Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rules are little more than systems of payoffs and disincentives that
influence rather than command individual action. Depending on his
calculus of perceived risks, projected benefits and constrained resources,
one is just as likely to wait or cut in line. Rules, although articulated in
abstract syntax, operate in constantly changing contexts.
One must simply amass enough money, power and influence to dilute the
efficacy of legal commands. In economic parlance, one would be easing
budget constraints or minimizing risks, ultimately increasing the chances
to obtain the desired payoffs. But the rule-breaker’s actions pose negative
externalities—social costs like the welfare of an aggrieved party, the
weakening of the legal system, and mixed signals as to the importance of
the law.
Most tragic is, while the political and economic elite possess purchasing
power to parry the law’s heavy hand, the marginalized are smothered
under its iron fist. For the unnamed whose blood has seeped into the
streets, obtaining resources is not even about going around the law—it’s
as simple as obtaining redress.
Far from being a profound issue, following or disobeying the law is
reduced to the unsavory question of: Who can afford to do so?
Why follow rules? The only hope for adherence is when individual
incentives align with the law’s avowed purposes. But until we learn to
dissolve “dilaw”/“Dutertard” dichotomies, or quell social media’s
polarizing chaos, individual interest remains detached from the law’s
collective importance.
***
Jose Maria L. Marella, a summa cum laude graduate from the UP School
of Economics, is a senior in the UP College of Law.