"x x x.
UP President Alfredo Pascual, Dean Danilo Concepcion, faculty members, graduates, students, friends, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
It is with great sense of humility that I accept this honor that you bestowed upon me today. To be honored in this grand manner — conferment of Doctor of Laws Honoris Causa– by my beloved alma mater was beyond my imagination when I graduated from this institution of learning four decades ago.
With immense pride and joy, I share this honor with my family and the people who have been with me in my journey. I dedicate this to my late father, Cesar Sr., who would have been 94 today.
Maraming maraming salamat po.
Ladies and gentlemen of the class of 2014:
Mary Schmich in an article in the Chicago Tribune entitled “Advice, like youth, probably just wasted on the young”, made into the song “Everybody’s Free to Wear Sunscreen” by Baz Luhrman, wrote:
“Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Don’t worry about the future. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind. Don’t waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you’re ahead, sometimes you’re behind. The race is long and, in the end, it’s only with yourself.
Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. Whatever you do, don’t congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else’s. And wear sunscreen.”
I quote Mary Schmich because she tells us some truths that are quite apt for this memorable event in your life. The reference to the power and beauty of youth is a reminder that while we dream of the future ahead of us, keeping ourselves grounded in the present is just as important.
“Don’t worry about the future, she said. For when we face an uncertain future, we tend to worry. Or fear. But, that will only take away today’s strengths. And not tomorrow’s troubles.
Since lawyers are by nature competitive, I find appealing the author’s advice: “Sometimes you’re ahead, sometimes you’re behind. The race is long and, in the end, it’s only with yourself.”
The best embodiment of this, is our fascination with the bar examinations. At this point, let me pause and congratulate UP Law Class of 2013 for its dominating performance in the recent Bar.
It is reminiscent of my batch’s performance during our time. Perhaps, Class 2014 can exceed that. But let us not be bogged down by the spirit of competition if it leads to division and acrimony.
Mary Schmich teaches us to remain humble and optimistic. “Don’t congratulate yourself too much,” she said, “or berate yourself either.” We must always remind ourselves that we are not in control of everything. There is always something left to chance, to luck, or our belief in a Higher Being.
My dear graduates. Lawyers are often called creatures of conflict. We thrive when there is a dispute. Our system of litigation is one that is adversarial by design. This system remains to be the bedrock of a democratic framework, where a third party arbiter can resolve disputes between two combatants objectively.
In reality, the results, and even the process of litigation, are imperfect. Cases in our courts take too long to resolve.
We must address this, especially as it concerns the Sandiganbayan. Filing cases against erring public officials is hardly a deterrent because the anti-graft court is burdened with thousands of cases that would take an average of five years to resolve.
A priority in the Senate’s agenda is Senate Bill No. 2138—a measure that I principally authored–which seeks to fortify the structural capability of the Sandiganbayan to effectively resolve the graft cases that have multiplied over the years. This bill introduces certain innovations such as the “justice designate” concept, transfer of so-called minor cases to the Regional Trial Courts, and modification of the voting requirement in rendering decision.
There are mechanisms already in place which are meant to reduce the acrimony in court litigation and, consequently to accelerate the process.
There is a trend to depart from the traditional modes of resolving disputes where parties are combatants.
Our Rules of Court already provide for modes of discovery. Our Rules of Pre-trial were strengthened. The Supreme Court mandated the use of Judicial Affidavits and highlighted the value of court annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution, where litigants are given the opportunity to avoid court litigation by being exposed dispute settlement.
Congress, on the other hand, enacted the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, which recognized the importance of ADR in the achievement of speedy and impartial justice.
All these rules are laudable, and we should continue to move towards their full utilization. But over and above these, I am proposing a paradigm shift.
Lawyers should be problem solvers rather than gladiators. They should be more result-oriented, than procedure based.
Lawyering has always been a subject of interest for people outside of the legal community. The practice of law and the rules that govern it, often mirror the rules that keep society in order. Because lawyering mirrors the functioning of a society in general, the legal community is a good template for, if I may use a technical term, a “control group” or a Petri dish, for effecting change in society.
Today, our country is moving towards achieving true participatory democracy. It is characterized by a government that is focused on consensus-building, one that is interested in arriving at solutions through consultations; a government that attempts to find answers that are beneficial to as many people as possible, instead of being concerned with factionalism where one group must always prevail over another.
If this is the goal, and if our profession mirrors the aspirations of our society, it is about time that we move away from being combatants and embrace our roles as results-based problem solvers.
However, much like the existing government structures and institutions, the practice of law in this country is characterized by delays. This in turn is brought about by a mindset that relies on rules and routine. Lawyers and judges appear to be resigned to the likelihood that cases will drag on for years. Often, rules are used to even further delay cases. In effect, the rules that govern court litigation become the very tools that stall the judicial system.
There is a need to change the perspective of lawyers and judges as to the handling of legal disputes. While resolving disputes in accordance with long established and time-honored procedure is essential, the resolution of disputes in this manner may not always be a complete solution to all legal problems. When lawyers face each other as gladiators, the result is always a winner-take-all situation. However, as officers of the court, the duty of lawyers is not merely to arrive at a determination of who wins and who loses. Rather, the duty of lawyers is to see to it that justice is done.
Thus, there is a need to recalibrate the process by which solutions to legal disputes are attained. Judges and lawyers should be more interested in attaining just results, rather than an overly strict compliance with rules. Legal disputes should be settled, not on the basis of who is more capable of using legal procedures to his advantage, but rather on the basis of who has a clear right in the law.
