I have been reading an exchange of banter between folks I perceive to be supportive of the defense team of Chief Justice (CJ) Corona versus folks I perceive to be supportive of the administration’s means to pin down the CJ. While I find the sniping of each parties against each other somewhat entertaining, I couldn’t help but observe that the arguments may really be simplified into two philosophical camps. I am not a professional philosopher but going back to my Philosophy 101 days, I seem to recognize folks who are more inclined to embrace deontology on one side and teleology on the other side. Let’s try to see the difference on a lighter and friendlier view for now. (i.e. outside of the heated CJ impeachment debate)
Suppose you’re in a small boat with your best friend and you two are in the middle of a lake. By some unfortunate accident your boat capsizes throwing you and your best friend into the frigid water. You are a good swimmer but unfortunately your friend isn’t. You try to swim to the nearest land tugging your friend along with you. When you and your friend reach the shore, you notice that your friend is extremely exhausted and showing signs of hypothermia. With your friend’s dying breath he requests a favor. Your friend tells you:
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
“If I die, I want you to go to the backyard of my house and dig out a bag full of money worth $2 million. I want you to give this money to the manager of the Ginebra San Miguel ball club to give to Michael Jordan as an enticement for him to play for Ginebra”.
Because he is your bestfriend and this is his last wish you agree to do this favor. After a few moments, your friend passes away. You get rescued a few hours later then you go to your friend’s house a few days after your rescue.
Now, as per your friend’s instructions, you dug out a bag in the backyard and sure enough…you find $2 million dollars there! But you know that even if you give this money to the Ginebra San Miguel team, Michael Jordan would still not come out of retirement and play in the PBA; hence, a waste of money. You also know that this $2 million can save the lives of many children with cancer in the hospital where you work (let’s say you work in a hospital) if you purchase a magnetic resonance imaging machine and much more needed hospital equipment. What are you going to do? Okay, let’s just say that these are the only two options and going to Barbados squandering the money is not an option. Anyway, are you going to give this money for Michael Jordan’s enticement or are you going to use it to save the lives of many children with cancer? We are basically dealing with the difference of rightness and goodness here. If you opt to give the money to Ginebra, you are doing the “right†thing because you are (duty) bound by your promise to your bestfriend; besides, the money is not yours to start with anyway, right? But if you choose to use the money for the kids with cancer to save the lives of many children, what you are doing is more like what is “goodâ€.
Okay…here’s the deal. If you answered that you would still give the money to the manager of the Ginebra San Miguel because that’s what your friend wanted, it means that you are probably a “deontologistâ€. What the heck does that mean? That means that you are a person who gives priority to what is right over to what is good. You probably think that the money is not yours to start with anyway and you are (duty) bound by your promise to your friend; for you this is the right thing to do. Anyway, the opposite of deontologists are called “teleologistsâ€. They are the ones who give priority to what is good over to what is right. So if your answer was to give the money to the hospital to save the children with cancer, then you’re a teleologist.
Here’s another interesting thing. This is not a scientifically validated experiment but I just find it interesting. I want you to hold your hands together. Come on…that’s it…just hold them together. You see how your fingers are interlocking? Tell me, which thumb is on top of the other one? Is the left thumb on top of your right thumb or is your right thumb on top of your left thumb?
If you are a right-hand thumb over left-hand thumb person, this suggests that you are a mind-over-heart person. You see, nature played an interesting trick on us. You are familiar with some brain mechanics, right? How the brain is split into 2 hemispheres, the left and the right hemispheres? Basically, there is this cross connection with the body and the mind. Being a right-hand thumb over a left hand thumb person suggests that your left side of the brain is more dominant. The left side of the brain deals with things the way they are-with reality (facts). When left brain people are affected by the environment, they usually adjust to it. Not so with right brain people. They try to change the environment. Left brain people want to know the rules and follow them. In fact, if there are no rules for situations, they will probably make up rules to follow. Anyway having said all these, left brain people would tend to be deontologists. Deontological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. Thus, in order to make the correct moral choices, we simply have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist which regulate those duties. That is where Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative comes in, in essence a standard or criteria is set. Thus, when we follow our moral duty, we are then behaving morally.
