“Kung makukulong ako, ikaw na ang bahala sa’kin, ha?”
Every law student or lawyer has heard this line or a similar one, and if we got paid each time we heard this, maybe we wouldn’t have to practice law anymore! Still, it’s always funny to hear.
But what often follows this joke is a real legal question asked a while after, and these questions expose the gaps in our laws because most of the time, they could have been resolved if only the laws were easier to understand. There are many perspectives and ideas on how our laws can be improved, but it really boils down to one factor if we were to talk about practical fairness and genuine public service: Accessibility.
Laws, especially the old ones, like to gatekeep—it’s as if lawmakers wanted the words deep, the sentences long, and the writing style difficult to understand, so that the few people who understood them looked smarter. Thus, many laws are full of outdated words, foreign phrases, and shockingly long sentences that really could have been broken down more. Thankfully, there are some private institutions and even government bodies like the Philippine Competition Commission and the National Privacy Commission which create simple, attractive, and effective primers and materials to introduce important laws. Laws are not meant to be pretty anyway; they are meant to be understood. Still, there are many laws not covered by these simple primers, and these laws are usually the essential “social legislations” that are far from being easy for their protected sector to understand.
Laws are also difficult to find. Sure, we can always look up laws by Googling Republic-Act-something, but this presupposes two things: first, that whoever is doing the Google search memorizes the number or title of the law, and second, that the law being looked up is complete and in effect. Laws are constantly amended, and sometimes provisions are voided by the Supreme Court. These don’t show up on quick Google searches of laws. “Yeah, well, that’s where lawyers come in,” one may argue. However, not everyone has access to a lawyer, especially when there’s no lawsuit involved just yet. It then becomes a class issue, and this is how the abusive rich win: they can afford more lawyers to intimidate their less financially able targets, then it rains unfair waivers and quitclaims. Laws aren’t weapons to intimidate; they’re supposed to be shields to prevent abuses.
This is not to say that the formal study of law should be abolished because all laws should be simple anyway. Lawyers will still be consulted either way, and the field will not die. This just means that laws should be accessible enough so that the average person can at least be properly informed of his basic rights and obligations without having to pay a lawyer. This helps avoid abuses and innocent procedural mistakes that can destroy lives.
Social media is such a powerful platform. We can’t just sit back, watch, or even laugh at non-lawyers who innocently misunderstand essential laws. Plus, with controversial constitutional questions in issue, it would be a huge help to guide and inform others about the implications of certain amendments and potential violations of the constitution.
Maybe we can’t change the way the laws are written, but we can help in making them easier to access. Many lawyers and experts have huge budgets, platforms, and followings. It wouldn’t hurt to simplify or maybe even translate in local dialects essential legal concepts and procedures—for free. Wouldn’t it be better to have legal experts explain the law? If legal experts won’t do it, someone else will, and that could get dangerous.
There’s a saying that goes, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Who’s to say this doesn’t apply to the study of law? We can’t just talk about how ignorance of the law is never an excuse, yet refuse to take action to ensure that people are not ignorant of the law in the first place. Where’s the public service in that?
For feedback, send an e-mail to lyca.balita@gmail.com