IN recent weeks, the touchy issue of releasing inmates from penitentiaries under the GCTA (good conduct time allowance) law (RA 10592) has created a maelstrom. Overnight, agencies and individuals involved in the chaos suddenly become legal experts and criticized each other’s arguments and positions.
Tragically, many substantive questions that have shrouded the interpretation of our laws have been left to rot on the wayside, creating an impression that the guardians of our legal system prefer the kleig lights of publicity instead of ironing out the kinks.
Sadder still, the congressional hearings called supposedly to get to the bottom of the problem and “in aid of legislation” have further muddled the chaotic scenario. The legislators competed with each other in trying to focus the limelight on themselves, at times unsure whether the details they have gathered in the public hearings will amount to something positive.
The complications in our laws, which only the Supreme Court has the authority to untangle and clearly interpret, do not simply lie in the haste with which our statutes have been crafted by Congress. In fact, the central issue why laws are difficult to fathom is the failure of the legislature to adopt easily understandable statutory construction and language.
Given this complexity that merely obscures the true intent of a law, the preparation of their implementing rules and regulations (IRR) often results in further ambiguity. This is precisely the case of RA 10592, which the justice secretary described in the congressional hearing.
The convoluted legalese or language used in the construction of our laws does not allow ordinary civilians, even those with a train of non-legal degrees attached to their names, to easily understand the laws that affect our social life.
While we concede there are principles involved in applying statutes, simplifying the construction of laws will allow people to appreciate them with common sense without going through the convoluted remedy of asking the courts to interpret them for us, which usually takes a long time.
Laws are supposedly for public consumption, not for the exclusive knowledge of lawyers. They should be framed in a manner that we can easily understand, but there is apparent resistance towards this end despite previous efforts by some lawyers toward this end. Unless we revive this initiative, laws will remain the exclusive domain of clever lawyers who often distort their meanings.
