UP Law Alumni Homecoming
Rizal Ballroom, Makati Shangri-la, Makati City; 25 November 2016, 6:00 p.m.
KEYNOTE MESSAGE
Justice Conchita Carpio Morales
Ombudsman
Greetings:
[VIPs present], University of the Philippines College of Law
(UP Law) Dean Danilo Concepcion, esteemed members of the UP
Law faculty, jubilarians of UP Law ‘91 and ‘76, fellow alumni,
other distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, isang masagana at
mapayapang gabi sa inyong lahat.
Let me first congratulate Dean Danny Concepcion for his
well-deserved selection as the incoming 21st President of our UP
nating mahal.
I am sure that Dean Concepcion’s quality of
leadership, as evidenced by the string of achievements attained by
the UP College of Law under his watch, will help steer UP back to
its rightful place as one of Asia’s premier universities.
Let me thank the members of UP Law ‘91, this year’s silver
jubilarians who are hosting tonight’s homecoming event, for
extending me the honor and privilege to speak before the brightest
stars in the legal firmament.
A few weeks ago after I accepted the invitation, I received
another letter from Atty. Susan Villanueva, president of UP Law
’91, imploring me to “provide inspiration” in these “dark times” and
“share with [you] how best to act despite the times.” I was tempted
to curtly render the instant advice to “just shut up, lest you want to
be cyber-bullied.”
Levity aside, more than talking about the burning issues of the
day, I look forward to rekindling ties, sharing stories, and
reminiscing memories about our treasured days at Malcolm Hall.
This is, after all, a homecoming. Bound by our wistful affection for
our shared experience in law school, we take this event as a
reminder of what made us dream to become a lawyer. It is likewise
an opportunity to expand and explore the possibilities to engage in
notable endeavors not only for the benefit of the University but also
for the advancement of the country.
Last June, I was deeply humbled when UP conferred on me
Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) honoris causa during the 2016 College of
Law Commencement Exercises. I mention this to underscore the
fact that aside from belonging to UP Law ’68, I am also a member
of Class 2016, which makes me the youngest here tonight, at least in
terms of class membership.
Speaking of batches, Class ‘76 is celebrating its 40th year
since graduating from UP Law. Notably, the batch entered the law
school when martial law was declared by President Marcos in 1972.
Who would have thought that 40 years later, their batch would be
celebrating their jubilee year with President Marcos still the subject
of the most rabid of debates and divergent views in the country
today. Indeed, these are interesting times we live in—again.
The 19th century historian and Cambridge professor Lord
Acton once stated that those who could not remember history are
condemned to repeat it. As it turns out nowadays, those who could
not remember history have the tendency to write a new one. Much
worse, there are a lot of people who simply do not want to read their
history [period (.)]. This alarming attitude is appalling, to say the
least, which opens a large portion of society vulnerable to a
revisionist-distortionist proclivity. It is an affront to our collective
consciousness as a nation, aside from adding insult to injury to the
entire citizenry as collective victims of the kleptocratic act of
stashing ill-gotten wealth as judicially ascertained.
It was also Lord Acton who reminded the hierarchy in his
letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887 that “power tends to
corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This line has been
a staple text in any talk on anti-corruption, as a gentle reminder to all
public officials. Lord Acton was rebutting the idea that Popes and
Kings (or present day State leaders) be judged differently from other
mortals, granting the Popes and Kings a favorable presumption that
they did no wrong. He proposed that “if there is any presumption, it
is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power
increases.”
Unbeknownst to many, immediately following that
famous aphorism is a line which is often dropped from the
quotation, viz.:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad
men, even when they exercise influence and not
authority: still more when you superadd the tendency of
the certainty of corruption by authority.
There is no
worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder
of it. (emphasis supplied)
Indeed, the country does not need great leaders, because, more
often than not, they become great after having enmeshed in muddy
rivalries and acquired a network of compromises. It is enough that
leaders remain good in the purest sense of the word. The country
needs good men and women who can respond to the call for
principled leadership with not only competence and courage but also
compassion, conscience and consistency.
Groucho Marx satirically describes a political leader whose
mindset follows this certain credo: “These are my principles; if you
don’t like them, I can change them,” or worse, “these are the laws; if
I don’t like them, I can break them.”
History has shown how great leaders and successful people
have been lured to the fortune of grandeur by sinking into the
misfortune of abusing power. Interesting stories lead one to pose
why great people fall as prey to corruption and transform as
predators themselves. I am reminded of the parable of the Ogre
That Never Dies. The narrative goes:
A long time ago, a very brutal and powerful Ogre terrorized a
town whose inhabitants had long sought heroes to rid the Ogre from
their land. Then came two great warriors. One of them decided to
take on the challenge and sought the Ogre. Months passed and still
no news came on what happened to the first warrior. Worried that
his friend might have fallen in the hands of the Ogre, the second
warrior also decided to hunt down the tyrant. At the top of the
mountain near the village, he met, fought and finally killed the Ogre
after a long duel. The second warrior exclaimed “Oh how such a
meaningless beast like you conquered and defeated my friend…
You haven’t realized how mighty I am!” But before he could finish
his statement, he noticed the beast transform and change into the
likeness of his friend. It dawned upon the victorious warrior that the
Ogre was not at all immortal and that whoever defeated it eventually
became the Ogre himself.
The monstrosity of supremacy and the trappings of power
aptly explain why great people fall as prey and transform as
predators themselves. Just because you can, does not mean you
should.
The relevant message is that we cannot pretend to end
impunity by clothing ourselves with impunity as well.
