What: Reaction Essay
About: Sen. Jose W. Diokno’s Letter to his eldest son, Jose Ramon written on
October 23, 1972 while in detention
Name: Maria Fatima L. Parro
Date : September 17, 2020
Senator Jose Wright Diokno (“Ka Pepe”) was a Filipino lawyer who was
considered as the “Father of Human Rights Advocacy in the Philippines” since he
was the founder of the Commission on Human Rights. He topped both the CPA
and the bar exams. But, he was detained during the martial law period inside the
Delta Room at Fort Magsaysay without any warrant of arrest. During his
detainment on October 23, 1972, he wrote a letter to Jose Ramon (“Popoy”), his
eldest son among his 10 children in order to motivate him to start studying law so
as to follow his footsteps. The letter contains Senator Diokno’s words of wisdom
as a lawyer along with a list of eight written works of well-known authors as tools
of encouragement.
While I was reading the letter, I was struck by the answer of Senator Diokno
when a question was raised by a soldier to him: “Sir, kailangan pa ba ng mga
abugado ngayon?” His response was “yes” while citing the different qualities of a
lawyer which are the following:
1. “A lawyer lives in and by law: And there is no law when society is ruled, not
by reason, but by will- worse by the will of one man.”
2. “A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men and women
are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without trial.”
3. “A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity
is extracted by fear, and criticism silenced by force.”
4. “A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no truth when
facts are suppressed, news is manipulated, and charges are fabricated.”
Senator Diokno also emphasized that we need to have great lawyers and
not brilliant lawyers in our country which is the Philippines. There are certain
differences between a great lawyer and a brilliant lawyer. A great lawyer is a good
man who has the courage to pursue his ideas though he knows them to be
unattainable, he tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because
he realizes he may be mistaken, and he deals honorably and fairly with all. On the
other hand, a brilliant lawyer scoundrels or crooks the facts which is to be
presented on a case. A brilliant lawyer speaks about lies while a great lawyer
speaks about the truth and nothing else.
The time that I started to feel unmotivated was the time that I read the
lawyer’s oath under Rule 138, section 17 of the Rules of Court. Based from the
lawyer’s oath, a lawyer should maintain allegiance to the republic of the
Philippines, he should support the constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein, a lawyer should do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, a lawyer should not wittingly
or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit nor give aid nor
consent to the same, a lawyer should delay no man for money or malice and
should conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts and his clients. Lastly, he
should impose upon himself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion with the help of God. I tried to memorize the
lawyer’s oath but I failed to do so but the words written there helped me on my
endeavor. Lacking a criteria on the aforementioned statements will not enable me
to become a full-fledged lawyer.
Surprisingly, I was also inspired by the 5 Functions of a Lawyer by Atty.
Arthur Vanderbilt. He emphasized that the functions of a lawyer which are wise
counseling, advocacy, improving the profession, the courts, and the law,
leadership in molding public opinion, and the unselfish holding of public office. In
wise counseling, a lawyer must be able to forecast the trends of law in order to
make dynamism in the field for adjudication in order to address the needs of the
society. The advocacy of a lawyer speaks about the sound counseling in the
courtroom where the law is applied to concrete facts in specific cases. The
advocates along with the judges in the last analysis of the case set the course of
law. A lawyer must aid in improving the profession, the courts, and the law by
not being lethargic and he must evolve with the changes in the society in order to
keep abreast with the changes in the field that he is up to. It’s also the duty of law
school professors to inculcate values to law students and mold them into good
lawyers. A lawyer must also promote leadership in listening and molding public
opinion intelligently on an impartial manner. If each lawyer from every
community in a specific country would have molded public opinion, then, there is
a possibility that history would have been different. Then, lawyers should be
unselfish in holding public office rather than focusing on the needs of private
clients and should also be willing to handle pro bono cases in the Philippines. This
is so good to be true, but delaying no man for money or malice is written in the
lawyer’s oath.
Studying law is expecting the unexpected. According to the argument Atty.
