Anda di halaman 1dari 3

No Compromise

Bench and bar 2025, a promising future for the practice of law ten years from now.
These were the words spoken by the Current Chief Justice of the Unified Courts Guam,
Hon. Robert Torres, Jr. He began by introducing the words digital natives and digital
immigrants and further differentiating them. The former being the children of the new
world and the latter as the otherwise, which include most of the members of the bench.
As said, our world today is already of digital native and thus, must be composed of
such. Mainly, the gist of his talk was the infusion of technology to the practice of law,
which, as I understood, will change the traditional and religious set-up of the courts,
their procedures and the standards of the legal profession. In 2025, judges, justices,
lawyers and clerks of court will be working at home than the usual court or firm setting
through digital google holograms. Lawyers will not be seen as those with dark blazers or
coats, or more stiff fashion, rather, they will be seen to be more democratic in style,
sometimes, more liberated. There will be petabyte external hard drives, which have
thousand times more storage than the current terabytes, where all files of the courts
including evidences can be stored. These storages will then be in smaller, tinier drives
and that will just be the beginning. Later, there will be 4D printers which would be
relevant in producing evidences, and further are the technology implantation to humans
and the scanning of them through nanoscience. The science of the brain will then have
a great impact to change the law, changing it for the better and promising future and
harmonizing it with science on the grounds of justice and human rights. As Hon. Robert
Torres quoted Hon. Wendell Holmes Jr.s words, former Associate Justice of the

Supreme Court of the United States, Wisdom is the abstract of the just, but beauty is
the promise of the future.

Change for better and promising future were the edicts, but would it be threatening
instead? Would the standard of legal profession and justice permit such? Would it be
feasible in attaining justice or would it rather have loopholes by tampering justice?
Would the implantation of technology to humans be absolutely safe? If so, a number of
laws, general or special, even the Constitution, will have the need to be amended or

The vision makes me think too far ahead but ironically, I would always want to start with
the end in mind. And so let me start with the end in mind: The infusion of technology is
fine with me so long as there are precautions from tampering justice and limitations that
technology cannot substitute, such as the dispensation of justice and the credibility of
benchs decisions. For justice is based on different perspective, concepts and even
culture. It cannot be limited to what technology and science can offer. Its beyond
programming. There are substances which technology cannot compare, such as the
spirit and purpose of law, the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, motives, intent,
and due process. Decisions for its attainment includes the consideration of ethics,
morality, equity, rationality, law, and fairness. With that, Benchs decision must be just
and equitable. Hence, evidences for its decisions should be credible. Holograms, video
recordings or even judicial affidavit are fine, but, truth cannot be really examined by
those. There might be loopholes for intimidation, undue influence, lies, vitiation and

circumvention. As I can see, technology would only be a great help if it will be limited to
court procedures for purposes of unclogging dockets and of dispensing speedy and fair
trial. Justice cannot be compromised. As excerpted by Martin Luther King, Jr.: Human
progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. Every step toward the goal of justice
requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern
of dedicated individuals. More so, the standards of the legal profession should not be
lowered. Members of bar and bench should still be acting within the ambit of legal
profession. Yes, democratic fashion is fine, but it would be better if it would not degrade
the standard. Lastly, the infusion of technology to the practice and procedure of law, as
well as to humanity, should be absolutely safe to humanity.