work environment and lifestyle.

 

          Today, you have one more important decision to make. You need to decide whether or not you would want to take part in the reshaping of the direction and destiny of a badly battered nation.

 

          If you decide to do so, I recommend you begin with the principle of “honest belief”. Or better, in the principle of believing in the highest standards of honesty. Be honest first to yourself. Make sure you can look others straight in the eye. Then you can be courageous. Then, you would not be afraid to present an honest dissent.

 

          I encourage you to nurture your Benedictine spirituality. Do not think that Law and the Spiritual Life are distant and separate concepts. We must constantly remember: the Law derives its strength in its spirit. The lawyer finds his strength in the quality of his soul.

 

          Lawyer John McQuiston II found that spiritual strength from the Rule of St. Benedict.  His paraphrase of the First Rule provides an apt conclusion and ample inspiration:

 

          “Everyday carries the potential to bring the experience of heaven; have the courage to expect good from it. Be gentle with this life, and use the light of life to live fully in your time.”

 

          Congratulations, Class of 2006. Our nation is waiting for you to reshape its direction and destiny.

-o0o-



* Commencement Address delivered by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago on the occasion of the 54th Commencement Exercises of the San Beda College of Law, held at the Abbey of Our Lady of Montserrat, Mendiola, Manila on April 8, 2006.