fbpx Press "Enter" to skip to content

ROUGH CUTS | When a judge’s fairness is put to a test




By 6:30 a.m. we were already at the vaccination site. Woe unto us. There were so many people who were thinking similarly. They arrived much earlier than we did and they were already forming several long lines in one vacant space fronting the gym. Sad thing about it is that we assumed that the number of people coming that early would not be that many. So, probably it could be the reason why no chairs were provided despite the fact that those scheduled to be given the second shot were all senior citizens, some of them were already hard in walking and wanting in stability to remain standing for long.

     The situation was eventually noticed by organizers after perhaps hearing several complaints voiced out by the senior vaccine would-be recipients. At about 8:00 o’clock several barangay functionaries were already seen carrying chairs and bringing them to the people lining outside.

     Compared to the situation when we got our first dose on May 18, 2021, last Monday’s vaccine administration was a little bit messy. But we understood the situation. Possibly because of the local government’s desire to hasten the attainment of the number of vaccinated people to reach the so-called herd immunity for Davao City, the local vaccine task force decided to lump the first dose vaccine recipients on May 15 and 18 for the second dose administration last Monday. Hence, the number was bloated to as many as a little over 800 people. So, it became a challenge to organizers how to manage the restlessness of the people who had to bear the very humid atmosphere both outside and inside the gymnasium, and later inside the counselling and inoculation rooms.

     On the whole however, it was a very much tolerable experience and satisfying considering that the vaccine was administered for free. Never mind the distances travelled by some of the vaccine seekers and the heat of the sun which later evolved into a nasty rainy noon day.

     Our heartfelt thanks in behalf of those vaccinated from all over the Calinan and nearby areas.


     Can all judges be expected to dispense fair and equitable justice to those engaged in court litigations? Generally, they are perceived to be that kind of person. In fact that is supposed to be the primary reason why they are appointed to such lofty position in government; not connections But we cannot be restrained from letting out our observation that judges are humans too; and chances of their being  led to commit mistakes in their course of action, whether deliberate or inadvertence, can happen.

     Now we are personally putting this perception to its acid test. We are closely keeping watch with the development of an evolving case which we personally believe should have been resolved by and between the litigants themselves in a more civilized and discreet manner if they believe in the sanctity of one particular institution.

     From what we know based on documents we have seen, there are indications that personal bias of a judge in the court sala where the case is lodged, is noticeable that all the action tilts to the favor of one of the litigants, the complainant specifically. We do not know if relations (not necessarily sanguine) could have played a role on this matter.  For example when the petition was submitted to the court for the issuance of this or that action, the judge was immediate in having the issuance of the notice of the filing of the petition to the respondent. This one is of course a move which is clearly in order and worth appreciation. What is not appreciable is the lead time with which the court has given the respondent to file an answer considering the pandemic restrictions in movement of people. The respondent was given barely five days to answer with the count starting upon receipt of the order. Wow, that was hasty.

     However, when it was the Respondent who filed a motion for a court authority to undertake certain action, it took the judge days to issue the same and even took more time to issue a certified true copy of its ruling on the respondent’s motion.

     Then again, when the complainant asked the court for another order for the respondent to comply, the judge seemingly granted it without too much reviewing its implication. The day after the motion of the complainant the desired order was already issued. Still another motion by the complainant was also granted with haste with the respondent given only 48 hours to comply. The same order in fact could even lead to a violation by respondent of an earlier court order.

     Why and how the judge could have arrived at such seemingly biased action in favor of one party is something worth the public’s discerning imagination.

     This case is indeed worth watching and its development worth chronicling for others to learn some worthwhile lessons in life.



Share this post:

Powered By ICTC/DRS
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)