The Rule of Law and the History of the Constitution

Prepared by Group “O”

Members:
INTRODUCTION

What is Rule of Law?

As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary1

1. A substantive legal principle <under the rule of law known as respondeat

superior, the employer is answerable for all wrongs committed by an employee in
the course of the employment>,

2. The supremacy of regular as opposed to arbitrary powers; the absence of any

arbitrary power on the part of the government <citizens must respect the rule of
law>,-- Also termed supremacy of law.

3. The doctrine that every person is subject to the ordinary law within the
jurisdiction, the equal subordination of all citizens and classes to the ordinary law
of the land <all persons within the United States are within the American rule of
law>

4. The doctrine that general constitutional principles are the result of judicial
decisions determining the rights of private individuals in the courts <under the
rule of law, Supreme Court case law makes up the bulk of what we call
“constitutional law”>,

5. Loosely, a legal ruling; a ruling on a point of law <the ratio decidendi of a case
is any rule of law reached by the judge as a necessary step in the decision>.

The rule of law is a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities,
public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly
promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent
with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to
ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law,
accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers,
participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and
procedural and legal transparency.

1
Black’s Law Dictionary. Tenth Edition. P. 1531
The Importance of Rule of Law2

 It checks abuse of power by authorities;

 It empowers individuals with rights which cannot be easily taken-away;

 It treats everyone equally without discrimination;

 Its supremacy ensures no person can claim to be above law;

 It ensures adherence of principles of natural justice like: giving reasonable

opportunity, impartiality of decision, etc.; and

 It leads to fairness, both substantive and procedural.

During the Malolos Constitution of 1899

A Revolutionary Government that became the First Philippine Republic while upholding
and immortalizes the Rule of Law

On September 15, 1898, revolutionary Congress of Filipino representatives met in

Malolos, Bulacan at the call of the Revolutionary Government. The Malolos Congress
ratified on September 29, 1898 the proclamation of Philippine independence made by
Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898 and framed the so-called
Malolos Constitution. This Constitution was the first democratic constitution ever
promulgated in the whole Asia. It established a “free and independent Philippine
Republic” which was inaugurated on January 23, 1899 with Gen. Aguinaldo as
President. Our First Philippine Republic was not recognized by the family of nations. It
was nevertheless an organized government because it actually existed and its authority
was accepted by the people. It existed from January 23, 1899 to March 23, 1901. 3

a) The Embodiment of the Rule of Law in Early History

The contents of the preamble of Malolos Constitution reads: “We, the representatives of
the Filipino people, lawfully convened, in order to establish justice, provide for
common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure the benefits of liberty,
imploring the aid of the Sovereign Legislator of the Universe for the attainment of these
ends, have voted, decreed, and sanctioned the following political
Constitution.”(emphasis supplied)

2
Generally taken from quora.com and worldjusticeproject.org
3De Leon, H. S.(2002). Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. Manila, Rex Printing
Company, Inc. pg. 13 citing Zaide, G.F.(1962).Philippine Government, note 21.
Defined by the authorities of law and established by earlier discussions and
jurisprudence, the Rule of Law as a general concept wherein it includes democratic
values of liberty, justice, equality and other circumstances to embodying a democratic
nation. Through this, there is a “centralized measurement” or a “body of rules and
regulations” for every activity that may an official in his or her capacity shall enact and
enforce while in office and it also raises rights for every person under the blessings of
these provisions.

Following the said “body of rules and regulations”, the national and individual rights of
Filipinos and aliens are already specified in this Malolos Constitution. These provisions
are, on the main literal copies of articles of the Spanish Constitution. The Bill of Rights
includes religious liberty; freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, a provision
like that of Spain; recognition of what amounts to the writ of habeas corpus; sanctity of
domicile; inviolability of correspondence; prohibition of criminal prosecution unless in a
competent court and according to law; protection of private property, reserving to the
government the right of eminent domain, inhibition against the payment of any tax not
legally prescribed; freedom of speech and press; right to form associations, right to
petition, permission to establish educational institutions; compulsory and free popular
education; and other vested rights and duties of the Government to its people. The
Constitution also provides (article 28) that “the enumeration of the rights granted in this
title does not imply prohibition of any others not expressly stated.”