Looking at the opposite, for left-hand thumb over right-hand thumb people, this suggests that they are heart-over-mind people. In the right side of the brain, this is where creativity and emotions are processed. Thus, if a person is a left hand thumb-over right hand thumb person, the right side of the brain is more dominant. In such a case, the person probably has a tendency to be emotional and in philosophical terms, most likely a “teleologistâ€. Teleological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus on the consequences which an action might have. Thus, for teleologists, as long as the consequence of an action is favorable or good, then the action can be deemed as morally right. This is demonstrated by how one would support (ethical/situational) relativism or the notion that sometimes “the end can justify the means”.
This is not to say that all of us, whether right hand thumb over left hand thumb (or vice versa) person does not have the characteristics of the other type. The ideal case, of course, would have a balance of the two characteristics. But in most cases, there’s always a dominant trait that comes out.
Going back to teleology and deontology, to simplify the comparison:
Teleology = What you achieve from your action determines the moral status of an action.
Deontology = What you do in your action, the nature of the action itself, determines the moral status.
Now what does all of these philosophical mumbo-jumbo have to do with the sentiments of the people here debating on whether the underhanded tactics of the anti-CJ forces are justified or not? Well, one can argue that the intent and the act to circumvent rules and engage in deceitful means of presenting evidence may be the “good†thing to do if it would result in the removal of the CJ who is perceived as a corrupt protector of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). This seems to be the teleological argument of the pro-administration side. But despite the rationale, I still am not sold to it as I find it absurd to accept an outcome / consequence-based morality hook, line, and sinkers.
Consider this argument I read in some forum a long time ago…
Let’s say your neighbor won’t return the DVD he borrowed from you and you’re very angry. You decide to kill him. You go to the store and purchase a handgun, wait patiently through whatever background checks and waiting period there might be, and take the gun home. You study your neighbor’s schedule and habits for a couple weeks and determine he’s always at home alone watching the TV at 8 p.m. on Tuesday night because the wife has Tuesdays out with the girls. So this Tuesday night you sneak into his house with your new gun, walk into his living room, blast two shots into his chest, and run back home, after grabbing your DVD, of course.
Someone heard the shots and called the cops. The squad comes within minutes and rushes your neighbor to the hospital, where they do some emergency surgery.
Meanwhile dummy, you dropped your wallet on the floor when you pulled your DVD out of his video cabinet, and the cops have you cuffed and in jail before you can blink your eyes. Tough break!
Under the law, you’ll be at the edge of your seat waiting to hear whether your neighbor lives or dies. Your neighbor’s dumb luck will determine your fate. If he dies, you’ll be convicted of murder and likely serve a life term (or maybe even get the death penalty, if the law allows it). If he lives, you won’t be charged with murder, just attempted murder. You’ll get out of prison eventually.
Now you committed the crime, but your penalty may rest on the surgical skills of some other guy. Does that make sense? Why the hell is the penalty different just because the ambulance is prompt and a good surgeon saves this guy? If intention to kill can be proven, shouldn’t the penalty be the same as for murder? Should a murderous but inept person (e.g. poor aim) receive a lighter sentence?
Now, if we are a “Nation of Laws†and there are rules of evidence that must be abided by, why should the evidence presented by the anti-Corona forces be accepted if these were obtained outside of what is permissible by law? Even if all the polls show that the majority of the citizens of the Philippines think that the CJ is guilty and that he is the protector of GMA and therefore must be removed from office, it still does not remove the fact that the manner in which the evidence were gathered and shown are against the rules. Why should the anti-CJ forces’ intent and actions to circumvent the rules be acceptable just because it could result in the removal of the administration’s perceived roadblock to the “straight path� Why bother with rules for everyone if justice is merely defined by the consequences of actions and not by the nature of (and intent for) the action itself?
Calling a spade, a spade…
what impermissible evidence are you talking about? the evidence was presented by the party calling him as his witness — he cannot object to the impermissibility of the evidence he himself sought out.
