Law and Economics Paper #7
A rough survey of prevailing Philippine jurisprudence shows that consonant with Galanter and Albiston’s postulates, the haves have indeed come ahead. Of course, the law and trends in legislation serve to equalize the status of the parties appearing in court. In some instances even, the Supreme Court has shown a preference to the have nots, brushing aside procedural rules in favor of greater substantive justice, bandying about the saying “those who have less in life, must have more in law.”
The case of Oposa v. Factoran comes to mind in analyzing the competition between the repeat players (often, but not always, the haves) and one time litigants. In this case, the issue to be resolved existed between a class of people representing the future generation and huge lumber firms backed up by politically powerful players. In ruling for the have nots (the class representing the future generation), one would think that the lumber firms would sustain great losses as a result. It is interesting to note that while being victors in this case, the Court said that to attain relief, one must implead each and every lumber company granted a license to operate. To litigate and implead each and every lumber company would require a lot of resources. To a have not, resources are scarce. Despite this seemingly false victory, the after effects of the decision can be seen to influence future policy considerations. And this, is precisely what the future generation might have wanted in the end.
In the other case of Fortich v. Corona, the industrialists/ rich landowner won over the farmer-beneficiaries of agricultural land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Here, a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading, was entertained by the court, which ruled in favor of the landowner. In this case, however, it is obvious that external factors such a judicial bias come into operation. Moreover, Supreme Court decisions involving CARL are not always resolved in favor of landowners.
Do the have nots really have more in law? In terms of quick individual impact reliefs, perhaps, it is possible for have nots to come out ahead, if they are in the right. Jurisprudence however, does not reflect settlements made before a case is even commenced. To pursue a case and use all remedies accorded by law to a litigant still requires a lot of resources only the haves have.
The case of Oposa v. Factoran comes to mind in analyzing the competition between the repeat players (often, but not always, the haves) and one time litigants. In this case, the issue to be resolved existed between a class of people representing the future generation and huge lumber firms backed up by politically powerful players. In ruling for the have nots (the class representing the future generation), one would think that the lumber firms would sustain great losses as a result. It is interesting to note that while being victors in this case, the Court said that to attain relief, one must implead each and every lumber company granted a license to operate. To litigate and implead each and every lumber company would require a lot of resources. To a have not, resources are scarce. Despite this seemingly false victory, the after effects of the decision can be seen to influence future policy considerations. And this, is precisely what the future generation might have wanted in the end.
In the other case of Fortich v. Corona, the industrialists/ rich landowner won over the farmer-beneficiaries of agricultural land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Here, a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading, was entertained by the court, which ruled in favor of the landowner. In this case, however, it is obvious that external factors such a judicial bias come into operation. Moreover, Supreme Court decisions involving CARL are not always resolved in favor of landowners.
Do the have nots really have more in law? In terms of quick individual impact reliefs, perhaps, it is possible for have nots to come out ahead, if they are in the right. Jurisprudence however, does not reflect settlements made before a case is even commenced. To pursue a case and use all remedies accorded by law to a litigant still requires a lot of resources only the haves have.
0 comments:
Post a Comment