A government established which was expected to be popular, representative, and

responsible, exercised by three independent powers called the legislative, the executive
and the judicial. Profiting from prior experience, the church and the state are made
separate.4

In those early times, the framework of the Malolos Constitution has an influence of
foreign origins such with those of Spain, the United States, and the South American
Republics. It is very evident that in order to be a fair and democratic nation as
envisaged by our founding fathers, the Rule of Law with provisions of due of process
clearly abrogates imposition of unreasonable laws or acts to every person regardless of
age, gender, and race and excessive power that may be exercise by the authorities.

b) Reason of Our Forefathers for Establishing Our Rule of Law

It is clearly stated in our history that the condition of the Philippines and its inhabitants
under the Spanish Colonization suffered a lot of atrocities from racial discrimination up
to the deprivation of life, liberty and property even in the presence of the Rule of Law
imposed by the colonizers.

The government which Spain established in the Philippines was defective. It was a
government for Spaniards and not for the Filipinos. The Spanish officials were often
inefficient and corrupt. The union of church and state produced serious strife between

4Rodriguez, R. B. (1997). Constitutionalism in the Philippines. Manila, Rex Printing

Company, Inc. pg. 13
the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. Equality before the law was denied to the
Filipinos. The demerits however, of the Spanish administration were more offset by its
merits.5

Due to these instances, our ancestors envisioned not just in order to attain such equality
but also to attain freedom to its colonizers, established a Revolutionary Government
with an embodiment of the Rule of Law with its democratic characteristics through
constitutionalism.

But what is constitutionalism?

Constitutionalism implies obligations on the government to respect and ensure

individual rights for all inhabitants. Constitutions commonly include bills of rights,
frequently supplemented by civil rights legislation and other laws designed to prevent,
punish, deter.6

An implication of constitutionalism in a constitution is also a subject for the existence of

the ideal meaning of the Rule of Law, for it negates the suppression of powers within a
group of men or a leader and also its imposition of arbitrary laws that may harm and
infringes every person’s rights. Those future harm that may affect those rights and
obligations are prohibited by the provisions of the Rule of Law, by which was conceived
by the framers of this Constitution.

During the 1935 Constitution

The Spanish occupation opened the eyes of the Filipinos to see our nation's ability to
cultivate its resources and grow into an independent nation. The Philippines needed to
adjust from its economy from that of a colonial to that of an independent one, hence the
birth of the 1935 Constitution. As Teodoro Agoncillo put it, "The Commonwealth was
conceived as an experiment in self-government, an interim period of adjustment in the
political social and economic, spheres."7

In 1934, during the American occupation, the Tydings-Mcduffie Law was passed and it
gave the Filipinos the power to frame a constitution. The Ninth Philippine Legislature
passed Act No. 4125 which called for a Constitutional Convention. The proposed
5
De Leon, H. S.(2002). Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. Manila, Rex Printing
Company, Inc. pg. 12
6 Rodriguez, R. B. (1997). Constitutionalism in the Philippines. Manila, Rex Printing
Company, Inc. pg. 3
7
Institutionalizing state interventionism, May, 1996, "Constitutionalism in the
Philippines" by Rufus Bautista Rodriguez, 1997
Constitution was submitted to President Franklin Roosevelt on March 18, 1935 and was
subsequently approved. A plebiscite was held on May 14, 1935 and the majority of
Filipinos voted for the ratification of the constitution, thus manifesting their desire for
independence.

The outstanding features of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, namely, a

republican government, with a bill of rights, an assertive National Assembly, a strong
Executive and an independent Judiciary, and the inclusion of precepts embodying
certain liberal principles and socialistic tendencies, form of the groundwork upon which
the Filipino nation will undertake to build the structure of a free and independent
Philippines.