Hi jcc, I’m assuming that you are limiting the question to what the prosecution team presented. If you will look back at the article, I mentioned “anti-Corona forcesâ€. For me, “anti-Corona forces†aren’t limited to the prosecution team. I am including the folks outside of the Court such as “small ladies, gate fairies, and mailbox tinkerbells†who are trying to present “evidence†to the Senate (through the prosecutors or “good governance NGOsâ€) that were obtained illegally. Now, if the prosecution team adopts Morales’ testimony and her documentary support (i.e. the AMLC report) as their evidence to present, then I would have the same reservation too regarding that because I believe the report was illegally obtained. As far as I understand, the defense called on Morales (as a hostile witness) to prove that her office was part of a conspiracy to persecute the CJ and that the allegations and the bases for the allegations against the CJ cannot stand on legal grounds. Anyway, thanks for reading.
you were saying that the defense can selectively adopt the testimony of its witness; accept those testimonies that are favorable, all others should be excluded. but that is not the rule on evidence. you are bound by whatever comes out from the mouth of your witness, because in the first place, you are not bound to present a hostile witness. you were taking the risk in so presenting her including those that can damage your case.
No jcc, the article is about presentation of evidence that were obtained illegally. Now, if we go to the AMLC report Morales presented (as you seem to only be focusing on), then as I said, if the prosecution adopts that and submits that as their evidence, then I have reservations against that as well. Now, let’s grant your point that it is the defense that brought out this evidence. But it still does not erase the fact that the AMLC report was illegally obtained. Therefore, whether presented by the prosecution or the defense, if that was illegally obtained, that shouldn’t be admitted. Now, going back to the point of the article. The article is pointing out that the anti-Corona forces seem to be under the mindset that obtaining the “evidences†illegally is acceptable so long as this would result in the conviction of whom they perceive as a roadblock to the administration’s “straight pathâ€. So basically, they are saying that the end justifies the means… a strongly consequence-based morality which I do not particularly embrace. Thanks for reading. 🙂
In short, the anti-Corona forces are borderline suggesting that the police can barge into your home to do a search without a warrant on the basis of a hunch from, say, an anonymous accuser. Letting little transgressions in the manner with which evidence is collected (let alone sloppy thinking around how evidence is interpretted, such as the way “anti-Corona” forces seem to fail to distinguish between cash balance and cash flow) progressively brings one closer and further down that slippery slope, the bottom of which lies the sort of lynch mob mentality that anti-Corona forces seem to prefer to apply.
Yes benign0, that seems to be the most apt term to describe the anti-Corona forces – lynch mob mentality. Never mind if they murder a person whom they think is guilty, so long as their sense of justice is satisfied, that is all that matters. So they would be okay with committing a “wrong†in order to achieve what they think is “rightâ€.
you have to read the bill of rights on “illegal search and seizure.” it does not apply here. the fruit of poisonous tree is a judicial invention designed to prevent the police from introducing illegally procured evidence.
almc is not a police, under the categorization of the ‘search and seizure’ and the bank is not the domicile of cj corona. he has no expectation of privacy in the premises of the bank.
he can invoke his right against non-disclosure of his dollar accounts under RA 6496 – which according to Justice Carpio does not apply to him, or if it applies, his statutory right has to be read in the light of the constitutional mandate of the ombudsman to investigate anyone upon complaint by anyone against suspected crooks.
besides, he waived his statutory right of non-disclosure when he signed his SALN authorizing the Ombudsman to look into his financial dealings.
Well, I also heard what jcc said from anti-Corona forces (lawyers and non-lawyers). But I also read arguments from the other side. Justice Cuevas seems to offer a good explanation regarding dollar accounts not being covered by the SALN waiver. I am with Justice Cuevas on this.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/194725/saln-waiver-doesn%E2%80%99t-cover-dollar-accounts-says-cuevas
is it not that coronaa iligally obtain his position as CJ midnight appointment….
justice cuevas is the lawyer of cj corona. he will move heaven and earth to cushion the damaging evidence he created. but you are free to believe on anything that makes you sleep at night. this is a free country.
