After doing my morning quiet time, prayers and meditation, I usually tune in to the local radio for news when I heard Romy Amarado rant about somebody wearing a full face helmet, shooting some fireman somewhere.
This really jolted my senses. Is this happening in Dumaguete? There was a CCTV, but the identity of the perpetrator was fully hidden by the helmet! Can you believe it, like in the movies!?
From the very start, the Helmet Law was rejected outright by most residents of Dumaguete — from total rejection to negotiation — can we have half face or only for long distance, etc. very many ways to water down or modify the law.
It came to appoint where they justified the non-implementation by saying: “There are no implementing rules!”
It was a subject of a Temporary Restraining Order — and thus, just like that, became a pending case in court.
One day, I saw on local television the LTO telling people that those who opposed the Helmet Law did not have valid licenses, or will not be able to renew their licenses, or words to that effect.
I was disturbed by such veiled threat.
The right to question the acts of government functionaries should be inherent in a free and democratic society such as ours. This cardinal right is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. The people who work in government are paid by taxes drawn from our hard-earned income, and they should know that P-Noy said: Kayo ang Boss ko! (You are my boss!)
In a strict legal sense, law is defined as a “rule of conduct, just and obligatory, laid down by legitimate authority for common observance and benefit.” (Sanchez Roman).
The last phrase should figure prominently as it recognizes the famous Latin maxim of salus populi est suprema lex — the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
So the Helmet Law is supposed to benefit the people, and thus, it should be implemented to its full extent.
The local residents had been vocal, active, publicly declaring their objections. How does it feel to have a full-face helmet in this 36-degree heat? Is it really practical? Why does the police have a different kind of open-face helmet? Why does it have to come from an accredited source? Is it really necessary if one just drives within City limits? What if criminals will commit crimes using full- face helmets?, etc.; maybe you can supply all other objections. Why were these voices not heard?
Is the implementation of the Helmet Law, the end and be all, even at the sacrifice of the common good?
Now, that a murderer with a full-face helmet had actualized our worst fears, will they still insist? Are they impervious to the concerns of the public?
Justice Isagani Cruz articulated his thought on this matter, saying: “A too literal reading of the law is apt to constrict rather than fulfill;” is usually found not in “the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth”, which is not really evanescent or elusive. Judges must look beyond, and not be bound by the language of the law seeking to discover by their own lights the reason and the rhyme for its enactment. That they may properly apply in accordance to its end, they need and must use not only learning but also vision.”
Most philosophers agree that: “Right and wrong, do not change just because circumstances change”.
Or that a law is passed making some act obligatory or imposed by some whim of a government office or regulatory agency. What is legal may not be necessarily morally right!
Who can interpret the Helmet Law? Anyone can interpret the law. Lawyers, policemen, arbiters, administrative boards and agencies, government as well as private executives involved from time to time in the interpretation of laws.
Their interpretation, however, is not necessarily conclusive or binding. Hence, on many occasions, these interpretations or decisions may be set aside and annulled in or where there is grave abuse of discretion and authority, or when there is violation of due process or denial of substantial justice or erroneous interpretation of the law.
A law is supposed to serve the common good, and it should serve the welfare of the constituents, and it was never meant that the public good be subordinated, to serve the law.
Listen to the public. Hear their voices objecting to the Helmet Law!