On September 1935, former President Manuel L. Quezon won the first ever election
after the ratification of the 1935 Constitution. The proclamation announcing the results
of the election of the officers provided for under the Constitution was issued by the
President of the United States on November 15, 1935, on which date the Government
of the Commonwealth was inaugurated.

Former President Manuel Quezon declared in his inaugural address that the
government launched was only "a means to an end. It is an instrumentality placed in our
hands to prepare ourselves fully for the responsibilities of complete independence."

During 1943 Constitution (Constitution During the Japanese Occupation)

In 1942, the Japanese has fully captured the Philippines and established Manila as the
capital. In 1943, Primier Hideki Tojo of Japan guaranteed to return the independence to
the Philippines. This prompted the creation of the 1943 Constitution. The approval of the
said Constitution established the Republic of the Philippines as Second Philippine
Republic. This era was also called as Japanese-sponsored Philippine Republic.8

Under the 1943 Constitution, the Philippines was a Republican state with Executive
branch as the most powerful, while the Legislative and Judiciary branches were
subordinates only. The President was elected by the members of the National
Assembly. He was the head of the government, and the commander-in-chief of the
Armed Forces.9

Although there was a Constitution and the Premier Tojo promised that the country will
regain its independence, in real sense, Philippine government operated under the
control of the Japanese. In essence, the principle of rule of law was observed during the
Japanese occupancy. Filipinos were mandated and obliged to follow the 1943
Constitution as well as the laws enacted during that era. The Philippine government
8 Understanding the Second Philippine Republic, Malacanang Palace, 2015
[malacanang.gov.ph]
9 The Philippines Constitution in 1943

[https://sites.google.com/site/emersonmadayag/emers]
worked according to the mandate of Japan. However, the will of the Filipinos were not
considered. The laws and rules emanated from the person appointed by the Japanese
government. The Philippine government and its officials were mere puppets covering
the supremacy of the Japanese in the country.

During the 1973 Constitution

There were a lot of events during the Marcos regime which showed that the rule of law
was not being observed first and foremost by the President Ferdinand Marcos. During
the Marcos regime the President made proclamations to amend the Constitution
wherein the process does not observe the rule of law, there were also a lot of reports of
human rights abuses and suppression of freedom of speech and expression. Despite all
of these incidents the brave Filipino spirit still shone through the tough time of his reign.

Citing the case of Javellana vs Executive Secretary ,G.R. NO. 36142 where Javellana,
on June 20, 1973, two days before the Supreme Court decided the plebiscite cases,
filed a suit to restrain the respondents in the implementation of any of the provision in
the proposed Constitution not found in the 1935 Constitution which was the Constitution
enforced at that time. This a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen, qualified and
registered voter and as a class suit for himself and in behalf of all citizens similarly
situated. Javellana alleged that the President already announced the immediate
implementation of the new constitution to his Cabinet including the respondents.
According to him the respondents are acting without and in excess of jurisdiction in
implementing the proposed Constitution on the ground that the President as the
Commander-in-Chief of the AFP does not have the authority to create the Citizen’s
Assemblies, without power to approve the proposed Constitution, without power to
proclaim the ratification of the Filipino people and the election which was held to ratify
the proposed Constitution was not a free election and therefore it is null and void.

The petitioners also prayed for the nullification of Proclamation No.1102 and any
decree, order and proclamation which have the same objective.

Six members of the Court held that the Constitution was not validly ratified since the
Constitution does not allow the Congress to vest in those who lack the qualification and
who has disqualifications the right to vote.

Proceedings in the said Citizens’ Assemblies were null and void because persons less
than twenty-one years of age were allowed to vote. Their votes were invalid because
they lack the qualifications provided in Article 5 Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution.

The “Viva Voce” voting for the Constitution’s ratification is void because under Article 15
of the 1935 Constitution votes were considered cast when it is made on ballots and not
through raising the hands or orally like what took place during the said ratification of the
Constitution wherein the voters were just merely asked to raise their hands.
There are also a lot of human rights violation and forced disappearances cases reported
during the Marcos regime. The rule of law was not upheld since the Constitutional right
of a person against torture, force, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will was violated during Martial law. According to an article of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer written by Kate Pedroso and Marielle Medina, one of those who became a
victim of human rights violation and forced disappearances was Liliosa Hilao who was a
student activist who wrote essays like “The Vietnamization of the Philippines” and
“Democracy is Dead in the Philippines under Martial Law” for the student newspaper of
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. She was supposed to graduate as Cum Laude in
1973 however she did not live to witness that day.