The Supreme Court, as early as 1911, ruled in Manila Railroad vs. Attorney General, that the purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. It rather exists to facilitate its application to the rival claims of the contending parties. It was created not to hinder and delay, but to promote the administration of justice. It is a means to an end.
As lawyers, we can be agents of change, beginning with the way we approach law practice. Today, we refer more disputes to arbitration, adjudication and mediation. But are we truly moving towards solutions rather than advancement of more parochial interests?
What we need is a change in mindset. My proposal is for all lawyers to be judges. Of course, not literally. I propose that, more than adopting the mindset of an advocate, we should assume the mindset of a conciliator or mediator.
A conciliator or mediator handles a case with a view of finding a swift and equitable resolution to the dispute. They are interested in results rather than procedural technicalities. Conciliators are not limited by the perspective of a lawyer advocate. They look more at the entire picture. There is room to ask for what is just under the circumstances. Moreover, they know how to listen. Whereas the traditional lawyer is more interested in arguing and in spotting the errors in the argument of the opponent, the conciliator recognizes the value of understanding the points of both parties. The traditional lawyer is interested in winning. The conciliator is interested in fulfilling the interests of the contending parties.
My mindset as a freshly minted lawyer was that of a combatant. But when I was appointed Secretary of Labor during one of the most tumultuous periods in our industrial relations’ history, I changed tack in resolving disputes. I was more focused on seeking solutions, rather than proclaiming winners and losers.
As Secretary of Justice and Executive Secretary, I adhered to the principle that the purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice but rather to promote its administration.
As Senate President, I am an arbitrator of sorts. This role greatly broadened my understanding and allowed me to look at a problem from all angles. I have become more than just an advocate of winning but an advocate of justice and the common good.
It is about time that we consider changing the way that our lawyers are trained. There may be merit to the proposition that law graduates should be required, or at the very least encouraged, to train in government positions that require the exercise of skills pertaining to alternative dispute resolution, such as conciliation and mediation.
Programs and courses in the Philippine Judicial Academy geared towards training lawyers to become judges may be refashioned and incorporated into law school curricula in order to give law students the perspective of a neutral third party in analyzing disputes.
It is fitting that this change of heart begins with the UP College of Law.
There is something about being a graduate of the UP College of Law that bars us from separating ourselves from the concerns of the nation. We will always have a sense of duty to our country.
There is almost an expectation that whenever UP lawyers gather, there will be a reference to the great words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. etched in the walls of Malcolm. “To teach law in the grand manner, and to make great lawyers.”
In the end, what the study of law truly imparts is a method, a lifestyle, a habit, and eventually, a deeply ingrained character. And this character should be one always hungry for excellence –“grandness,” if you will. But it should not be grand in scale and magnitude, but in impact.
I recall the words of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, herself a distinguished lawyer. “Watch your thoughts for they become words. Watch your words for they become actions. Watch your actions for they become habits. Watch your habits for they become your character. And watch your character for it becomes your destiny.”
To me, this is what the State University aspires for. It goes into our core, as it shapes the way we think, speak, act, and will hopefully build the character and destiny that will impact the nation in a positive manner. That is what is truly grand.
In the UP College of Law, you are trained to deal not just with legal issues, but with the realities that are created and altered by the power of your legal arguments. You should be able to see the connection between the laws and cases you read deep into the night and the people whose lives, liberty and property depend upon your ability to use the law for their advantage.
As graduates of a State University, UP lawyers are the products of the toil and labor of thousands of citizens. Hence, there are expectations that come with being a graduate of the UP College of Law. You have a duty to give back to your country.
You must dream of greatness for your country because the dreams of the Filipino people have been instrumental in fulfilling yours. You must practice law with the kind of passion that has been instilled in you by your professors, your fellow students and this great University. For while the field of law is full of pragmatists and logical thinkers, this country can never have enough of lawyers who value justice and truth with intensity and
conviction.
conviction.
As UP lawyers, we must use our legal knowledge for something far greater than the protection of life, liberty and property.
Find something to believe in. Have convictions. Do not be contented with sitting on fences, in staying in the middle ground. Search for truth. And once you have found your answers, hold on to them. Be willing to fight for them. There will come a time when having convictions will start to hurt. In a profession where truth is said to be “flexible,” it is difficult to be unwilling to compromise.
Yet, as much as having convictions will hurt, I assure you that refusing to fight for what you believe in, is one of the worst kinds of agony. Thus, to borrow the words of Winston Churchill, “Never, never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense.”
Do not be just another face in the crowd or just another name in a long list of lawyers. Be a leader rather than a follower. Be a catalyst for change rather than a reactionary. The true value of your education is not measured by how much you know about the law but by how you will use what you know for something meaningful.
Find yourself. Live your dreams.
Understand your potential.
Understand your potential.
And once you have found the wisdom to comprehend your power and the courage to accept your duty, give this country a tomorrow more than it deserves.
It is your inevitable path not only because you are Filipinos, not only because you are lawyers, but also because you are graduates of the UP College of Law.
Thank you very much.
The University of the Philippines conferred upon Senate President Franklin M. Drilon the degree of Doctor of Laws honoris causa, for his exemplary service in the legal profession, legislative work and public service.
The Senate President dedicated his degree to his father Cesar, Sr, who would have been 94 by the time of the conferment.
For the news feature on Drilon’s acceptance of the degree, please click this link: http://www.up.edu.ph/drilon-lawyers-should-be-problem-solvers-rather-than-gladiators/
x x x."
