Chapter 4

Twin Beacons for the Judiciary*

 

          Upon assuming the chief justiceship of the Philippines on December 21, 2005, I immediately vowed to lead a judiciary characterized by four Ins:  independence, integrity, industry and intelligence; one that would be morally courageous to stand its ground against the onslaughts of influence, interference, indifference and insolence; and that is impervious to the plague of “ships” -- kinship, relationship, friendship and fellowship.

 

Jurisdiction Over

Judges and Lawyers

 

The Supreme Court is mandated to watch over not only the entire judiciary, but also the Philippine bar -- the vineyard from which our judges take root. Accordingly, I look for legal professionals who courageously uphold truth and justice above everything else, above even their own and their clients’ interests and causes.  The renaissance of the legal profession should see the emergence of competent and ethical lawyers who would be willing and able to stand for their convictions against all odds; to carry on in spite of seemingly insurmountable opposition; and to be beacons for the weak, the oppressed and the marginalized. 

 

          At the same time, I also pledged to continue and revitalize the Supreme Court’s ongoing Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), with special focus on what I call the four ACID problems that corrode justice in our country; namely, (1) limited access to justice by the poor; (2) corruption; (3) incompetence; and (4) delay in the delivery of quality judgments.

 

          Internally, to the 26,000 judicial employees nationwide, I laid down a firm policy of granting maximum financial and fringe benefits allowed by law and within my discretion to give as the overall head of the Judicial Department of our government.  In turn, I asked the employees for three things encapsulated by the code dhl: dedication to duty, honesty in every way, and full loyalty to the judiciary and to the Supreme Court.

 

Philosophical Foundations

of Liberty and Prosperity

 

          To my mind, what have been outlined so far are just means to an end.  This is because I believe that we must aspire to attain two loftier end goals:  (1) safeguarding the liberty and (2) nurturing the prosperity of our people.  These twin beacons of LIBERTY and PROSPERITY constitute my core judicial philosophy.

 

          The problem with a proposition such as this is that it lends itself to debate along areas that are often unintended.  For instance, the first time this philosophy was broached before constitutionalists, I was deluged with questions on which should take precedence -- liberty or prosperity -- as though the two goals were mutually exclusive; hence, as if one had to choose one or the other.  At another time, I was speaking before businessmen.  Predictably, they were wont to place prosperity on a higher pedestal than liberty.    I have also had initial discussions with academics, whose skills in dissecting issues and events have led me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the philosophy was too complex and intriguing to be capable of being laid on solid jurisprudential grounds. 

 

          I have mentioned these differing views from diverse audiences, if only to acknowledge three streams of thought that surfaced. There were discussions on whether or not courts do, can and should contribute not just to safeguard liberty, but also to nurture prosperity.  For want of better terms, the first scheme that expresses the relation between liberty and prosperity I shall call “disjunctive”; the second, “causal”; and the third, “mutually inclusive.” 

 

          The disjunctive scheme would have us embrace the view that for prosperity to be achieved, the people’s freedom must be curtailed in some respects.  This position is not new at all.  Shades of this standpoint are strikingly extant in social-contract theories.  These theories postulate the surrender of individual freedoms and liberties to the State or the collectivity, as a precondition for the protection and prosperity promised by life in an ordered society. We in the Philippines, for example, have been advised -- no doubt by well-meaning friends -- not to take our liberty “too seriously,” if we want to see the economy take off.

 

          On the other hand, the second position sees a causal relationship between liberty and prosperity; it sees that fostering liberty is a precondition for the advent of prosperity.  The fundamental idea is that persons are entitled to have certain wants satisfied and certain existing needs filled by the government, without any direct charge other than their payment of general taxes.

 

          The third position, with which my philosophy is aligned, regards liberty and prosperity as mutually inclusive.  It advances the view that liberty must include the freedoms that prosperity allows.  In the same manner, prosperity must include liberty, especially the liberty to strive for the “good life” according to a person’s conception.  Liberty becomes the guarantee that, free from all undue interference and suppression, we all can conceive of the good life and act according to those conceptions!  I venture the proposition that a society marked by such liberty is prosperous.

