Articles: Law, Truth and Justice

Law, Truth and Justice

By: Leon L. Asa

Do not equate the law which is but the tool, with justice that is the ultimate
goal.

Justice J.B.L. Reyes

Law and Justice are inseparable.

Senior Justice Isagani A. Cruz

Law, truth, and justice are inseparable. In litigation, the facts are established
from the evidence adduced by the parties; the pertinent provision of the law is
applied or interpreted; and after judicious consideration of the facts and the
law, judgment is rendered.

The judgment represents the justice in the case. If the judgment is in

consonance with the law and established facts, there is justice; if it is in
derogation of the law and established facts, there is injustice.

Law defined

Law “in its specific and concrete sense is a rule of conduct, just, obligatory,
formulated by legitimate power for common observance and benefit” (Lapitan
vs. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, 60 O.G. 6841).

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica said law is “a certain rule of
reason for the purpose of the common good, laid down by him who is
entrusted with the welfare of the community and promulgated.”

Cicero, the great Roman jurist-writer-philosopher, said: “Law is the highest

reason implanted in nature, which commands what ought to be done and
forbids the opposite” (De Legibus, I, vi).
Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “The prophecies of what the courts
will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law”
(Path of the Law, 10 Harvard Law Review, 457, 460 [1897]).

In this article, law is that which is enacted by the legislature, applied or

interpreted by the courts, and enforced by the executive.

Publication of the law;

ignorance of the law

Article 2 of the New Civil Code provides that “laws shall take effect after
fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official
Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.”
Article 2 of the same Code provides that “ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith.”

The publication of mandatory and prohibitory laws is essential for the citizens
to know their rights, duties, and obligations under the law. Without its
publication, the citizens can rightfully plead ignorance of the law.

The maxim Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses
no one) cannot be invoked by the citizen affected by the law after such law has
been duly published and has taken effect. With its publication and effectivity,
the citizens are presumed to know the law.

Nobody can escape its effects by alleging that he does not know its provisions.
John Selden wrote: Ignorance of the law excuses no man: not that all men
know the law, but because ‘its an excuse every man will plead, and no man can
tell how to confute him. (Oxford Concise Dictionary of PRO-VERBS, Second
Edition, p. 135.)

Truth

Truth or veritas is conformity to reality. It is the antithesis of falsity or error.

Truth is essential to justice for without truth there can be no justice. Truth is
the foundation of justice; it is justice in action.

Mr. Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo said:

The half truths of one generation tend at times to perpetuate themselves in
the law as the whole truths of another, when constant repetition brings it
about that qualifications, taken once for granted, are disregarded or forgotten.

Lord Coke stated, “truth is the mother of justice.” Francis Bacon immortalized
Pilate’s question to Christ when he wrote, “What is truth? said jesting Pilate;
and would not stay for an answer.”
In this article, truth is synony-mous to established facts.

In his book Fountain of Justice (A Study in the Natural Law), Chief Justice
John C. H. Wu carefully observed: The first requisite of a just judgment is that
it must be based upon the facts. In fact, the popular notion of justice is
inseparably bound up with truth.

Our imagination is excited and our hearts cheered up, whenever we observe
that the truth is found out in a puzzling case. Solomon was called a wise man
and a just judge mainly because of his ability to find the real facts. Nothing is
so agonizing as to see an innocent person condemned; it is only a little less
agonizing to see a murderer go free.

For justice is owed not only to the accused, but also to the victim of another’s
crime. (Wu, Fountain of Justice, p. 241.) (Emphasis supplied.)

The wisdom of King Solomon and his ability to seek out the truth was clearly
demonstrated in the famous case of two women who both claimed to be the
mother of the living child.

The Holy Bible narrates: two women who were harlots came to the king, and
stood before him.
And one woman said, “O my lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house;
and I gave birth while she was in the house. “Then it happened, the third day
after I had given birth, that this woman also gave birth. And we were together;
there was no one with us in the house, except the two of us in the house. “And
this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him.

“So she arose in the middle of the night and took my son from my side, while
your maidservant slept, and laid him in her bosom, and laid her dead child in
my bosom. “And when I rose in the morning to nurse my son, there he was,
dead. But when I had examined him in the morning, indeed, he was not my
son whom I had borne.” Then the other woman said, “No! But the living one is
my son, and the dead one is your son.” And the first woman said, “No! But
your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one.”

Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the
king. And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to one,
and half to the other.” Then the woman whose son was living spoke to the
king, for she yearned with compassion for her son; and she said, “O my lord,
give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” But the other said, “Let
him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him.”

So the king answered and said, “Give the first woman the living child, and by
no means kill him; she is his mother.”

And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they
feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer
justice. (The New King James Version, 1 Kings 3:16-27.)
Trial of a case is not a
gladiatorial combat

Judge Horace Stern said:

I have never thought that the trial of a case should be in the nature of a
gladiatorial combat, but rather that it should consist of a scientific
investigation for the determination of the truth conducted as though in a
laboratory, the judge being the general director of that investigation and the
lawyers his helpful assistants. Under such circumstances suppres-sion of the
truth is quite as reprehensible as an actual misstatement of facts.

