Silenced Test Papers

All laws must conform to the might and majesty of the Constitution. Accordingly, a law must be struck down if it profoundly violates the Fundamental law of the land, regardless of how noble its intention may appear. The House of Representatives, as the elected voice of the sovereign Filipino, has expressed its concern over some schools’ policy of prohibiting students who fail to present the necessary permit in order to take major examinations. Thus, House Bill 4791 which endeavours to penalize any professor or school that shall deprive the students in taking examination was approved by the House on its second reading.

No less than the Constitution, under Article XIV Section 1 provides that “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such decision accessible to all”. In other words, it is the mandate of the law-making body to legislate laws that seeks to secure to the Filipino people an uncompromised education for all. While private institutions air their dispassionate resistance over the HB 4791, it must be remembered that it is the power of the state to exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.

An argument that the bill is built to slowly cut the life of private institutions, as tuition fees constitutes the source of their operation, does not hold any value, since only a fraction of the students fall short of carrying their obligation. It must be remembered that education is made not for the purpose of profit but for the youth, who shall build this nation into a better society. While it may be true that education is only a matter of right in elementary and secondary level and becomes a privilege in tertiary, it is still unreasonable and irrational to deprive our children with this privilege.

The Child's Excuse

       The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in promoting national development and civic welfare. Accordingly, it is the State’s obligation to protect the youth from any kind of exploitation, violence, forced labor and any other activity that has the effect of corrupting the innocence of the youth. It is, likewise, the duty of the State to install rehabilitation programs and reintegration measures of any child in conflict with the law. Thus, it led to the promulgation of Republic Act no. 9344 or otherwise known as “The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”.

         One of the salient features of Republic Act no. 9344 provides for the minimum age of criminal liability, where it raised the age of a child exempt from criminal liability from 9 to 15 years of age. In other words, any person under 15 years of age shall be exempt from any criminal liability, regardless if he acted with discernment or not. However, a child in conflict with the law shall be committed before the DSWD to undergo an intervention program.  This is a pure example of a positivist school of thought wherein it views that a criminal is a sick man who needs reformation and cure instead of punishment.

The law’s intention of protecting and reforming the life of the youth offenders has failed to achieve its purpose, since juvenile delinquents continue to flourish. The law has now been an excuse for every juvenile delinquent to perpetuate the commission of offense in the society with the sight of impunity from arrest and prosecution. Worst, it provided an avenue for the criminal syndicates to use the innocent children in furthering their evil design in utter disregard of the child’s sense of dignity and worth. Republic Act no. 9344 must be reconsidered to attain the State’s goal of protecting the youth; otherwise, the Philippines will become a haven for young criminals.

The Protectionist State

          It is the policy of the State to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. The State has also put into recognition the goals of the national economy which would provide a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth. This policy has sealed the opportunity of an alien to acquire absolute ownership of alienable lands, save in cases of hereditary succession, and it, likewise, limits the capital share of foreign investments in public utilities to only 40 per centum.

             

        The ambition set forth by the Constitution in matters of national economy has long been dormant from the moment of its ratification. The people, with the hope of economic liberation and equal distribution in wealth, have found its resting place in perpetual slavery of poverty, social inequality and loss of opportunity. The economic gap between the capable few and unfortunate many has stretched its boundary with miles apart. While the State’s policy extends an arm of protection in our national economy, it failed to provide a progressive economy since public utility services are owned by a few elite.

             

           When the State’s primary public services are controlled by a limited number of capitalist, it will create a climate of an evil monopoly. The ceiling of foreign investments in public utility services to only 40 percent must be revisited. The increase of capital share would lead to a distributive share of economic chance and, eventually, the collapse of monopoly in the Philippines. Necessary change must be met in order to claim prosperity in the hands of the sovereign which the Constitution has in view to the Filipino people.

Judgment's Loyalty

The Supreme Court is a branch of government holding neither the power of the sword nor the power of the purse. It has no power to dictate the tide of the State’s policy, much less the authority to direct government affairs. While it may be true that it is the weakest department, it has the sole authority to strike down any act of the government that violates the constitution. It is the final seat of justice, where free men take refuge and seek protection on the basis of their engraved liberties under the bill of rights.

As an independent institution, the Court, particularly the justices of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence, must not look with favour those who cause their appointment for their loyalty belongs to the administration of justice and not to any other political animal. However, under Constitution, it provides, among others, that the President shall appoint the members of the Supreme Court from a list of nominees submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council. It bears stressing that when the President appoints majority or all of the justices, it might cause the decay of judicial independence and alter its allegiance from the court to the appointing authority.

In order to secure a free and independent judiciary, whose decision must be based on law and high moral precepts, its justices must be appointed by the composing member of the Supreme Court itself. To dictate the courts of law or the Supreme Court its decision would be the highest form of breach in the justice system. After all, the Justices of the Supreme Court must be like Caesar’s wife who must be beyond reproach.