 

Liberty and Prosperity,

Not Liberty or Prosperity

 

    By situating this belief in our courts, I have taken it a notch higher.  I believe that the judiciary can contribute to the advancement of liberty and prosperity by adopting two standards of judicial review, as follows:

              

                1.  In litigations involving civil liberties, the scales should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the people -- particularly the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed, and the weak.   Laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights, like freedom of expression and of the press, come to courts with a heavy presumption against their validity.  This policy is commonly referred to as “heightened” or “strict” scrutiny.

 

          2.  In conflicts affecting prosperity, development and the economy, deference must be accorded to the political branches of the government.  This approach is more widely known as “deferential” interpretation of laws and executive actions.

 

Let me stress that the above standards do not intend a separatist or disjunctive approach like that which recognizes liberty or prosperity, or which requires a choice of one or the other only.  Rather, this position espouses a fundamentally coexistent scheme, in which liberty and prosperity can live and blossom side by side, hand in hand.  

 

In short, it is not liberty or prosperity but liberty and prosperity.

 

Let me explain further.

 

Safeguarding Liberty

 

Safeguarding liberty has long been a traditional expectation from our courts. Their role is to be the great equalizers when individual freedoms -- whether civil, political or economic[1] -- are buffeted by the awesome powers of the State and governmental institutions.  These epic constitutional struggles between the government and its citizens are written in the annals of our nation’s history, there to be invoked over and over, as often as challenges to individual liberty persist to this day. 

 

         

Indeed, an individual becomes a majority of one when courts uphold that person’s freedom, which may have been transgressed by an unconstitutional law passed by the people’s representatives and approved by a President elected by a majority of the voters.

 

From the Magna Carta of the British to the Declaration of Independence of the Americans, to the struggle for nationhood of the Filipinos as codified in the Malolos Constitution, history rings for the people’s right to participate in the political processes, including the freedom to vote and be voted for; as well as the freedoms of expression, of assembly and of religion.

 

A never-ending saga of trials and triumphs for the judiciary and for our people is the battle for civil liberties, especially the inviolability of our persons and our homes from arbitrary searches and seizures, those guaranteeing our freedoms of abode and travel, and the so-called Miranda rights of persons accused of crimes.

 

Emergence of New Rights

 

As technology advances and civilization prospers, new rights emerge.  An example of a new freedom that has arisen from a new technology is the right to conduct public opinion polls and to publish their results.  I am pleased to inform you that our Supreme Court has become a world leader in upholding this new norm as an essential part of the traditional freedom of speech and expression.

 

In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections,[2] a Decision I had the honor of writing in the year 2000, the Court emphatically explained that, “when faced with borderline situations in which the freedom of a candidate or a party to speak and the freedom of the electorate to know is invoked against actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections, this Court shall lean in favor of freedom.”[3] This new ruling recognizing public opinion polls as a species of the freedom of expression was echoed one year later in Social Weather Stations v. Comelec,[4] and was thus ensconced as a judicial doctrine. 

 

Rights of the Accused

 

Indeed, our Supreme Court is ever vigilant in safeguarding new rights. Just recently, it condemned the “[v]exatious, oppressive, unjustified and capricious delays in the arraignment” of the accused.  The Court ruled that his detention for almost two years without having been arraigned, despite 14 attempts to do so, violated his constitutional right to speedy trial and speedy case disposition.[5]  This Decision, which I penned, stressed that the Court “safeguards liberty and will therefore always uphold the basic constitutional rights of the people, especially the weak and the marginalized.”  For the transgression of his constitutional right to speedy trial, the accused was ordered freed and the criminal indictment against him dismissed.

 

Right to Life and to Liberty

 

Thus, the Philippine Supreme Court has invariably looked, with heightened scrutiny, at cases evincing restrictions of fundamental rights. As mentioned earlier, any law restricting these rights comes to the courts with a “heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”[6] 

 

Very recently, our Supreme Court promulgated three landmark decisions involving (1) the right of Congress to summon executive officials for investigations in aid of legislation, in conjunction with the people’s right to information on matters of public concern;[7] (2) the right of the people to peaceful assembly for redress of grievances;[8] and (2) the rights of the people under a “state of national emergency.”[9]  In all these cases, the Supreme Court upheld the primacy of civil liberties over governmental actions.