In April 1973, Hilao’s residence was raided by drunken soldiers from the Constabulary
Anti-Narcotics Unit who were looking for his brother. When she demanded an arrest
warrant the soldiers slapped her and took her to Camp Crame. A brother-in-law visited
her at the detention center and Hilao told her that she was tortured. The following day,
she was dead.

Based on the official report, the cause of Hilao’s death was suicide through drinking
muriatic acid however unmistakeable signs of torture was evident on her body such as
cigarette burns on her lips, injection marks on her arms, bruises on her body with finger
marks and gun barrel marks, missing internal organs and there was a possibility that
she was sexually abused.

Freedom of speech and expression were also curtailed during this time. The rule of law
was not observed since the journalists who were expressing their freedom of speech
and expression by writing articles about the wrongdoings of the President and his family
were arrested, tortured and killed. In the article of the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled
“Writers, journalists as freedom heroes” the stories of the writers and journalists who
wrote about the abuses and tyranny during the Marcos regime who were arrested and
killed were narrated. Two of them were Jacinto Dechavez Peña and Alexander “Alex”
Orcullo. Jacinto “Jack” Dechavez was a graduate of AB Journalism in UP Diliman in
1975, with his thesis, entitled “A Content Analysis of Broadcast of Iloilo City Radio
Stations ,” which he dedicated to those citizens whose voices were not heard. He
became a writer in an underground newspaper where he criticized the abusive policies
of the then President Marcos. He became one of the editors of Balita ng Malayang
Pilipino and Liberation and he also trained new writers for their underground
newspaper. Peña was later on captured and tortured to death by soldiers in Gattaran,
Cagayan province. The other one was Alexander “Alex” Orcullo who was the founder
Mindaweek, editor of Mindanao Currents and writer of San Pedro Express in Davao
City. He also became a radio commentator wherein he criticized the abuses and tyranny
during the Marcos regime. He became a part of the Lihuk Mindanao and Hukom
Demokrasya ng Liga ng Ekonomistang Aktibo sa Dabaw ,Coalition for Restoration of
Democracy in Mindanao and Makabayang Alyansa. Later on, Orculla was shot dead
from behind by armalites of uniformed men on his 38th birthday.

Some members of the opposition were also arrested during this time. Citing the case of
Aquino Jr. vs Enrile, GR No. L-35546, Senator Benigno Aquino Jr., together with
Ramon Mitra Jr., Francisco Rodrigo and Napoleon Rama who were all members of the
opposition were arrested and held pursuant to General Order No.2 of the President and
they were accused of participating, aiding and conspiring to seize political powers and
planning to take the government by force. They filed petitions for habeas corpus.
Eventually some of them were permitted to withdraw their petitions and some were
released but under certain restrictions. However, Aquino remained in detention and he
was charged of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearms. The Court ruled
that Aquino’s detention was legal in accordance to the declaration of Martial law. It ruled
that the Constitution provides that in times of rebellion, insurrection, invasion or
imminent danger against the state and when it is required by public safety, the
President may suspend the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part of
it under Martial law. The Supreme Court ruled in the case at bar that the state of
rebellion in our country has not yet disappeared, therefore, there is still a clear and
imminent danger against the state. The Court considered that the arrest was a valid
exercise pursuant to the President’s order. The Court sided with the President since he
was influential and feared by the other Justices which caused Aquino to suffer for the
charges against which was charged against him only because of being a member of the
opposition and for being a critic of Marcos.

