Rethinking our concept of Equality
By Justice Reynato S. Puno

(Delivered on 31 January 2003 at the Club Filipino,Greenhills, San Juan, on the occasion of the Induction of Directors and Officers for 2003-04 and Monthly Fellowship of the Alpha Phi Beta Alumni Association, Inc.)

Before proceeding, may I thank Bro. Teroy Mendoza for the introduction. I am not sure I should be happy with the introduction. The rule of thumb tells us that the less known the speaker, the longer is his introduction. The kilometric introduction is therefore good evidence that I am a near non-entity. By no means is that meant to be a complaint for indeed I have strived to be as a low key as possible since I joined the judiciary.
I guess I have succeeded to be a cypher for even the invitation for me to be the speaker this evening did not carry the correct spelling of my name. All the culpas notwithstanding, I assure you I am abreast of the latest developments in the fraternity and I thank you for your kind invitation.

It is not easy to speak on happy occasions like installation of officers and alumni reunions where serious talks are considered as hazardous to health. I like to think, however, that our fraternity, especially its alumni component, is a cut above organizations for our history shows that the noblest of ideals mothered the fraternity into reality. Prescinding from that predicate, allow me to discuss with you the juridical concept of equality and its challenge to us who are interested in improving our system of justice.

There is no iota of doubt that we vigorously subscribe to the concept of equality. This egalitarian concept has been cast in stone in all our Constitutions – the Malolos Constitution, the 1935 Constitution, the 1973 Constitution and the 1987 Constitution, all of which bear the unmistakable imprints of masonry. But while equality has been reduced by the laws of the land as a creed, it has not mutated into reality in our society. The reality that hurts is that the evil of inequality continues to bedevil this land and the best of our beauty parlor treatments cannot drive it away into oblivion.

Given the stubbornness of this problem of inequality, I urge you to rethink and re-examine our concept of equality. I respectfully submit that our concept of equality which was borrowed from the medieval philosophies needs to be readjusted. Let us again re-examine the twin aspects of equality: equality as a moral principle whose core is the right to equal consideration and equality as a distributive principle whose essence is the right to equal distribution of opportunities, power or wealth.

The history of political philosophies will tell us that from the 17th Century until this new millennium, there are only three major concepts of equality that have seized the attention of mankind. I will just breeze through them with the hope that it will ignite a light on whether we need to adjust our seemingly immovable mindset on equality despite the undeniable fact that it has not worked well for the unequals in our society.

The first major concept of equality is that of formal equality. This concept rests on two assumptions: first, that all people have equal moral worth by virtue of their shared humanity; and second, that each human being should be treated equally unless relevant grounds can justify unequal treatment. These two assumptions were derived from the natural rights theory popularized during the 17th and 18th centuries. They were first articulated by the English philosopher John Locke who emphasized the thesis that all men, as creatures of God, have natural right to the God given rights to life, liberty and property. This is the bedrock of the American Declaration of independence of 1776 which proclaimed that “all men are created equal.” In time, formal equality took the meaning of equality before the law and equal rights to other civil and political liberties. The Americans educated us on this particular dimension of equality.

The second major concept of equality is equality of opportunity. Historians traced its origin to Plato who, in his major work, The Republic, advocated an educational system purposely designed to give equally talented children an equal opportunity to develop their potentials. Plato championed the removal of all social factors or institutions – including the family – which would give any arbitrary advantage on one person over another. The notion was picked up by the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau – often called the “intellectual ancestor of modern thinking on equality of opportunity.” In his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality written in 1755, Rousseau pinpointed the institution of private property as the real source of inequality. In his other seminal work, The Social Contract, he called for greater equality of economic condition thru a redistribution of private property to bring about a free society. Over time, the concept of equal opportunity provided the justification for increased state intervention. Government took a bigger role in regulating industrial conditions, health, education and welfare services. In fine, the State was given the role of removing social and economic barriers that lay in the path of its citizens. Again, we followed this route in our fight to eliminate inequality in our midst.

The third major concept of equality is the most radical concept – the concept of equality of outcome, which was developed after the French Revolution of 1789 within the European socialist tradition. The concept revolved around the attempt to equalize outcomes or end results in society rather than mere opportunities or initial circumstances in life. It espouses the sharper redistribution of wealth either thru public ownership of industry or thru progressive direct taxation; it requires the redistribution of resources thru social policies concerning education, housing, and welfare. Socialist thinker Anthony Crosland defined the goal of equality of outcome as “the distribution of rewards, status and privileges enough to minimize social resentment, to secure justice between individuals and to equalize opportunities.” A spin-off of this concept of equality of outcome is Karl Marx’s vision of a classless society built on the ideal of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” The fall of Russia repudiated the validity of this radical concept of equality.