Karl Llewelyn’s Jurisprudence, also termed as legal formalism, the facts as well as
the results of certain cases comprises the law and not the logical reasoning which
were obtained from legal rules. He focused on the realist view on what judges,
lawyers, as well as law enforcement officers need to do involving certain disputes
on the law as a governing rule of the state. Also, Atty. Nathan Roscoe Pound
focused on the “Sociological Jurisprudence”, also termed as the sociology of law,
in order to deeply understand the law. This philosophical milieu of the law
focuses on the effects of the law on the society that governs it. This concept also
tackles on the influence of social phenomena on the substantive and procedural
facet of the law.
What then is the history of the law? On his aim to intertwine the pieces of
the past based on the economic, social, as well as political factors which created
the law, Atty. William Seagle used the brief biographies of a group of judicial
statesmen. This paved way for identifying historical facts that molded the law
from Hammurabi up to Oliver Wendel Holmes. It’s amazing that these men of law
[Hammurabi (the Babylonian ruler known for the Hammurabi’s code , the
Babylonian code of law from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice), Solon (who
was known for setting the foundation of Athenian democracy), Gaius (the person
who wrote the commentary on the law of the 12 tables and a treatise on edicts
on Roman magistrates), Justinian (the Byzantine emperor who was well-known
for the “Justinian Code” or “Codex Justinianus”, “Corpus Juris Civilis”, “The Body of
the Civil Law”), Hugo Grotius (“De Jure Belli ac Pacis”, “On the Law of War and
Peace” which laid the foundation of international law), Edward Plantagenet (An
English ruler known for the English Law, and the making of the common law),
Thomas Egerton (An English lawyer who formulated the nascent principles of
equitable relief) , Sir Edward Coke (An English jurist and politician who was also
known as “The great fountain of the Whig Principles”), Sir William Blackstone
(known for the “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England”, the
influential 18th- century treatise on the common law of England), Caesare
Bonesana di Beccaria (“An Essay on Crimes and Punishment”, he opposes death
penalty), Jeremy Bentham (Founder of Modern Utilitarianism – the most ethical
choice that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number) , John
Marshall (4th United States Chief Justice who constructed and defended the
foundation of judicial power as well as the principles of American Federalism),
Rudolf Von Jhering (“The Spirit of Roman Law”, elaborated the relation of law to
social change), and Oliver Wendell Holmes (American jurist, ”The Common
Law”) ] have altogether gave us an idea on the evolution of the law.
Speaking about the History of the English Legal System from the industrial
revolution up to the modern times, Brian Abel-Smith published LATC (Lawyers and
the Courts) in 1967. They emphasized on their work the significance of empirical
research on our existing problems. On the other hand, Robert Lefcourt’s written
work entitled “Law against the People” emphasized on the legal oppression of the
innocent, law and power on a “pluralistic society”, as well as the differences
among the poor and the rich with respect to the treatment under the rule of the
law and unfair judgment. I’m quite impressed with the survey-based non-fiction
book entitled “The Lawyers” by Mr. Martin Prager Mayer about people’s
publicity, what is it to be on the legal profession but his approach was prying. He
would eventually give us an idea that lawyers live longer as compared to other
people. It was also emphasized that on 1966, the average yearly income of
lawyers in America was 13,000 US dollars. Maybe the salary rate of lawyers is
expected to be higher at present.
Lawyers are avid readers. Senator Diokno emphasized that in order to recall
law concepts better, jotting down notes and giving a reaction to the concept you
read would be beneficial. According to senator Diokno, “The law is a demanding
profession and that the rewards of the law as a profession are not in wealth or
even in fame, but in the respect of your peers, the excitement to chase after
justice, and in the satisfaction not only of service to your clients but of having
somehow shaped the future by molding the law of today.”
Being on the legal profession is not a joke. As a law student, I’m not sure
enough if I could be able to finish this endeavor since it’s very difficult to do so.
There are certain provisions that it’s very hard to comprehend, jargons on the
jurisprudence that are very deep, as well as Latin terms that are challenging to
remember. There are numerous discouragements as well as distractions. At this
point in time, my battles in law school is not yet conquered, but my faith in
conquering these battles is ignited by the facts that were presented on the letter
of Pepe to Popoy.
