Writing simply and concisely

By: Artemio V. Panganiban - @inquirerdotnetPhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM September 24, 2017

In my foreword to an issue of the Ateneo Law Journal some time ago, I wrote: “When I was still a law
student over 50 years ago, courts were absolutely sacrosanct. Supreme Court justices were regarded as
little deities on Mount Olympus, whose decisions and pronouncements were revered with biblical
finality and obeyed dutifully by everyone living in the plains.”

Hermetic isolation. Truly, magistrates were thought to possess infinite wisdom and absolute fairness.
Their word was sacred and infallible. Their internal processes were confidential and kept from the
scrutiny of mere mortals.

In keeping with their immortal status, the justices lived in hermetic isolation. Untouched and unaffected
by the hustle and bustle of ordinary life, they took a vow of silence amid the most hectic political and
social crises besetting the nation. They spoke only via their decisions and orders.

ADVERTISEMENT

No one dared lampoon the Court and the justices. The sub judice rule was strictly observed. No one
commented on a pending case without risking the ire of the gods.

Judicial decisions were often written in esoteric legalese. Law students had difficulty deciphering the
ratio decidendi that is often buried in kilometric sentences.

Information Age. Nowadays, for better or for worse, media cameras and inquisitive reporters have
invaded the judicial enclave. Investigative journalists have “humanized” the conduct of the justices.
Public interest cases have lost their sub judice status and are freely discussed everywhere.

Ads by Kiosked
Indeed, we now live in a free society amplified by the information revolution and fortified by the
constitutional prescriptions of accountability and transparency. While television, radio and newspapers
still dominate the mass media, the internet, broadband and social media are supplementing, if not
slowly replacing, these traditional one-way methods of communications.

Conscious of my difficulty as a student in reading and understanding decisions, I endeavored to simplify

them after I joined the Supreme Court in 1995. I tried my best to write in unadorned English, with as
little legalese as possible.

Simplifying decisions. I followed an identifiable pattern of writing decisions that has since been
imbedded in “Velarde vs Social Justice Party” (April 28, 2004). In my ponencia in that case, I detailed
how a decision should be written, pursuant to the constitutional mandate that “[n]o decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based.”

As to form, I explained that the “essential parts of a good decision consists of 1) statement of the case;
2) statement of the facts; 3) issues or assignment of errors; 4) court ruling, in which each issue is, as a
rule, separately considered and resolved; and finally, 5) dispositive portion.” A prologue and an
epilogue are added in high-profile cases.

Since then, most decisions followed the pattern initiated in the Velarde decision. Simpler language was
used without losing the distinct flavor of words, the nuances of meanings and the shades of differences.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yearly, I wrote a book explaining the unknown internal processes of the Court, its major decisions for
that year, and the reforms planned and undertaken to speed up the dispensation of quality justice.

After I retired from the Court, I continued my effort to simplify legal complexities in my columns so lay
people can understand jurisprudence. I want them to appreciate and internalize judicial decisions so
they can become more responsible and participative citizens.
As a column writer, my biggest challenge is still how to shorten my articles because space is severely
limited. This limitation became more stringent after the Inquirer adopted its current format which
allowed columnists only 4,100 characters, in lieu of 5,600 under the old format. I know that I must
adjust more stringently to the Digital Age, forget long-winded legalese, simplify, and get to the point
pronto.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/107369/writing-simply-concisely#ixzz4tqR9EcWX

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook