WHEN George Orwell, in 1946, wrote to warn the writer against dying
metaphors, verbal false limits, pretentious diction and meaningless
words, the ponentes of the of the Philippine trial courts weren’t
listening.
The legal eagles refused to pay attention even as Orwell further
declared that there was a perfectly good reason why the verse in
Ecclesiastes read:
"I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet
riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but
time and chance happeneth to them all."
Instead of:
"Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the
conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits
no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a
considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into
account."
Thus, many court rulings go: "The court is appalled at the intrepidity
of the arresting officers at this undisguised simulation of facts
consummated by officers mandated to enforce the law, who instead
re-invented the scenario and foisted the permutation within the sacred
precincts of the courtroom.”
When all the judge really intended to say was: “The police brought a man to court under made-up charges and false evidence.”
Some rulings read: "The court cannot but show concern as it gingerly
tiptoed in the landscape of this case, already strewn and littered by
bodies of fallen reputations and the remains of shattered careers."
When all the writer wanted to state was: "You lawyers, stop the mudslinging in open court. You've done enough."
But that is hopefully ending soon.
The Supreme Court (SC) is now distributing a newly published handbook
that aims to teach judges and justices alike how to write their rulings
better.
Work on the manual began in 2004 with the help of professors from the
University of the Philippines College of Law and funding from the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and The Asia
Foundation, another non-government group.
It was completed in December of last year, with introduction written by then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.
“Words are the lifeblood of judicial decisions or of any other form of
writing. When the right words are used, they serve as gems that give
luster to a message or idea,” read part of the manual.
“On the other hand, gobbledygook, legal jargon, or archaic language is
likely to take away the vigor of a message. Thus, the use of plain,
concrete words is encouraged, especially in judicial decisions (that)
are meant to settle, not to further cloud, gray areas in law or in
contracts, as well as to end justiciable controversies instead of
spawning new one,” it added.
It’s a complete stylebook presented in two parts.
The first part sets out the guidelines on how resolutions or decisions
are to appear in print. It covers subjects of form like the type and
size of font to be used, margins, and spacing. Likewise discussed are
tips on punctuation, capitalization, italicization, abbreviation,
quotations, numbers and lists.
The second part, meanwhile, deals with citations. It teaches judges how
to cite records that are unique to the Courts such as rollos,
transcript of stenographic notes and exhibits.
Davide, in his introduction, said judges are allowed to use
“sculptured, vibrant language if only to add drama or color to their
decision” and to “utilize idioms because, as someone has said, language
without idioms is like a man who cannot smile.”
However, he posed, there must be a uniformity or consistency of style
but with respect to matters of form and citations so that so that
“readers do not have to spend an inordinate amount of time in absorbing
its contents.”