Truth is the most difficult to ascertain because judges cannot fathom the
recesses of the conscience of witnesses and cannot divine which of the
conflicting testimonies is the truth. Furthermore, there are facts which are
incredible but true. In the search for truth judges can only apply the rules of
evidence, logic and human experience which, though useful, are not infallible
guides.

Justice

“Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due”
(ULPIAN, Digest [Justinian] i, I, 10).

According to Daniel Webster, “justice is the greatest interest of man on earth.

It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. . .
.” (Funeral Oration on Mr. Justice Story, 12 September 1845.)

Justice is symbolized by blindfolded Lady Justice holding a scale with one

hand and a sword with the other. The blindfold represents the impartiality
with which justice must conduct itself in all controversies – regardless of the
parties involved therein. The sword indicates the sanction or punish-ment
that may be meted out to the guilty party.

The administration of justice should not be undertaken with mechanical

rigidity but must carefully consider and weigh the conditions or equities
obtaining in each case.

Since justice must be tempered with mercy, the woman emphasizes the
necessity of understanding and kindness. The scale or balance which she
holds suggests that justice undertakes to maintain equilibrium or fairness of
judgment.
The paramount aim of the law is to establish justice.

Law is but the tool and justice is the ultimate goal, according to Mr. Justice
J.B.L. Reyes.
Don Vicente J. Francisco stated that justice is an indispensable element of law
in its whole-some state or condition, in the same manner that reason and
conscience and free will are essential parts of the normal nature of man.

Law stripped of the element of justice is nothing more than the com-mand of
the sovereign, fitting the definition of it by Tolstoy as ‘Rules established by
men who have control of organized power and which are enforced by the lash,
prison, and even murder.’ Rule of law and rule of sheer might cannot by any
means be equated with each other. (The Rule of Law and the Judiciary in the
Philippines, a Paper submitted by Don Vicente J. Francisco as Philippine
Delegate to the International Congress of Jurists, Committee No. 4-Judiciary,
in New Delhi, India on 07 January 1959.)

Our courts apply or interpret the law. If the law is clear, courts simply apply
the law.
The first and fundamental duty of the court is the appli-cation of the law
according to its express terms, inter-pretation being called for only when such
literal application is impossible. (Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals, 51 SCRA 381.)

If the law is ambiguous and its literal application would result in clear
injustice, the courts will look into the spirit of the law to serve the ends of
justice. In this instance, courts adopt a liberal and reasonable interpretation of
the law to avoid injustice or absurdity.

Mr. Justice George A. Malcolm underscores the spirit of the law over its letter:
If we must choose between a strict and literal interpretation of the law and a
liberal and reasonable interpretation of the law, if we must choose between
the letter of the law which killeth and the spirit of the law which giveth life,
can any one doubt what our decision will be? (Ysip vs. Municipal Council of
Cabiao, 43 Phil. 251.)

It is well settled that our courts are “courts of law and equity.” A court of
equity is sometimes called a “court of conscience” (Zamboanga General
Utilities Inc. vs. Tore, CV-69963, 30 July 1985 cited in Moreno, Philippine
Law Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 224).
The Philippine Law Dictionary defines equity as follows:

EQUITY – As a complement of legal jurisdiction, that which seeks to reach

and do complete justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their
rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances
of cases, are incompetent so to do.

Equity regards the spirit and not the letter, the intent and not the form, the
substance rather than the circumstance, as it is variously expressed by
different courts. (Air Manila Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-39742, 09
June 1978; 83 SCRA 589.) (Emphasis supplied.)

In the celebrated case of Aytona vs. Castillo (4 SCRA 1, 11), the Supreme
Court, in considering the equity of the case, said: “Needless to say, there are
instances wherein not only strict legality, but also fairness, justice and
righteousness should be taken into account.”

Equity is resorted to in order to temper the harshness of the law.

Chief Justice Lord Mansfield aptly observed: If courts of law will adhere to the
mere letter of law, the great men who preside in Chancery will ever devise new
ways to creep out of the lines of the law, and temper with equity. (Doe d.
Perrin v. Blake, 1 Coll. Jurid. 283, 321.)
In the leading case of Alonzo vs. Intermediate Court of Appeals, (150 SCRA
259, 28 May 1987), Senior Justice Isagani A. Cruz who penned the decision
aptly said that the law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause
injustice but to reflect the will of the legislature so that justice may be done.
He declared:

But as has also been aptly observed, we test a law by its results; and likewise,
we may add, by its purposes. It is a cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning
of the law, the first concern of the judge should be to discover in its provisions
the intent of the lawmaker.

Unquestionably, the law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause

injustice as this is never be within the legislative intent. An indispensable part
of that intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the legislature, is to
render justice.

Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently but in consonance
with justice. Law and justice are insepa-rable, and we must keep them so.

To be sure, there are some laws that, while generally valid, may seem arbitrary
when applied in a particular case because of its peculiar cir-cumstances. In
such a situation, we are not bound, because only of our nature and functions,
to apply them just the same, in slavish obedience to their language. What we
do instead is find a balance between the word and the will, that justice may be
done even as the law is obeyed.