JCC, I am aware that Justice Cuevas is the CJ’s lawyer. But I do look at his explanation and his explanation makes sense to me. The same goes with MDS. Some people perceive her to be pro-defense. But I do look at her arguments and her arguments make sense to me as well. Now do I listen to the other side as well? Sure I do. But similar to your point, the other side (especially those identified with the present Malacanang tenant), would move heaven and earth just to vilify the CJ. With the underhanded tactics they employ… it does seem that it is what they are doing. Have a good night.
🙂 .. as dikonamasikmura said: cj corona is not ordinary juan de la cruz. he can afford topnotch lawyers and he is the chief justice.
to say that the other camp was villifying him, is a conclusion that that the accusation against him was undeserved.
JPE did not think so and he wants Corona to explain.
The Eugenio case cited by Cuevas and MDS does not apply to CJ Corona because the parties therein are private citizens. CJ Corona is a public official who volunteered his services to the government conditioned on the right of the State that he could be subjected to “lifestyle check” and he signed a waiver.
And you are free as anti due process to malign Corona’s reputation even though the hearing has not concluded.
Remembering MDS’s exchange with Morales, MDS questioned the seemingly unlimited powers of the Ombudsman. Here’s an article that describes the exchange.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/258317/news/nation/when-legal-minds-collide-santiago-morales-argue-over-ombudsmans-powers
I am with MDS on this. There seems to be just a lot of room for abuse if the Ombudsman has this awesome power. I think it was also MDS who said that the Constitution is there to protect individual rights against government intrusion. The CJ, although a public official, still holds individual rights. The bank secrecy law especially on foreign currencies, as I believe is stated by law, is absolute (as Justice Cuevas argued).
a chief justice being abused! bago iyan.. 🙂
Yes, it seems like it. Pero ganun nga, jcc eh… the CJ is being persecuted. Presidente ba naman kasi ang katunggali eh. 🙂
sabi ng depensa walang ebidensya .pinakita ni morales ang ebidensya illigaly obtain.para magkaintindihan tayo ay ipatawag na lang si corona at sagutin niya ang mag tanong ng prosecutor.para magkaalaman na ang kung sino ang sinungaling …deretsahan ang sagot walang paligoyligoy para matapos agad dahil nagmamadali na ang mga senator na mangangampanya …
uhm… nelson… yun na nga ang mangyayari. abangan na lang natin sa martes tapos dun na lang natin pag usapan ulit. salamat sa pagbisita sa GRP! 🙂
Hey, cool thing on the left thumb/right thumb exercise! I’m going to do that little exercise with my management group and learn them up on how to work within corporate parameters and making decisions.
As for the $2 Million, I’d take the money, marry his widow, and raise his son as my own. I’m no basketball fan and I’d rather err on the side of compassion. I’m also a complete bastard. 🙂
🙂 hehehe Thanks for reading, Don!
Nelson, as far as the JBC and the SC (prior to Corona being CJ) is concerned, it was legal.
Hi JCC, well if that is what makes you and “dikonamasikmura” sleep at night… then I’ll leave you with that. Pero sa paningin ko, it is obvious to me that the grand demolition job against the CJ is being done using various govt agencies like the LRA and jaundiced media like ABS-CBN. With regards to your take on what Justice Cuevas and MDS stated… well, JCC… sorry… but I’m gonna have to trust their expertise over yours.
What would you call most of our political leaders, who steals money from us; or use our taxpayers’ money to protect their financial interests: amoral…I don’t know where their brain resides: left, right, center, or none at all…
“…why should the evidence presented by the anti-Corona forces be accepted if these were obtained outside of what is permissible by law?” — ang mga information na galing sa amlc ay hindi illegal dahil ang mga banko ay obligado sa batas mag sumite ng ulat ng mga kahinahinalang transaksyon sa kanilang banko o di kaya mga tig-isang transaksyong humihigit sa 500,000.00 php. ang labing pitong pahinang ulat o mga information na ibinigay ng amlc sa ombudsman ay pawang mga transaksoyong kaduda duda at may higit na halaga sa 500,000.00 php.