 

The struggle for civil liberties by other countries like the United States, France, Spain and the United Kingdom are, of course, just as long and difficult. The freedoms that they have won with so much sacrifice and suffering have become the bedrock of their democratic system and economic progress.  Indeed, they have become so inextricably linked with each other that it seems unthinkable to conceive of liberty without prosperity, or prosperity without liberty.

 

Nurturing Prosperity

 

While safeguarding liberty is a fairly common task for the judiciary, nurturing prosperity is something even seasoned jurists and lawyers may not all readily understand and agree with.   Some jurisdictions may even disagree with the position that the judiciary should exert conscious thought and effort to nurture progress.  Nonetheless, I maintain that whatever the measure of a country’s economic progress, courts contribute to the achievement or nurturance of prosperity.

 

 

Recent events impel me to advocate a necessary -- nay, indispensable -- nexus between political liberty and economic prosperity.  Some of these developments are as follows:

 

Constitutional Mandate

to Distribute Income and Wealth

 

First. Our 1987 Constitution[10] commands the State to “promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty x x x.”

 

Equally significant is Article XII, which is devoted in its entirety to “National Economy and Patrimony,” the goals of which are set forth without equivocation: “a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.”[11]  We can truly say that in our country, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous “freedom from want”[12] has been constitutionalized.  What we need is a responsive government to implement it and a prudent judiciary to enforce it.

 

That these provisions are not self-executory does not in any way diminish their legal significance.  They nevertheless direct the legislature and provide the courts with a juridical context within which to interpret other constitutional provisions and laws. 

 

It is also clear that the Constitution does not contemplate palliatives as the solution to our economic woes.  Donations and dole-outs, while welcome, cannot constitute the promise of prosperity that the fundamental law holds out.  What the spirit and the letter of the Constitution demand is the institutionalization of social justice.  Thus, the Constitution expressly ordains as follows:

 

“The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. 

 

“To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property and its increments.”[13]

 

But the Constitution does not end by merely directing that priority be given to social justice.  It further decrees that “the promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.”[14]  In so doing, it subscribes to the classical thought that social justice is a matter of distributive justice; that is, all social groups participate equitably in the resources, the patrimony and the progress of the nation.  Hence, the systematic and systemic exclusion of any social group from the blessings of prosperity constitutes social injustice. 

 

It is well to note that from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, two solemn agreements emerged: (1) the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (2) the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Commentators on international law are wont to distinguish the two in terms of the executory character of civil and political rights as against the ideal or developmental character of economic and social rights. 

 

In the Philippines, the same distinction has been applied by some authorities to the rights enumerated in Article III of the Constitution in relation to the economic and social rights found elsewhere in the Charter.  Largely self-executory, civil and political liberties -- particularly those enshrined in Article III of the Constitution -- can normally be applied by the courts without difficulty.   As a rule, however, the courts have applied and given effect to rights pertaining to social justice and economic prosperity only within the context of appropriate or enabling legislation or of policy determinations made by the executive department as directed by the Constitution.  

 

By no means am I suggesting that economic rights are inferior to civil and political rights.  My point is that civil and political rights not only presuppose economic means and well-being, but also include political and economic freedom in equal measure.  The distinction thus provides the judiciary with policy guidance.  It is one basis for my dual approach in respect of liberty and prosperity. 

 

Moreover, availability and access to information, which have traditionally been regarded as matters of liberty, have by now acquired economic value as commodities of power.   Thus, it has been theorized that (1) the government’s withholding of information, knowledge and data constitutes an infringement of a basic liberty; and that (2) prosperity is a matter of processing, acquiring, storing and using such information, knowledge and data.

 

As mentioned earlier, the right to conduct public opinion polls and to publish their results has also been debated fairly recently.  On this issue, our Supreme Court upheld this relatively new right as an essential part of the traditional freedom of speech and expression.

