Reflections on fear of the law
FEAR
of the consequences of violation often serve as the compelling reason for compliance with the law. In contrast with respect for the law which draws its strength from higher and nobler emotions, fear of the law is largely driven by the pain that non-compliance may bring.
Consequences for violation are mostly in terms of fines and/or imprisonment, the usual penalties for criminal violations. There, too, are the civil consequences (e.g., confiscation of property) or administrative sanctions (such as suspensions and dismissals).
The impact of these penalties varies. Fines, usually bearable, can be very painful if imposed at rates that already hurt violators’ pockets. A jail term, on the other hand, is always terrifying, given the state of our national penitentiary and most of our local jails.
An example of a “painful” fine is Section 37 of the New Central Bank Act which now allows the Bangko Sentral’s Monetary Board to impose fines of as much as 11 million per violation or 1100,000 per day for continuing violations. This is a state policy response to those who, in lieu of complying with the law, might choose to pay fines.
Separately from those who fear painful physical or financial consequences are those whose thoughts focus on their social reputation and to whom community and peer reactions are the consequences that matter. Thoughts of social disapproval are enough reasons for them to toe the law’s strict and narrow lines.
Among those who closely mind their reputation are the election-conscious politicians whose fear lies in being branded as criminals rather than on the pain of fines or imprisonment. Excepted from this group are the popularityconscious politicians who still gloss over the consequences of their unlawful acts because they believe that they can charm the public at will.
The best examples of this last exception are some actor-politicians who believe that their stage ratings as actors can carry them to electoral victory because the voting public is largely clueless in choosing their public officials. The coming elections in May would be a good time to test their belief.
Still another category are those who operate from the perspective of authority and sense of impunity. The notion that nobody will question them is their overriding thought.
To this category belong those who perpetrated the DAP and the PDAF scams, and who, because they had been getting away with these early transgressions, responded callously in the Mamasapano incident, and, for political expediency, disregarded our procurement and budgetary laws, resulting in the Dengvaxia deaths.
Of these various categories, the most reprehensible are those who have lost their fear of the law and who necessarily do not likewise respect the law. They have forgotten that the law is the primary tool for our governance and cannot – even for one moment – be disregarded.
Incongruously, even the reprehensible ones now seek to participate in our governance or publicly endorse those wishing to participate. I really do hope the electorate will recognize them for what they are; otherwise, we might end up, not only as a nation burdened by more poverty, but as a nation mindlessly rushing into the abyss of chaos and anarchy.
These thoughts have invariably challenged me to think of responses, within the realm of legality, that the nation can undertake to respond to the growing lack of respect for, and fear of, the law in our society. To me, the best would be the response that touches our hearts and minds as a people and that leads to changes in our cultural mindset in relating with the law.
A response bandied about in some quarters is the need for authoritarian rule to resolve our existing problems and instill discipline among our people.
I cannot but take a cautionary stance when I hear these talks: let us be extremely careful in venturing into authoritarian rule as even its semblance when President Marcos battled an active communist threat, effectively derailed our march to progress.
President Cory Aquino herself ventured into authoritarian rule but, to her credit, only long enough to establish a new Constitution. Unfortunately, she allowed politics to creep into the new Charter by pointedly seeking to erase all traces of the past Marcos administration.
This move effectively divided the nation and lost us a very good chance for real national unity. Unabated and dynastic politics thus continued, in time debasing even the loftier aims of the constitutional framers.
As the new Constitution marched into our history, other changes also overtook our society in many areas, among them, in the threats to our natural environment, in our demographics and worsening poverty, in the emergence of new morality values and standards, and in the use of terrorism to change political persuasions and the alignment of nations and their political configurations.
The confluence of these developments, perhaps, is the reason some feel compelled to adopt an authoritarian rule. But this kind of rule is not a ready answer nor a cure-all for the nation’s problems. I grant that it may at some point be appropriate, but it is a remedy of last resort that we should only take when national survival is immediately threatened and is gravely at risk.
For now, a calibrated response is the saner and more rational approach. We can still halt our worsening situation and remedy the circumstances that would force us into authoritarian rule.
After the next elections, we can pause and take stock, through a popularly-elected Constitutional Convention, to reflect on the challenges that now confront us. The pause and time for reflection alone can do wonders in achieving national composure and in securing for ourselves a settled frame of mind while searching for solutions appropriate to emerging situations.
From this perspective, the candidates’ choice between a popularly elected Constitutional Convention and its people-based discussions, and a congressional Constituent Assembly of veteran politicians, should be an important material issue in the coming elections.
Let us ask our candidates how they stand on this issue.