In its Jan. 11 issue, the Inquirer reported that, based on their 2012 statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, almost all our lawmakers are well off. Of our 282 legislators, 217 are worth P10 million or more each, and only seven have less than P1 million each. The lowest net worth among the senators is P4 million; the rest have much, much more.
This, of course, does not mean that while almost all of them are well-to-do, they are unconcerned with the obviously increasing disparity between the many of us who have very much less and the few who have very much more. We continue to hope that for the nation’s stability, their self-interest would not prevent our legislators to give flesh to our vaunted policy of “inclusive growth”—now. This, in the face of the self-rated poor who now constitute 55 percent of our population, up from 50 percent. Survey upon survey confirms that at least 30 percent of Filipinos are poor. We all know that a situation like this cannot go on for long. Government should endeavor to bring this figure down.
The same holds true with our high executive officials and members of the judiciary, most of whom live comfortably. They, those in the judiciary especially, should be mindful of what social justice is all about—which is the need to “help reduce … the imbalance pervading our social and economic forces so that justice could at least be approximated.”
President Ramon Magsaysay once said: “Those who have less in life should have more in law.” While that should not be taken too literally, the message is that people in government, especially members of the judiciary, should help make it easier (not difficult) for those who have less “to have access to what is justly due them.”
The late President Manuel Quezon took the concept of social justice seriously. I recall the case of the laborer who drowned in the Pasig River while trying to retrieve pieces of lumber for his employer. His widow had to go to court to seek compensation. The lumber company refused to pay on the grounds that nobody asked the laborer to save the lumber. The judge denied compensation for the poor widow. Upon discovering this, Quezon is said to have told the judge to his face that the latter did not know the law.
Respected lawyer Christian S. Monsod wrote that none of our retired justices appears to be actively lawyering for the poor (Opinion, 1/11/14), implicitly saying they work only for the well-to-do. This is sad because it could be their opportunity to help “balance the equation” for the poor. Besides, that would be their best legacy, not the additional income which they may not have much need of anyway.
Of course, we now have the conditional cash transfer, but many believe that aside from the problem of implementation, it is a dole. Corporations have corporate social responsibility, but its effect has still to be felt by the majority. We also have the “party-list” system to give more voice to the less privileged, but many politicians and the well-to-do have managed to take advantage of this. Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen.
—OSCAR F. SANTOS,
Coconut Industry
Reform Movement,
64 Masikap St.,
Teacher’s Village,
Diliman, Quezon City