 

Lasting Solutions

to Economic Deprivation

 

Second.  Some of the most learned minds in the world today have called attention to the abysmal gap between the haves and the have-nots.  Thus, they propose ingenious solutions to economic deprivation and want.  In his new book, The End of Poverty,[15] Jeffrey D. Sachs holds that freedom and equality are meaningless to people who wallow in grinding poverty, debilitating disease and inexplicable hunger. 

 

He argues that the United States spent $450 billion in 2005 to sustain its military superiority, but would “never buy peace if it continues to spend only around one thirtieth of that [sum], just $15 billion, to address the plight of the world’s poorest of the poor, whose societies are destabilized by extreme poverty and thereby become havens of unrest, violence, and even global terrorism.”[16]

 

With the same fervor, Time magazine’s “Persons of the Year” for 2005 -- the world’s richest multi-billionaire couple, Bill and Melinda Gates; and rock star Bono -- have come down from their fabulous nests of luxurious living to save 700,000 lives through vaccinations and public health care.

 

“The Gateses, having built the world’s biggest charity with a $29 billion endowment [an amount equal to what the World Health Organization disburses], spent the year [2005] giving more money away faster than anyone ever has, including nearly half a billion dollars for the Grand Challenges, in which they asked the very best brains in the world how they would solve a huge problem, like inventing a vaccine that needs no needles and no refrigeration, if they had the money to do it.”[17]  It seems to me that Bill Gates now devotes more of his time and genius to prudently spending his fortune than to feverishly earning it.[18]

 

In turn, Bono, reports Time, “charmed and bullied and morally blackmailed the leaders of the world’s richest countries into forgiving $40 billion in debt owed by the poorest.  Now these countries can spend the money on health and schools rather than interest payments, and have no more excuse for not doing so.”[19]

 

The Gateses’ and Bono’s redefinition of generosity “is not about pity.  It is more about passion. Pity sees the suffering and wants to ease the pain; passion sees injustice and wants to settle the score.  Pity implores the powerful to pay attention; passion warns about what will happen if they don’t.  The risk of pity is that it kills with kindness; the promise of passion is that it builds on the hope that the poor are fully capable of helping themselves if given the chance.”[20]

 

          The Gateses’ passion for philanthropy in alleviating the world’s poverty and diseases drew a mind-boggling $30 billion worth of stocks in blue-chip Berkshire Hathaway, given by investment guru Warren Buffett.[21]

 

Alleviation of Poverty

Requires a Stable Judiciary

 

Third.  The world’s most important developmental institutions, like the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the World Bank (WB) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) have learned over the years that their goals of  alleviating poverty and propelling economic growth cannot be attained, unless there is “a well-functioning judicial system [that] enables the State to regulate the economy and empower private individuals to contribute to economic development by confidently engaging in business, investments and other transactions.”

 

This stance explains why the UNDP is passionate about broadening the poor’s access to justice; why the WB wants “an effective and efficient judicial system that protects citizens from the abuses of government and safeguards the rights of the poor”;[22] and why the ADB desires “to enhance the effectiveness and the accountability of the judiciary.”[23]

 

Social Responsibility

of Philippine Business

 

Fourth.  In our country, the imperatives of social responsibility in the systematic dispersal of private wealth to alleviate poverty has been pioneered by the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP). Member-companies of PBSP contribute a fixed percentage of their net incomes to a common fund to pursue humanitarian causes. 

 

Along the same line, the big business conglomerates -- like Ayala, Metrobank, YGC, and those of Taipans Henry Sy, Lucio Tan, John Gokongwei,[24] and Emilio Yap -- have formed their own philanthropic foundations to pursue educational, livelihood, and other social causes designed to minimize poverty and to help the people help themselves.  As I speak, I know that more conglomerates are likewise realizing the need to spend their wealth prudently.[25]  I daresay to you, ladies and gentlemen of big business, that the only justification for accumulating enormous wealth is the zeal and the ability to distribute it wisely to the needy and the hungry.

