thanks for the cut & paste though.

http://lsr.nellco.org/cornell/clsops/papers/15/

These quotes from the abstract will help:

1. To put it schematically in one phrase, the Romanist legal culture seeks the substance of truth by trying to establish an official narrative through the rendering of a judgment by a judge who is seen as a “minister of truth”, whereas the common law legal culture is more interested in
procedure; it organizes the public confrontation of two versions of the truth in order to make the most truthful narrative triumph. . . . these two different conceptions of truth-seeking (and, we could add, of error-minimizing) that we call, rather imaginatively, “inquisition” (for France) and “proceduralization” (for the US), have to do with the differences in the management of truth between Catholicism and Protestantism.

2.The common law is a legal culture that, in order to produce truth, spontaneously organizes a competition of narratives in the form of adversarial battles between lawyers. Instead of attacking head-on the problem of “truth”, the common law culture prefers to evacuate, to turn around the substantive moral problems by constantly proceduralizing them. This is obvious, for example, in the context of the death penalty in the United States. It is a culture of “one step at a time”, of a gradual and prudent progression towards a “truth” that can be cognizable and acceptable by the community of jurists. Of course, this means an extraordinary spending of energy in motions, pleadings, and other procedural devices that can become counterproductive. On the contrary, the French legal culture is characterized by an intensely republican political philosophy since the French Revolution; according to the revolutionary project, the formalization of the truth is made through the structuring ab initio of an official narrative by the investigating magistrate, aided in his task by experts, and by integrating this narrative into a public discourse, a legal discourse that constantly and obsessively refers to the public interest. No doubt that is the case because the French legal culture is a profoundly political one. That is why the truly legitimate legal actors are, in the Anglo-American system, the individuals themselves, whereas in the French system, the State.

i don’t know which justices are you alluding to. but there is such a thing as judicial ethics too where judicial indiscretions are outlawed and sanctioned. at any rate, i was describing what an s.c. justice ought to be, but i am not making any value judgment on the behavior of any particular justice (which is not my place to do).

yes, watchful, i am a THOMASIAN and proud of it.

Bencard, what you have written about being SC justices is fine. Go cc those justices who think and act as if they got their lifeline with a 12-M mandate. Do you really believe they are apolitical? Where have you been, buddy?

And did you not see those headbands during the so-called extra-judicial summit … err … extra-marital … or extra-judicial beheadings … just check DJB’s site on this one. This guy’s not a lawyer but he’s commonsensically right on this score I guess. (Altho he’s a pain most of the time haha)

On “judicial truth”, trust me read up, your exposition is still sophomoric.

first, judicial truth. you are asking me to read up on the term as if you are the expert on it. yet, i was the one who defined it, not you. you only used it apparently without understanding its meaning. now you want me to read up on it? what is your own definition and what do you think is wrong with mine?

second, ambulance chasing. see my above comment which is awaiting moderation.

third, your hypothetical. i’m not a mind reader. it’s your own hypothetical. you can change its nuances however you want but don’t expect me to know it. you want to speak in codes/symbolisms, go ahead but i’m not too good at interpreting poetry, even bad poetry. in any case, how could the sc be the “intruder” or co-conspirator? it is a passive adjudicator that came into the scene after the fact – not the creator of, or contributor to, the alleged act, which you now qualify as incestuous rape.

fourth, what sc justices are all about. they cannot, as justices, be a proactive politicians that you want them to be. they act only on cases properly brought before them for adjudication. they don’t seek out approval from any one or any group. they don’t, except maybe in their private thoughts, entertain ideologies, political or otherwise. that’s why you cannot expect them to march on the street, or wear headbands, and raise their fists, without first giving up their posts. whether or not they were politicians before becoming justices, they cannot remain so while in office. now, you want me to read up on it?

i have been a lawyer for more than 4 decades, the first 4 years of which was in the philippines. i’m from the old school and still believe in the old brand of morality, both in and outside the profession. i hate to sound self-righteous but i reject the kind of professional advertising that sells its product like a laundry soap, or a perfume with testimonials from show-business celebrities. i cringe whenever some lawyers (americans or otherwise) extoll themselves on t.v. through paid advertisements or orchestrated “shows” to obtain clients.

having said all that, i’ll not be surprised if one of these days, some enterprising filipino lawyer will test the rules on professional advertising of lawyers in the philippines upon constitutional grounds.

“Many American lawyers are ambulance chasers. Check again the yellow pages in the U.S. and you will not need the rules of evidence to prove that fact. At least this aspect of legal ethics among Filipino lawyers is more admirable. Which one are you Bencard?”