He who
enforces accountability must himself be ready to assume
accountability.
Amid the loud divergence of views and the incessant hurling
of incendiary words and what-have-yous, there is always room to
listen to the whispers of the voice of principled reason and the
heartbeat of an impassioned conscience.
There is wisdom in
sobriety. After all, truth is not measured by decibels.
Interestingly, this generation has entered the so-called “posttruth” era where truth does not really matter any more. Post-truth—
named recently as the “word of the year” for 2016 by Oxford
Dictionaries— means “relating to or denoting circumstances in
which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion
than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
What happens then in a post-truth era when truth becomes
irrelevant: discussions become irreverent. This is exactly what is
happening. Now it is not only truth that has become elusive, even
reason has escaped us.
With the advent of social media in the country saw the birth of
post-truth politics where emotional impact rather than truth is what
matters. There is a lack of demand for truthful and honest discourse.
Facebook has become a searing battleground for propagandists,
apologists and trolls to foment dissension to a vulnerable, illinformed young population that acknowledges Google as the sole
and primary source of information for just about everything. A big
part of the population would rather believe and share fake news sites
and echo the baseless assertions of dubious bloggers and
flamebaiters. They no longer care to verify the veracity of these
allegations.
When supposed “truths” about martial law and the
purported “progress” that the Philippines enjoyed during the regime
are considered more fact than fiction, then we see a transformation
of our values as a people.
With no effort to set the facts straight, quite a number
consequently fail to discern, distinguish and detect misdeeds that
deserve to be denounced. This comes as a great cause for concern.
The people should be bothered when the leaders themselves equally
could not figure out what is right and wrong.
Back to basics.
Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not kill.
When leaders seem to send the message of promoting rather than
condemning reprehensible acts that transgress basic human rights,
the people ought to be concerned about it, rather than cheering for it
either out of sheer ignorance, callous conscience, blind loyalty or
gorgonized fanaticism.
In linking corruption and human rights violations, one study
concludes that when corruption thrives, human rights are denied,
and correlatively, when denial of human rights continues, corruption
persists:
The battle against corruption is the battle for human
rights, and vice versa. Abuse of public office, as the
core component of corruption, necessarily engenders an
abuse of human rights especially since public authority is
supposed to be the first to observe human rights.
Generally, for every type of abuse of public office, there
is a counterpart abuse of human rights, albeit in varying
degrees.
What perhaps makes corruption uniquely
worse is the element of private gain, which may
pecuniarily translate to billions that should have trickled
down to those deprived— as they already are—of the
entitlements to their birthright as human beings.
In other words, grand corruption is rewarding one’s self big
time for depriving the human right entitlements of the whole
citizenry. Accordingly, corruption negates the essence of human
rights since it thrives or operates in contravention of legal processes
which were precisely put in place for the protection and promotion
of human rights.
I believe at this time and clime— which Atty. Villanueva has
described as “dark times”— we all need to confront one thing. We
are confronted with one nagging question that has been echoing in
the minds of— I would still like to believe— every Filipino, before
the tragedy hits home, even before a loved one becomes the next
victim: What have we become as a nation? Why do odious things
continue to happen in certain parts of the world?
The straightforward answer given by author Sarah Chayes in
one event is quite simple: because the world celebrates thieves, mga
magnanakaw, ladrones. During her stint in Afghanistan, Chayes
recalled one local saying: “The government is your face; if it’s pretty
or ugly, it’s your face.” The problem is not because we lack mirrors
but because we do not take time to stand in front of the mirror and
turn on the light.
In this sea of conflicting values amid the struggle for more
power, one needs to set sight on a strong beacon of light and
position an equally strong anchor. A story was once told about a
Navy officer. It goes:
This naval officer had always dreamed of commanding a
battleship. Although he had a touch of arrogance and pride in his
make-up, it was not enough to hinder his steady climb.
Soon
enough, he finally achieved that dream. One very stormy night, as
the battleship was making its way through the choppy seas, the
captain spotted a strange light off the port side rapidly closing with
his own ship. To avoid a possible collision, he immediately ordered
the signalman to flash this message to the unidentified craft: “Alter
your course 10 degrees to the south.” It was just a minute or two
before the reply came: “Alter your course 10 degrees to the north.”
Determined that his battleship would not take a back seat to another
vessel, the captain snapped out this order to be sent: “Alter your
course 10 degrees to the south – I am the Captain!” The response
was beamed right back: “Alter your course 10 degrees to the north –
I am Seaman Third Class Jones.” At this reply, the captain was now
infuriated. He grabbed the signal light with his own hands and fired
off: “Alter your course 10 degrees to the south – I am a Battleship!”
Back came the reply: “Alter your course 10 degrees to the north – I
am a Lighthouse.”
It seems that no matter how highly we regard ourselves, there
is still a higher order: there exists the overarching rule of law. The
law serves as the proverbial lighthouse that guides a nation as it
charts the course of history. It mirrors the matrix of values or mores
of a given society. As former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl
Warren stated, “[i]n civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.”
What keeps the law afloat is the supporting buoyancy of the
underlying ethical values.
The legitimacy of any law or
jurisprudence for that matter would, therefore, either sink or set sail
depending on the strength of the “sea of ethics” under which it relies
for buoyancy and resilience.
As lawyers for the people, we should NOT wait until the “sea
of ethics” runs dry NOR should we allow the navy captain to
altogether dismantle the “lighthouse” that gets in his way.
On this note, I hope I have discharged my assigned task to
spark a ray of light in these trying times.
Mabuhay ang UP! Mabuhay ang Bayan nating Pilipinas!