06_Teehankee

"The Dynamics of Law and Justice as Shown in Rivera v. Genesis,

Vinuya v. Romulo, and U.S. v. Ah Chong."

Imagine if many Filipino women—our daughters, wives, and sisters—were

captured by foreigners, tortured, some killed, and most confined in a house

where they were repeatedly raped, tortured, and abused. But despite these

horrors, they have received no justice. Would you fire a man, a father, and

let his family starve because of a missing P196? What about a man who, in a

split-second decision, mistakenly killed his friend under the assumption that

he was a robber? Is it just for the law to set him free, even after taking a life?

These are not mere imaginings but real-life cases that Filipinos have endured

or lived: Vinuya v. Romulo, Rivera v. Genesis, and U.S. v. Ah Chong. In

this essay, I will humbly share my thoughts and opinions on these cases,

examining them in the context of the complex interplay between justice and

the law.

The relationship between what is legally right (the law) and what is morally

right (justice) can be intricate and multifaceted. One case that exemplifies

this intricate relationship is Rivera v. Genesis. Richard Rivera, a dedicated

bus conductor, faced allegations of serious misconduct, fraud, and willful

breach of trust due to a minor discrepancy of P196 in bus ticket receipts—a

relatively small amount. Despite his impeccable record, Rivera was unjustly

terminated. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Rivera's complaint of illegal

dismissal, a decision later affirmed by the National Labor Relations

Commission. This decision angers me deeply. Why would the LA and the

National Labor Relations Commission decide against Rivera when all that
06_Teehankee

has been proven is the existence of a discrepancy, and no proof has been

adduced of ill motive or even of gross negligence? In this case, I question

both the morality and competence of the individuals behind this decision. A

mere P196 discrepancy should not warrant the termination of an employee

with an otherwise clean record. Rivera's case highlights the need for a fair

evaluation of circumstances before making such life-altering decisions.

Misconduct leading to termination should be of a gravity that leaves the

employer with no other recourse. Not every error should result in job loss.

Bus conductors, like Rivera, handle money under unique circumstances that

differ from those of regular cashiers.

Rivera's case ultimately reveals that justice can be delayed but not denied, as

he was rightfully awarded back wages and benefits. I am so glad that Rivera

won in the end, and justice was served. If the decision of the LA and NLRC

was followed, a man could have lost his livelihood due to mere P196, an

amount equal to the price of mere two cups of milktea.

In history, certain cases stand as a testament to the complexities of justice

and the law. One such case that is both frustrating and heart-wrenching is

Vinuya v. Romulo. This case reveals the painful experiences of the comfort

women during World War II, who suffered unimaginable horrors at the

hands of foreign invaders.

Vinuya v. Romulo is a landmark case involving a group of Filipino women

who were subjected to sexual slavery and abuse by the Japanese Imperial

Army during World War II. The plaintiffs, known as "comfort women,"
06_Teehankee

sought acknowledgment, reparations, and an official apology from the

Philippine government for their wartime suffering.

The case began in 2004 when several comfort women, represented by the

Malaya Lolas (Free Grandmothers) organization, filed a petition for a writ of

amparo and habeas data against various government officials, including the

Secretary of Foreign Affairs. They argued that the Philippine government

had failed to protect their rights and provide them with adequate remedies as

victims of human rights violations during the war.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in its landmark decision in 2010,

recognized the right of the comfort women to seek justice and reparations

for the atrocities they endured. However, the Court ruled that the issues

raised in the petition were beyond its jurisdiction and should be addressed

through diplomatic channels.

As a Filipino, I find the Vinuya case deeply frustrating. These women

suffered immensely, and their demand for acknowledgment, reparations, and

an official apology seemed just and reasonable. It is disheartening that the

Court did not take a more assertive stance in delivering justice to these

victims. While the Court acknowledged the comfort women's suffering and

emphasized the importance of recognizing their ordeal, it ultimately deferred

to the executive branch in dealing with foreign relations matters. The

decision disappointed many who had hoped for a stronger stance on justice

for the victims.

At the same time, I understand that the Government' s hands were tied. The

delicate balance between seeking justice and maintaining diplomatic

relations with foreign countries is a challenge that policymakers and judges

must grapple with. We all want justice for the victims, but we cannot risk

another war or international conflict that could harm countless innocent

lives. The Vinuya case emphasizes the importance of keeping peace for the

people of today and the future, even at the expense of having to endure the

fact that we can never achieve complete justice for the past.

The Vinuya case serves as a poignant example of the intricate relationship

between justice and the law. It raises essential questions about the balance

between diplomacy and justice, as well as the moral obligation to

acknowledge historical injustices. The comfort women's ordeal was a grave

injustice that demanded recognition, reparation, and justice, even

posthumously. I can only hope, with all my heart, that one day, whether in

this world or the hereafter, these brave souls will finally find the justice they

so deeply deserve. This case has left an indelible wound on my heart. It feels

as though the tears will never cease to flow until justice is finally served.

In U.S. v. Ah Chong, a man named Ah Chong accidentally killed his friend,

Pascual, under the mistaken belief that Pascual was a robber. His actions

were driven by fear and a desire to protect himself, leading to a tragic

outcome.

I agree with the law's stance in this case. Ah Chong's actions were born out

of fear and self-defense, with no intent to kill. Holding him liable would be
06_Teehankee

unjust and contrary to the principle that an act done without one's consent is

not truly their act. One evidence of his lack of intent to kill Pascual was that

upon realizing it was him, Ah Chong immediately called for help and tried

to stop the bleeding. It would immoral to punish Ah Chong under the law.

Nevertheless, he will continue living his life suffering the death of his friend,

and I think that's a huge pain to bear for the rest of his life. I believe that

people should be criminally liable only for the acts which they have had

complete awareness of, as a general rule.

U.S. v. Ah Chong highlights the importance of considering intent and

circumstances in legal matters. It emphasizes the need for a just legal system

that recognizes self-defense as a valid defense when an individual's life is

genuinely threatened.

In these cases, I have realized that, law and justice sometimes don't align

perfectly. They show that balancing what's legally right with what's morally

right isn't always straightforward.

In Rivera's case, justice eventually prevailed, showing that the law should

protect people, not harm them. It teaches us that small mistakes should not

lead to life-changing consequences, and fairness must guide our pursuit of

justice.

The Vinuya case, however, leaves us feeling that justice remains elusive.

While we yearn for closure and compensation for the victims, we also face

the reality of international politics. We must weigh the cost of seeking

justice against the importance of maintaining peaceful relations with other

countries.

And in the tragic case of Ah Chong, we're reminded that the law

distinguishes between actions driven by fear and those done with intent.

Self-defense prevailed, as it should when someone acts to protect

themselves. However, we can't ignore the profound sorrow and regret that

such a painful accident brings.

These cases reveal that justice isn't always straightforward. It depends on

various factors, including how society views right and wrong, how the law is

interpreted, and the historical context. We must deal with difficult truths,

grapple with moral dilemmas, and strive to find a delicate balance.

In conclusion, the journey to justice isn't always easy. It's often complicated

and can lead to heartbreak. But it's a journey we must undertake as a society

to ensure that the law continues to be a symbol of fairness and hope for

everyone.