As judges, we are not automatons. We do not and must not unfeelingly apply
the law as it is worded, yielding like robots to the literal command without
regard to its cause and consequence. “Courts are apt to err by sticking too
closely to the words of a law,” so we are warned, by Justice Holmes again,
“where these words import a policy that goes beyond them.” While we
admittedly may not legislate, we nevertheless have the power to interpret the
law in such a way as to reflect the will of the legislature.

While we may not read into the law a purpose that is not there, we
nevertheless have the right to read out of it the reason for its enactment. In
doing so, we defer not to “the letter that killeth” but to “the spirit that
vivifieth,” to give effect to the lawmaker’s will.

In case of conflict between the letter and spirit of the law, the latter prevails in
order to serve the ends of justice – that no man should profit from his own
iniquity. The following famous case is a clear illustration of this principle of
justice.

Chief Justice John C. H. Wu wrote:

One of the greatest decisions in American jurispru-dence was rendered by the

New York Court of Appeals in 1889 (Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506, 22 N.E.
188). It was an ugly case, but a beautiful decision. Palmer had made a will
bequeathing his estate to his grandson.

Some time later, the testator manifested some intention to revoke it. In order
to prevent him from revoking the bequest, and to obtain speedy enjoyment
and immediate possession of his property, the grandson, then a boy 16 years
of age, murdered him by poisoning.

He was found guilty of murder and sent to jail. But the question in the instant
case was, could he inherit the property bequested to him? His argument is
that the testator is dead, that his will was made in due form, and has been
admitted to probate, and that therefore it must have effect according to the
letter of the law.

Judge Earl, speaking for the Court, conceded that the case did fall within the
letter of the law, and that “It was the intention of the lawmakers that the
donees in a will should have the property given to them.” “But,” he continued,
“it could never have been their intention that a donee who murdered the
testator to make the will operative should have any benefit under it.”

I am happy to find that Mr. Justice Cardozo, whom many have come to regard
as the greatest judge of this century, had the highest admiration for the
decision of Riggs v. Palmer. Commenting upon it, he said, “Conflicting
principles were there in competition for mastery. One of them prevailed, and
vanquished all the others.

There was the principle of the binding effect of a will disposing of the estate of
a testator in conformity with law. The principle pushed to the limit of its logic,
seemed to uphold the title of the murderer.

There was the principle that civil courts may not add to the pains and
penalties of crimes. That, pushed to the limit of its logic, seemed again to
uphold his title. But over against these was another principle, of greater
generality, its roots deeply fastened in universal sentiments of justice, the
principle that no man should profit from his own inequity or take advantage
of his own wrong.

The logic of this principle prevailed over the logic of others. . . . The judicial
process is there in microcosm. (Wu, Fountain of Justice, pp. 176 and 177.)
(Emphasis supplied.)

Truth and justice should prevail over technicalities The rules of procedure and
evidence are but tools to ascertain the truth which is the basis of justice.
Technicalities should never be resorted to suppress or hide the truth.
Suppression of the truth is deplorable because it leads to injustice.
In the memorable words of Justice Moreland in the famous case of Alonso vs.
Villamor (16 Phil. 315, 321-322), a litigation is defined as follows: . . . a contest
in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts
in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all
imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be
done upon the merits.

Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust. Technicality,

when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great
hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There
should be no vested rights in technicalities. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals (53 SCRA 228), the Supreme Court held
the following:
Although there is no vested right in technicalities, in meritorious cases, a
liberal (not literal) interpretation of the rules becomes imperative and
technicalities should not be resorted to in derogation of the intent and
purpose of the rules – the proper and just determination of a litigation.

Conclusion

Courts are tasked to apply or interpret the law, to establish the truth, and to
render justice. Learning and dedication are required of the judge to attain
substantial justice.

It is true, indeed, that on account of the imperfections incident to human

nature perfect truth may not always be attained, and it is well understood that
exact justice cannot, because of the inability of courts to obtain truth in entire
fullness, be always administered. We are often compelled to accept approxi-
mate justice as the best that courts can do in the admi-nistration of the law.
But, while the law is satisfied with approximate justice where exact justice
cannot be attained, the courts should recognize no rules which stop at the first
when the second is in reach. (Beck, J., Schroeder v C., R.I. & P.R. Co., 47 Iowa
375, 379 [1877].)

Daniel Webster, the great American advocate and orator, said: Justice, Sir, is
the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized
beings and civilized nations together. Wherever her temple stands, and so
long as it is duly honored, there is a foundation for social security, general
happiness and the improvement and progress of our race. And whoever labors
on this edifice with usefulness and distinction, whoever clears its foundations,
strengthens its pillars, adorns its entablatures, or contributes to raise its
august dome still higher in the skies, connects himself, in name and fame and
character, with that which is and must be as durable as the frame of human
society. (Funeral Oration on Mr. Justice Story, 12 September 1845 cited in M.
Frances McNamara, 2,000 Famous Legal Quotations,