Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Name: Lucio C.

Avergonzado
to Law
Course and Year: JD-I
RE: The Reality of Justice, Considered

Subject: Introduction
Professor: Atty. Mira

I must admit that my idea of justice has been one that is evolving overtime.
When I was in my elementary years, I was a fan of radio dramas and Filipino action
movies wherein the themes usually involved disadvantaged and poor protagonists
being oppressed and victimized by rich villains who have guns and goons at their
disposal. By sheer determination and with the idea that theirs will be justice in the
end, the protagonists proceeded with plans to avenge the wrong and to obtain
justice. At the end of the story justice has prevailed. The bad guys were dead or
jailed. They paid the price for breaking the law.
Influenced by these scenarios, my young mind was being taught that if I did
something bad like that one committed by bad guys in the movies, I deserved a
punishment and injustice will happen if I go unpunished. This conception of justice
has taught me lesson to be a good guy, obey the laws, and avoid doing evil things.
Surprisingly, this idea has lingered in my mind until now and in fact, I am still
convinced of the correctness of this conviction. However, because I can now think
maturely than when I was in my elementary years, I can now defend this idea in a
way that is more academic and critical.
So what then is justice for me? How is it achieved and when can I say that it
is achieved? In answering these profound questions of life, I formulated three theses
to present my convictions in a systematic form. Firstly, I believe that justice is a
real and absolute concept. However, it should be applied relatively. Secondly, I am
convinced that the end of law is justice and there should be a corresponding
punishment if violated. But, I also believe that even in the absence of law, injustice
can still occur. Therefore, it is my conviction that law and justice can exist
independently. And thirdly, I believe in a higher Divine Being called God, the
ultimate source of law, righteousness, and justice. Therefore, I believe in a perfect
justice divinely sanctioned by a God.
I shall now proceed to defend my three theses. First, I believe that justice is a
real, absolute concept, but it should be applied relatively. When I say it is real and
absolute, I only mean that it exists and its existence is a fact. However, I must
concede that its application is relative. For example, If a law is violated by two
different individuals, they deserved the corresponding punishment as prescribed by
that law. Does this mean that the corresponding punishment be automatically
imposed to these erring individuals? My answer is no. Justice demands that we
should consider their different circumstances in life, the manner of commission, as
well as the whole relevant events attendant in the case. I therefore conclude that
justice means treating exactly the same things and differently to things that are

different. I concede though, that because of our imperfections, we may have the
difficulty of defining what constitutes the same and different things. This therefore,
warrant separate discussion.
My second thesis posits that law and justice can exist independently. That
although I believe that the end of the law is justice, even in the absence of law,
justice is still demandable and injustice can still be perpetrated. How is this so? This
is because we do not have all the laws in the world and it is impossible to have all
these laws needed to promote justice. If we rely on human laws to achieve justice,
then justice could not be possibly achieved at all. Human being cannot just make all
the laws needed to insure and a basis for justice. For example, stealing is inherently
and by nature a bad thing. But supposed that stealing is not penalized by a law; so
If I steal, wouldnt it be injustice for the owner if I go unpunished? Remember there
is no law, right? But the truth is, it is still injustice to the owner of the good I stole if
no punishment will be meted out against me unless I return the stolen item. Hence,
in the point of view of justice, the criminal law concept that there is no crime when
there is no law punishing it maybe not correct and inapplicable because there can
still be injustice even if there is no law punishing a crime that is inherently evil.
My third thesis is identical to the second one; however, I purposely separate
the two because this third thesis cannot be perfectly defended by an appeal to the
reason alone without resorting to faith. I have a faith that there is a divine justice
and this is the perfect justice. Perfect justice is unattainable in this world because
of human imperfections. Perfect justice requires a perfect judgment and perfect
judgment can only be rendered by a perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent judge. I
called this perfect judge the Almighty God. In human viewpoint, there will always
be injustice in this world in some way or another. This is true inasmuch as we are
living in a world where the agency and the freedom to choose are respected. We
might be affected by the decisions of others and we may think this is unfair and
injustice. As what I have said, perfect justice is not to be found in this world. Our
judges may, as best as they can decide a case with all the integrity and honestly of
their heart. But they must do so based merely on facts and evidence as presented
by the defence and prosecution. They are not supposed to base their judgment
according to the tears of the victims or the suspect. Mercy cannot rob justice. On
this case, because human judge is fallible, capable of committing erroneous
judgment, justice is not really served.