 

These four developments among the many others  convince me that political liberty, the clarion call of the past, must continuously be safeguarded in the present and in the future, if we must be true to Wendell Phillips’ reminder that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”[26]  However, I am equally persuaded that the prosperity of our people requires as much nurturing in the present century as that accorded to liberty in the past.  To be relevant, courts must be constantly attuned to the needs of the present and the vagaries of the future, so that they can respond timely and prudently to the people’s ever-expanding well-being.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, how we cope with the stark realities of poverty -- the antithesis of prosperity -- has become the litmus test for the mandate of the courts to weigh the scales of justice in favor of the downtrodden and the neglected.[27]   Amid the paradigm shift in the role of the courts in economic development are welcome moves to redefine poverty as a “deprivation of essential assets and opportunities to which every human is entitled.”[28]  Under this new definition, the right to prosperity is elevated to the level of a universal human right.  Hence, it definitely needs attention, cultivation and protection by the courts and by everyone. 

 

Courts and Progress

 

Perhaps, it is because of my background in both law and business that I have developed a philosophy of combining law and economics as the enduring bases of an egalitarian society.  Indeed, the fortunate combination of these two disciplines has instilled my advocacy of justice and jobs, freedom and food, integrity and investments, ethics and economics, democracy and development; in short, liberty and prosperity.

 

Of course, recognizing that courts play a role in pushing progress forward is not enough.  Equally essential is knowing how that role should be played, if courts are truly to contribute to economic growth. 

 

I believe that as a rule courts should not pass upon the merits or wisdom of economic policies, for these matters have been left by the people to the President and Congress to evaluate and decide.[29]  An example of this deference to economic policies is heralded in Tañada v. Angara,[30] a Decision I had the honor to write for the Court.  In upholding the Senate’s consent to the Philippines’ ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, the High Court ruled as follows:

 

“It is not impossible to surmise that this Court, or at least some of its members, may even agree with petitioners that it is more advantageous to the national interest to strike down Senate Resolution No. 97 [which embodied the Upper House’s consent to the ratification of the WTO Treaty].  But that is not a legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion to the Senate and to nullify its decision.  To do so would constitute grave abuse in the exercise of our own judicial power and duty.  Ineludably, what the Senate did was a valid exercise of its authority.  As to whether such exercise was wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review.  That is a matter between the elected policy makers and the people.  As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in electing their policy makers. Let the people, through their duly elected officials, make their free choice.”

 

 

A recent reiteration of this laissez-faire judicial policy on economic issues is La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos,[31] which I also wrote.  In affirming the constitutionality of the Mining Law allowing 100-percent foreign investments in large-scale mining, the Court held thus:

 

“x x x. The Constitution should be read in broad, life-giving strokes.  It should not be used to strangulate economic growth or to serve narrow, parochial interest.  Rather, it should be construed to grant the President and Congress sufficient discretion and reasonable leeway to enable them to attract foreign investments and expertise, as well as to secure for our people and our posterity the blessings of prosperity and peace.”

 

La Bugal’s doctrinal pronouncements were very recently reiterated this year in Didipio Earth Savers Multi-Purpose Association v. Gozun.[32]

 

Issue of Justiciability

 

Am I saying that economic and business questions are not to be reviewed by our courts for being political or non-justiciable?  No, it is not my intention in the least to advocate abandonment of this salutary doctrine of justiciability.  I submit, though, that only on the clearest of grounds must judicial review result in a reversal of legislative or executive action in commercial and business matters.  Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the political branches of government. 

 

Although separation of powers is definitely also at work, it is more than separation of powers that supports my proposition.  Insofar as rights guaranteeing civil and political liberties are phrased as executory, they are susceptible of direct application by the courts.  But basically, economic, industrial and business policies are considerations of what is beneficial, advantageous, feasible and practicable. As such, they are policy considerations best left to politicians and economic managers. [33]

 

One of the esteemed former members of the Court espouses a view similar to mine.  Amidst the dilemma posed by the constitutional “obligation” of judicial review and the counter-majoritarian objections to it, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza proposes a “double standard” of review:  stringency in laws affecting civil liberty, on the one hand; and, on the other, benignity and deference in regard to laws on economic and social ventures or experiments.[34]   This double standard of review runs along the same lines as my own judicial philosophy of Liberty and Prosperity.

