“Majoris regula,” a Latin term, literally means in English, a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes.
Well, well, more than 31 million Filipinos have decided through the ballot, their being a majority in our recently-held election, a formal group decision by which the Philippine populace choose an individual and groups of individuals to stay in public office for the next coming six years.
Pundits say, in an election process, there will be losers and, on the other hand, there will be losers.
And in the aftermath of any bruising election, many rejoice; many do not. Many will take loss with a grain of salt and sportingly say, “Caramba! Anyway, there will be another election, siyempre met a, babawi at babawi ako, kami!”
Many refuse to simply concede. Many who lost in their bets may think the world owes them an apology.
A scenario that probably takes you back to your teen years for having ran in an elective position in a student body government in your school – and you miserably lost.
In having lost, you probably railed by casting aspersions to the winds that the student body government election you entered into was rigged, while your classroom teacher, much to his/her amusement and glee, tried to pacify you that the election was fair and peaceful. But your teacher’s words fell on deaf ears.
Much as your teacher tried to shout into your ear for you to follow the rule of the majority, but you fired back at your teacher by growling, “Awan ti kasta a linteg!” (There is no such law as that).
Such line of thinking brings to mind about the latest election where those who lost their bets also cast aspersions to the winds (that giggle back at them) and Daily Laborer giggling too, that maybe, they are most happy casting their lot into the “tyranny of the minority” for simply refusing to “concede” when time to do so and in the process, seduce others with their smile.
When someone says “Awan kasta a linteg,” it brings to mind about understanding a law, precept or rule.
Daily Laborer could be wrong and if so, requests all merry, amused and witty lawyers in highland Cordillera to correct him on his vague understanding about the general term, law.
For Daily Laborer cheerily labors that every gentleman and gentlewoman ought to know a little of law and perhaps, the less, the better.
Daily Laborer thinks, law, in general sense, stands for a rule of action by humans, whether inert or alive, logical or insensible, and for all one knows, there is nothing more unreasonable or fiendish than a commotion at law.
Let Daily Laborer explain. For example, we yak about the law of motion, as when a man, head over heels over an alluring woman, suddenly springs towards her to give her a kiss and in the hectic commotion following the law of gravitation, man and woman crash to the ground.
Should humans tumble from animal to vegetable life, we will discover vegetable life acting in accordance with its own laws. We take our highland vegetables, for instance, appearing and growing from their soil plots, to our taking these and thrusting them it into the kaldero for cooking, are governed by the common law of nature.
Cordillerans, as well as lowlanders, as we are all aware, are two-legged creatures bestowed with free will and reason. But when a Cordilleran/lowlander goes to law as complainant, suer or plaintiff, his/her reasons seem to have deserted him/her.
While, on the other hand, if such Cordilleran/lowlander seats in the position of defendant, it is generally against his/her free will and therefore, “that noblest of animals,” the two-legged human, is in a very ignoble predicament.
Daily Laborer, who has this nasty and suspicious habit of talking by himself whenever darkness settles and grinning to no one else, will try to shrink the principle of law into three: “that we live honestly,” secondly, “that we hurt nobody,” and thirdly, “that we give anyone his/her due.”
Principles, Daily Laborer thinks, somehow, suddenly evaporated during the recent political campaign, particularly at the presidential level. It used to be considered that justice and human felicity were intimately connected, but that partnership seems to have dissolved.
Daily laborer contends no human laws are of any validity if they run counter to the law of nature; but he does not mean to deny the reasonableness of the “law” of the poor, or “bobo,” or the “tanga,” or words to that effect he heard during the election campaign, and some others we could mention.
The law of nature tenders to the general happiness of humans, in like ways, Daily laborer thinks that it is in the nature of law to contribute only to the happiness of an attorney.
Natural law is much easier of being understood than human law. There is what Daily Laborer thinks as “forum conscientiae” or court of conscience telling any Cordillleran or lowlander what is wrong and what is right.
Infallible, and its decrees never silent, are the judgment of the court of conscience, for it is without any usher.
Have you ever noticed that the law of nations is a peculiar kind of law and it is generally settled by recourse to the barrel of a gun and a shot, so that the law of nations is, in some cases, much the same contrivance as cannon law.
So we now descend to civil law, which Daily Laborer ascribe as a rule of civil conduct, prescribed by authority commanding what is wrong and what is right. Daily Laborer thinks it a “rule,” to differentiate it from an agreement, because a rule must be complied with, helter-skelter.
It is a rule of civil conduct because authority insists on civil conduct. It is “prescribed” because one is bound to take it happily and since being a disagreeable pill, it is a bitter pill to swallow. And it is one among the beautiful characters of Philippine Law.
That is why when one or many among your multitude of friends come shrieking in front of you saying, “Nangabak diay manok ko nga kandidato para presidente, heyeyyy,” and that friend knowing fully well, you placed your bet on the other side, well, you gotta smile, and swallow the bitter pill on betting on a losing bet, for you are civil to anybody, bar none.
And since you are not prone to saying, “bobo,” or “tanga,” to your shrieking friend, well, bless you, for you are simply and prudently exercising your civil law of conduct.
Which brings us to poking the law on its sides, to see what it is made of? We may presume a law is declaratory, vindicatory and remedial. Declaratory in a sense a law says “so and so” is wrong.
Declaratory says it shall not be done. But sometimes, it comes up to speak so in such very civil and bizarre terms as to leave many of us whether we may do a thing or may not, until we discover all of a sudden we are put in possession of its true meaning, and punished for not being able to understand it.
A law, as we poke its sides to know what it is constructed of, is vindicatory. For it attaches a penalty. Such is the sovereignty of Philippine law, that, whether wrong or right, any person is sure to have to bear a portion of the penalty who presumes in any way to meddle with it.
It is also remedial, for a law gives remedy. Let us presume you are deprived of your right of putting your political bet on the winning slate. Well, you have the remedy of the lawsuit. Though, rather an expensive one and which is a great luxury, no doubt. Just ask our witty and jolly lawyers in Cordillera and in the lowlands.
If words to your lawsuit seem dubious after you called in your lawyer (lawyers have this knack of making matters more dubious), you must refer to the context. But such being the case in many cases, only for you to get out of the frying pan and into the fire.
