Brian Kelvin V.

Pineda October 29, 2018

Legal Profession – Atty. Tanya Lat 1A

Court Visit Experience: “Justice Delayed, Justice Denied”

My first court visit was not the experience I expected. My group, along with 2 other
groups, had the opportunity to secure an afternoon slot at the Makati Trial Court. At first
glance, the building looked aesthetically pleasing and quite modernized. However,
experiencing what is inside the building leaves you the impression that it might be paradoxical
considering that everything seemed so rowdy and busy, and the elevators were not
cooperating (it takes you 15 minutes to get to a floor). This alone gives you a first impression
of the kind of service our government offers. Also, it made me ponder the proportionality of
the number of employees who works for the city hall vis-à-vis the number of people who avail
the services. This left me questioning the level of efficiency immediately considering that the
government is infamously stereotyped as “inefficient”.
Upon reaching the trial court room, I felt quite surprised (and disappointed) by how
small the space is. It certainly is not like the movies. We had the opportunity to witness the
battle of wits between PAO Attorneys and the wisdom of the presiding judge, Judge Maria
Concepcion Billones. 4 cases were held during the course of the session. Before the start of
the session, I was too distracted by the conversation between a woman and a man. The
woman had such an intimidating demeanor and a demanding tone, almost offensive and
condescending when she was talking to the man. She kept on criticizing the man for not being
able to secure the necessary forms required for the legal procedure. I was not sure whether
she was just having a bad day or it is just her personality but I felt sympathetic towards the
man. Later on, we found out that she was the Fiscal. Two questions arose in my head. 1) Does
she really have to treat that man in a condescending manner? Is this some kind of a sense of
entitlement because she thinks these people need her more than she needs them? 2) How
does she expect people to know everything about the complex legal world much more the
legal procedure?
The session commenced and the first case involved a crime of Estafa. The main
respondent was a man from Cameroon who was here to study Engineering. Further research
would then tell me that this is a case regarding a “Fake Dollar” scam. The same Fiscal cross
examined the man and my impression did not change because she was still intimidating.
However, I noticed that the man had difficulty communicating due to language barrier so it
left me thinking whether this fact could be taken against him given that his responses might
not accurately reflect his thoughts. I am not too certain if he understands the questions
properly as well and if he indeed misunderstands, then certainly, his answer would be
different from that which he intended. I had hoped that the man was given a better
opportunity to express himself through an interpreter even if he is not a Filipino national
because it will say so much about our justice system and the efficiency of our due process.
The 2nd and 3rd cases were just a presentation of evidence and so they held the cases
in passing. If I remember accurately, the process only took 5 minutes. However, what gave
me a strong impression is the fact that one of the cases was about qualified theft. The
offender (not in the courtroom) apparently stole two bottles of Cetaphil which amounted to
around Php 900.00. I felt bad because not because of the crime but because of the situation
and the state that provoke people to commit crime. My groupmate even remarked “kawawa
naman yun, 900 na nga lang hindi pa umabot ng 1000”. Afterwards, I found out that the man
the Fiscal was talking to is the new witness in this case. When she presented him to the Judge,
her way of communication and demeanor suddenly changed. Her manner of talking to the
same man even after the case was reassuring as she sounded more sympathetic and relaxed.
I was not sure though if she changed her manner just because she had to look professional
and respectful in front of the judge. Later on, the Judge and the Attorney negotiated regarding
the schedule of the next trial. Judge Billones claimed that she was fully booked and so her
next free date is mid of February. I was shocked. I do not blame the Judge nor the Lawyer but
I could not help but feel sympathetic towards the offender notwithstanding the fact that he
still committed a crime just because of the slow progress of our justice system. It would take
4 months just to continue with the next step and who knows what could happen to him during
the duration of the interval.
The last case involved another crime of qualified theft. This time, the witness was on
stand being asked questions. I noticed that the Attorney was asking the questions in English
while the witness was answering in Filipino. There were moments when another employee
was already intervening by translating the question. I am not certain if the procedure entails
that the questions be asked in English but I remembered one lesson in class that our justice
system is crafted in a foreign language. What I have experienced proved that indeed, our
justice system can be selective given that the manner it is served may not be as efficient when
it does not cater to the needs of the very people whose sake is the purpose of justice.
My experience was not a toss-up between pleasant and appalling. It was, however,
eye opening at the very least. I am aware of the fact that people aspire to become lawyers
for different reasons. Other people want to use it as a platform of advocacies, others for its
lucrative nature and maybe others to pursue a higher ambition. However, it would be difficult
NOT TO BE MOVED and shaken by the realities facing our desired profession; the very slow
progress, the inefficiency of the due process and even the manner of the lawyers, how they
approach their clients. It is of my opinion that regardless if the client was paying millions or
just vegetables, the lawyers should always show that he or she can be trusted by the client so
that the client can be confident. This confidence is not just to the lawyers but also to the
justice system. More than the clients, the lawyers represent the law, OUR LAW, and this
should always be upheld.
Judge Billiones, towards the end of the session, had a casual chitchat with us students.
One of the stories she narrated was about the doubt she faced when she started as a lawyer
for PAO. She said that more then 90% of the clients of PAO, more or less, are guilty of the
crime they have been charged with. She asked herself whether her profession is right given
that she is defending criminals. However, she later realized that criminals are humans too and
they have human rights. They have the right to due process and what lawyers like Judge
Billones do is try to give them a chance in life by pursuing a lower sentence for them. At the
end of the day, they are still human beings and they deserve a proper treatment like
everybody else. My experience rekindled the very purpose why I took law. It is but these
subtle realities that slap you the hardest. How can I stand idly and complain about the
difficulties of studying law when other people wait for justice, wait for hope, wait for nothing.
They wait until waiting is no longer. People depend on the law to give them justice, equity,
freedom and life but how could this be possible when the very system accountable and
responsible is flawed? I have always believed in human dignity, a dignity that is inherent,
inviolable and humane. In dignity, there is no distinction between the pope or the criminal.
However, social class and status defines the severity of the curtailment of this dignity. Lawyers
have the utmost capacity to change this. Lawyers can? Nope. Lawyers SHOULD.