 

Grave Abuse of Discretion

 

This judicial no-interference rule on economic policy does not mean, though, that the courts will abdicate their duty of striking down (1) gravely abusive legislative or executive acts that clearly violate the Constitution, the laws, or settled jurisprudence;[35] or (2) those that have been issued with arbitrariness, whim, caprice, bias or personal hostility.[36] 

 

          Consistent with this exception to the no-interference rule, the Supreme Court has nullified contracts entered into by the government, like those for the reclamation of portions of Manila Bay,[37] the construction and operation of the new Manila International Airport Terminal,[38] and the automation of the 2004 national elections.[39] 

 

The courts have been chided for what businessmen and economists claim to be unwanted incursions upon the spheres of trade and investments.  What these commentaries suggest is that economists and entrepreneurs insist on playing by their very own rules without interference from anyone, let alone the courts. But even the ways of the market and of merchants must adhere to society’s rules on fairness, equity and reasonability. In short, it is the function of law and of the courts to put these fundamental convictions in legal form and to make them direct economics.  Not liberty or prosperity, then, but liberty and prosperity.

 

The fact is that the courts are the guardians not merely of civil and political liberties. They are protectors also of economic rights, including freedom from unwarranted impositions, from anomalous and disadvantageous arrangements, and from unconscionable contracts.  These critics also disregard the fact that, under our Constitution, the courts have the duty not merely to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights, but also to strike down contracts that violate our Constitution and laws or have otherwise been entered into “with grave abuse of discretion.” 

 

While on this subject, may I point out that the foregoing voided contracts were entered into by the government in contravention of law.  I should emphasize that the judiciary takes a more liberal view of private agreements, in which the subject matter is a strictly commercial transaction.  In these agreements, “neither the law nor the courts will extricate a party from an unwise or undesirable contract he or she entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of its consequences.”[40]

 

 

Search for a Model

for Economic Development

 

 

On January 16, 2006, I had an interesting round-table discussion with Professor William Easterly, who had recently published a much-acclaimed book entitled Elusive Quest for Growth.[41]  Among the discussants were Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, former Prime Minister Cesar Virata, former National Economic and Development Authority Director-General Felipe Medalla, Senator (and Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair) Ralph Recto, Banker Vitaliano Nañagas, Economist Romeo Bernardo, business leader Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala II, Professor Alex Magno, IMF Resident Representative Reza Baqir, and World Bank Country Director Joaquim von Amsberg (the dinner host).

 

Professor Easterly opined that most economically advanced countries -- like the United States[42] and many states comprising the European Union -- had adopted liberal democracy, in which human rights were zealously protected.[43]  He added that under these benign regimes, entrepreneurs felt comfortable and thus invested their money for the long term.

 

          When confronted with other models of economic prosperity like China,[44] Singapore,[45] and Chile, Professor Easterly conceded that there was no single formula for rapid economic growth.  He theorized, though, that for the long term, liberty must still stand side by side with prosperity as the durable formula for lasting economic success.

 

          To my mind, the peculiar facts and distinct circumstances of the Philippines make the formula Liberty and Prosperity still the most viable economic and judicial philosophy here.  After all, during the years of Martial Law, authoritarian rule was proven to be incapable of producing meaningful long-term economic progress.  Even more important, our people value their freedoms very dearly and will not exchange them for food.  Indeed, the Filipinos may endure occasional hunger, but they will never tolerate injustice and indignity for long.

 

Closing

 

I have attempted, as best as I could, to (1) demonstrate that just as there is an emerging catharsis over the role of private wealth in alleviating poverty, disease and hunger in the world, there is also an ongoing renewal of the role that courts play in instilling both economic and political justice; and (2) present the twin beacons of my judicial philosophy of Liberty and Prosperity in the context of our history, as well as of existing and emerging realities. 

         

By no means is my philosophy of Liberty and Prosperity meant to be an absolute prescription that other jurisdictions must also espouse. They each have their own history, experience, economics, culture and politics, which should dictate whether this philosophy would be viable in their respective jurisdictions. 

 

Nonetheless, I present liberty and prosperity as a possible framework within which judiciaries may define their missions and visions for the future.