In the article of the Official Gazette entitled “The Fall of the Dictatorship” it narrated the
end of Marcos Regime which started with the assassination of Benigno Aquino Jr. which
arose anger in the hearts of the Filipino people and the people lost their confidence to
the government. Later on, President Ferdinand Marcos declared that there will be a
snap election because he was confident that he will have the support of the US
government since he has the law in his hands through his guns, goons and gold and he
knew a lot of persons he could depend on in the government institutions such as
COMELEC. During the counting of the votes the NAMFREL’s tally showed that Corazon
Cojuanco Aquino was leading however in the results tabulated by COMELEC it showed
that former President Ferdinand Marcos was leading. The computer operators observed
the discrepancies between their figures from those officially announced. The church and
the people condemned the said election for being fraudulent, despite the opposition of
the church and the people, on February 15, Marcos was proclaimed as the winner by
the National Assembly. During this incident the President disregarded the rule of law by
manipulating the results of the election in order to be declared as the winner. However,
on February 22, Enrile and General Fidel Ramos demanded Marcos’ resignation. It later
on lead to the successful people power joined by the Filipinos who were all seeking for
democracy and freedom from dictatorship. The inauguration of Marcos in Malacañang
was boycotted and this ended the Marcos regime. Corazon Cojuanco Aquino was later
on declared as the first woman President of the Philippines on February 25, 1986. 10

10 Javellana vs Executive Secretary ,G.R. NO. 36142

Liliosa Hilao: First Martial Law Detainee Killed of the Philippine Daily Inquirer written by
Kate Pedroso and Marielle Medina
Article of the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled “Writers, journalists as freedom heroes”
Article of the Official Gazette entitled “The Fall of the Dictatorship”
During the 1986 Provisional "Freedom" Constitution

The 1986 Constitution, otherwise hailed as Provisional “Freedom” Constitution was

enacted in the Revolutionary Government. Corazon C. Aquino brought with her the
victory and cry for change from the previous administration by virtue or People Power
when she took over to become the President of the Philippines. 11

The previous Philippine regime witnessed how the rule of law was abused by Ferdinand
Marcos. This premise alone led to the abolition of Martial Law in the 1986 Freedom
Constitution. This Constitution brings emphasis to those human rights that were violated
in the previous administration. On of which is Freedom of Expression, which states;

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.” (Const. art. III, sec. 4)

This is a very important basic human right, which was provisionally emphasized under
the laws in the Provisional Constitution. For instance, the ABS-CBN was closed by the
Marcos government, thereby hindering the human rights for the freedom of expression,
and freedom of the press. But in June 1986, president Corazon Aquino acted on the
request of the ABS-CBN Broadcasting and returned to them radio and TV stations.12

On the other hand, President Aquino established Presidential Commission on Good

Government (PCGG).13 It was an agency created to recover billions of people which
were dubbed as “ill gotten wealth” during the Marcos regime. 4 from then on, billions of
pesos worth have been judicially recovered from the Ill gotten wealth amassed by the
Marcoses.

During the 1987 Constitution (Present Constitution)

It was on April of 1986 when President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 9
establishing the 1986 Constitutional Commission (ConCom), composed of 48
individuals, responsible for drafting the 1987 Constitution that reflected the ideals and
aspiration of the Filipino people.

The ConCom was able to finish its work after more or less 111 days. On October 12,
1986, the draft constitution was passed – with 44 delegates voting for it and two against
– and was presented to former President Aquino 3 days after.

11 A Constitutional History of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

[http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/387/]
12 ABS-CBN vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 133347
13 Senate version wins: PCGG will not be abolished, 2019 [Rappler.com]
On February 2, 1987, a National Plebiscite was held after a nationwide information
campaign on the draft constitution.

The results of the 1987 plebiscite canvassed by the Commission on Elections based on
returns from 83,288 precincts – or a total of 21,785,216 votes – across the Philippines
are as follows:

Number of votes
Affirmative/Negative/Abstain

Affirmative votes 16,622,111 (76.30%)

Negative votes 4,953,375 (22.74%)

Abstentions 209,730 (0.96%)

On February 11, 1987, through Proclamation No. 58, Aquino announced the results of
the plebiscite and proclaimed the 1987 Philippine Constitution ratified. It took effect the
same day. 14

Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, however, the 1987 Constitution defines the
concept of judicial power. Under paragraph 2 of Section 1, Article VIII, “judicial power”
includes not only the “duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable” but also “to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.” This latter
provision dilutes the effectivity of the “political question” doctrine which places specific
questions best submitted to the political wisdom of the people beyond the review of the
courts.

