ARSUA, Jenova Jireh C.

January 19, 2019

Legal Logic Activity No. 2

YOU CHOOSE OR I CHOOSE? DECIDE.

When it comes to decision-making, we are often confronted with difficulty in

choosing and identifying what is the right and the best possible option. What makes it difficult to
decide is its complexity where we are inclined to consider many factors in able to arrive into the
right choice. It is not because it is complex in itself but because we care and take caution about the
possible consequences of every choices we made to avoid the feelings of regret---thinking about
how it would impact our lives as a whole. But what if we really don’t know our preferences well?
The danger of not knowing our preferences well is that we are likely to allow
outside influences to define those preferences for us and consequently, based on the preferences
given to us, we decide and choose. Since we are the ones who are deciding, we thought that we
are in control of our decisions and if we arrived in a decision, we think we made the right one. The
question is, ‘how do we know that the choice we believe is the right choice is really the right
choice?’ Unfortunately, the ones who frame and define the preferences for us which are usually
formed in their favor are the ones who are in control of our decisions. By this reason, we are not
really making actual decisions. This is the illusion and irrationality that Dan Ariely talks about
when it comes to decision-making. But how about the ‘experts’? Are they also susceptible to this
kind of illusion knowing that they have an advantage in their respective field compared to ordinary
individuals?
In the courts of justice, the trial judge is an example of an ‘expert’ especially in
deciding for the acquittal or conviction of an accused. A judge usually based his decisions in
weighing the evidences, testimonies of witnesses of the prosecution and the defense, and how
lawyers presented the case of their clients as a whole such as how they frame arguments to
convince the judge to rule in their favor. So, it depends on whether or not the Court is persuaded
based on the facts established and what the law provides. Every trial court judge are expected to
be impartial and fair in their decisions. However, even experts have limitations. If a lawyer is good
in framing the arguments, good in using the law, and good in the presentation of evidences and the
testimonies of the witnesses assuming that it is very convincing, chances are, the judge will likely
rule in their favor. In the recent Revilla case, why did the justices rule for the acquittal of Revilla
even if for an ordinary individual, he was supposed to be in jail? The justices reasoned out that the
prosecution are not able to meet the evidences needed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
acquittal does not mean that Revilla is not guilty because the judges decide not on the merits of
the case. The case was dismissed because of lack of sufficient proof to hold his conviction. Does
that mean the justices are wrong in their decision? Not exactly, because the result of the case
depends on how the case run in court---how lawyers frame and present the preferences for the
judge to decide. The lawyers play a major role in this because it is their job to help the judge figure
out what needs to be done---acquit or convict the accused.
To ensure the rationality of the judge’s decision, the judge and the lawyers must
have one thing in mind---to administer justice in a fair and impartial manner without compromising
the legal interest and right of the litigants. Judges and lawyers must have this responsibility and
commitment making sure that justice is served and that boundaries are maintained. Moreover,
strategy to win the judge’s favor is good but there must be a limitation, it should not be used with
an intent to manipulate justice.