Justice as fairness: An argument for the defense

“Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” – Immanuel Kant First word FIRST, I want to make a personal disclosure. I want to disclose the writing work that I did for a book on the Filipino vice presidency that was published and released in November last year, entitled “First in Line The Vice Presidents of the Philippines.” The volume was produced and designed by Studio 5 Designs Inc. for the Office of the Vice President (OVP) under a contract that it won by competitive bidding. Studio 5 persuaded me to do research and writing for the book; I then spent three months of my time working on the project in between my work as a columnist in The Manila Times and other interests. Studio 5 and the publisher set November 2025 as the working deadline for the completed project to coincide with the 90th anniversary of the vice presidential office. This seemingly stiff deadline was punctiliously met without frayed nerves and task misunderstandings by the highly professional working staff. And so, on Nov. 15, 2025, at a reception and ceremonies held at Makati Shangri-La Hotel, the OVP marked its 90th anniversary. Vice President Sara Duterte was on hand to lead in welcoming the guests and preside over the program. All 15 of the country’s vice presidents since 1935 are featured in profiles in the pages of “First in Line.” With seven VPs deceased, and a handful indisposed, the book launching had to settle for the vice presidents being present chiefly in spirit and represented by living members of their families. Former vice president and former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was a notable presence in the evening’s festivities. And so was the surprise attendance of former president Joseph Ejercito Estrada, who gamely joined the commemoration while seated on a wheelchair. My involvement in this publishing project might be construed by some readers and journalist colleagues as signifying that I have joined the advisory and communications team of Vice President Duterte in her fight for acquittal and quest for vindication in her impeachment trial. I am not without sympathy over the ordeal that she is living through, but the simple fact is that I am not an adviser to the vice president or her office. My work on the vice presidents’ book did not change my long-standing nonpartisan and uncommitted position in national politics and government. And the battle lines now forming for the forthcoming wars and competition in the politics of 2028. I strive to be, and I remain an observer of our politics and the issues that are driving our public life. When I was contracted by Studio 5 for the writing of “First in Line,” I explicitly set as my condition that the writing subject should be the Filipino vice presidency, and not its incumbent occupant. I said that my interest was institutional, not personal. My terms were accepted, and so the writing commission went forward. It is pleasing to see that the finished product is not an unworthy addition to the limited number of books on Philippine public affairs and public institutions. This disclosure should clear up any question about my coverage of national politics and the approaching presidential elections 2028. I watch and analyze events and developments as they happen. And I will raise questions and comment freely as objectively as I can. On the current issue now being hotly debated — the arbitrary change of the conviction threshold in the impeachment trial of VP Duterte — I think the impeachment court may have gifted the vice president and her team with a strong and compelling argument against the impeachment charges laid against her. Senate blunder With all the problems that it is already facing from absent members under indictment, in jail or on the lam, from institutional disrepute for alleged senatorial plunder of public funds for flood control, and from differences and open feuding among influential Senate leaders, the Philippine Senate as the sole trier of the impeachment case of Vice President Duterte has added an even bigger problem to resolve in the trial of the second-highest ranking official of the Republic. There is no polite way to view the new conviction threshold than as a blunder by senators who desire an easier and quicker way to convict and remove VP Duterte from the vice presidency. The unwisdom of the impeachment court’s decision will begin to crumble when the Supreme Court starts a review of the impeachment court’s decision, following the petitions filed by various parties before the high court. The Senate foolishly opened itself for criticism or rebuke by a higher authority, in its handling of the impeachment proceedings, which only yesterday concluded its 29th day of the trial. Significantly, the court’s presiding officer, Sen. Francis Escudero, did not join his colleagues in changing the conviction threshold without the benefit of a constitutional amendment. What the court has done is nothing less than to change the rules when the game is already being played. It is the same as the English idiom on changing horses in midstream. Which means changing methods or choosing leaders during a crisis. The team of VP Duterte will find itself in better command of the argument if it takes the time to study and comprehend, and adopt the writing of the political philosopher John Rawls on his theory of justice as fairness. Justice as fairness Rawls, who is widely regarded as the most important and influential political philosopher of the 20th century, presented his theory of justice as fairness in a book published in 1971, “A Theory of Justice.” According to Wikipedia, Rawls describes a society of free citizens with equal basic rights who work together cooperatively in an egalitarian economic system. Through its liberal political conception of justice, his theory provides a framework for the legitimate use of political power. However, legitimacy is only the minimum standard of moral acceptance; a political order can therefore be legitimate without being just per se. Justice, on the other hand, sets the maximum standard: the arrangement of social institutions that is morally best. The “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” explains Rawl’s theory of justice: Rawl’s conception of justice comprises two main principles of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. The principles are, however, intended to form a single, coherent conception of justice (justice as fairness) rather than to operate independently. They are consistently applied with the aim of benefiting the least advantaged members of society, ensuring that they are neither harmed nor overlooked. Something tells me that the impeachment’s court’s decision will have an awfully tough time squaring itself with the idea of justice as fairness. Justices of our Supreme Court will sit up and take notice of Rawls’ theory and so will the senator judges in the impeachment court. yenobserver@gmail.com