Compliance with the terms of the Constitution forms part of the rule of law principle that
underlies the democracy we hope to keep alive in this country. The rule of law, as
currently understood, is the principle of governance under which all persons,

14 Fast Facts, 1987 Constitution, 2016, Rappler.com

institutions, or entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to
laws that are publicly promulgated, equally, enforced, and independently adjudicated. In
short, it translates to the supremacy of the law and the equal treatment of everyone
under this law.15

The laws of the land are supreme and must be complied with and implemented rather
than the order or command of any one man or public official. This is the essence of
democracy as embodied in the Preamble of our Constitution which says that ours is a
government under the “rule of law” and not under the rule of man or group of men.”[4]

However, it is a fact that under the present Constitution, upholding the “rule of law”
loses consistency. Recent data reveals that the Philippines scored 3.4 out of 10 points
in Rule of Law the latest 2018 Human Freedom Index, where the country dropped two
places among 162 countries measured. 16

The report, published by the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute and the German
Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, rated personal, civil and economic
freedom worldwide. In the latest report, the Philippines scored 3.4 for Rule of Law,
posting a decline of 0.5 points from 3.9 in 2017.[6]

The HFI measured rule of law, security and safety, movement, religious freedom,
association, assembly and civil society, expression and information and identity and
relationships.[7]

Since Duterte administration declared an “all-out-war” against drugs, it has paved the
way to a spree killing of any suspected drug pushers and addicts making death
increases but without proper administration of justice and observance of due process..

Now, a shift from democratic to Federal system of government is being processed in the
Congress. The House of Representatives passed RBH 09 otherwise known as
“RESOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES CONVENING THE SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
INTO A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY TO PROPOSE REVISION OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION TO ADOPT A FEDERAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT”

CONCLUSION

The rule of law was first codified in Western European government in the Magna Carta
in 1215, when English nobles demanded that King John’s powers to arbitrarily arrest or
imprison them be curtailed. The charter states that even the King had to follow the law:

15 A Constitutional History of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

[http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/387/]
16
Philippines' Rule of Law score dips further, 2018
“No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized, outlawed, or banished, or in any
way destroyed, nor will he proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful
judgment of his peers and the Law of the Land.”

A principle that itself is quite old, the rule of law is the general concept that government
as well as the governed are subject to the law and that all are to be equally protected by
the law. Its roots can be found in classical antiquity. The vast difference between the
rule of law as opposed to that of individual rulers and tyrants is a central theme in the
writings of political philosophers from the beginning. In the works of Plato and as
developed in Aristotle’s writings, it implies obedience to positive law as well as
rudimentary checks on rulers and magistrates.

Generally speaking, the whole volume aims to challenge the conventional and
seemingly uncontroversial field of retrospective law making, which is viewed as a
system addressing human rights violation and abuse of authority. Based on actual
examples cited from several countries, retrospectivity is not an absolute system of
thoughts; not even exotic and rare, but a usual circumstance. Debates such type of
legislation revolve on the propositions and the elements of the Rule of Law as well as
on the reliance level of citizens toward the established rules and regulations.
Maltreatment, violence and exploitation are some of the offensive conducts that does
not only require significant attention from the court officials, but also, the victims of these
acts demand reliable and consistent justice system. That is why, despite the flaws of
retrospective laws, these are still believed to contribute to the formation and the
development of well-ordered societies.17

In conclusion, the rule of law is crucial to the functioning of a free and prosperous
society. It is as relevant today as when the principles at its heart were developed in
Ancient Greece and Rome. Governments should be vigilant that their actions and
approaches to policy do not undermine the principles of ‘natural justice’ and should
avoid the temptation to wield arbitrary power in the pursuit of political gain.

17 Enjoy Freedom, Responsibly, Steve Baker