My Daily Inquirer

In the case of Hao vs. Sheriff Andres, A.M. No. P-07-2384, the Supreme Court ruled that, and I quote, " ... sheriffs, being ranking officers of the court and agents of the law, must discharge their duties with great care and diligence. In serving and implementing court writs, as well as processes and orders of the court, they cannot afford to err without affecting adversely the proper dispensation of justice. Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as agents of the law, high standards of performance are expected of them ...."

Well-settled is the rule that when we speak of dispensation of justice, respect to the rights of the general public to their right to public safety and public order should be the primary objective in enforcing the law, which, in truth and in fact, is its goal. The Sheriff's consideration of the 2-hour extension, if done, which is a reasonable and a legal request of a concerned Mayor in the midst of crisis, who answered the "call for help" of the poor, would play a vital role in the proper dispensation of justice. Had the Sheriff discharge his duties with great care and diligence as expected to him as a ranking officer of the court and agent of the law, riot and other incidents could have been prevented.

If I were to rule on the case, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances (her intent to create lesser evil to the poor people whom the Mayor is tasked to give assistance before and after the demolition, her act to prevent chaos that may result to death, injuries either to the demolition team or the poor people, or both, among others) and aggravating circumstance (her act of hurting the sheriff in public) in the given case, I will only reprimand the mayor for her act against the sheriff, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.

First, there was no violation of court order. The Mayor respected it, believing that she is bound by the force and effect of law. She only asked for 2-hour extension just to prevent chaos, preventing evil to rule on the ground, which is reasonable and legal. Had the sheriff granted the reasonable request, there would be no riot at all, considering that the Mayor has the trust and respect from the people. Second, the act of punching, while it caused damage to the sheriff, is justified by the overwhelming force and effect of humanitarian acts, i.e public safety, public order, among others. And lastly, to rule otherwise would violate the well-settled and well-recognized principle in law and humanity that "those who have less in life should have more in law."

For comments, email me at marcellones_jl2003@yahoo.com. Thank you!