No one is beyond scrutiny: Not even the ‘gods of Padre Faura’
The recent Supreme Court decision, along with the subsequent public discourse, has once again highlighted the provocative yet contentious phrase “gods of Padre Faura.” This term positions the justices as infallible figures whose rulings are beyond critique. However, such a characterization fundamentally misrepresents the essence of justice and the inherent limitations of human judgment.
Ancient Greek philosophy, particularly the works of Socrates, robustly challenged the concept of absolute, infallible knowledge. Socrates’ method, which famously employed dialectical reasoning to uncover inconsistencies in widely held beliefs, implicitly recognized the potential for error even in the most seemingly definitive assertions. His relentless pursuit of questioning served as a powerful countermeasure to the acceptance of dogma, a lesson that remains profoundly relevant to our interpretation of Supreme Court decisions. We must engage with their judgments not through blind faith, but through rigorous critical inquiry.
Medieval thinkers, while often emphasizing divine authority, also grappled with the limitations of human understanding. St. Augustine, for example, highlighted the necessity of humility in the face of God’s infinite wisdom. This notion extends into the realm of jurisprudence: even the most learned justices can fall short of perfect judgment, influenced by their own biases and the inherent ambiguities within the law. To assert infallibility is to overlook the deeply human element that is intrinsic to the judicial process.
The Enlightenment, with its focus on reason and empirical evidence, further challenged the notion of infallible authorities. Thinkers, such as John Locke, championed limited government and the protection of individual rights—principles that inherently call for a critical examination of even the most powerful institutions. Locke’s emphasis on natural law, while not devoid of its interpretations, suggested that judicial decisions should be evaluated against a broader framework of ethical and moral principles, rather than simply accepted as divinely ordained. In this evolving discourse, the interplay between divine authority and human fallibility continues to shape our understanding of justice and governance, urging us to remain vigilant in our pursuit of truth and fairness.
As we transition into the modern era, Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative underscores the significance of universalizability in ethical decision-making. According to Kant, a just decision must be one that can be consistently applied across all similar cases. Consequently, the decisions made by the Supreme Court should be held to this rigorous standard, necessitating a thorough evaluation of their consistency and potential impact on broader societal principles.
Contemporary philosophy, particularly through the lens of critical theory and deconstruction, provides an alternative perspective. Thinkers, such as Michel Foucault, have illustrated how power structures, including judicial systems, inherently shape and influence judgments. Acknowledging these power dynamics is essential for understanding how biases—whether conscious or unconscious—can subtly affect the justices’ decisions, hindering their ability to arrive at truly impartial and infallible conclusions.
The “gods of Padre Faura” narrative cultivates an unhealthy reverence for judicial decisions, which can suppress dissent and hinder essential scrutiny. This misplaced faith undermines the democratic process, where open debate and critical analysis are vital for fostering a just and equitable society.
This is not about undermining the Supreme Court’s role; rather, it is a call for a more nuanced and critical understanding of its decisions. The justices, though undeniably influential, are human beings navigating complex social and political contexts. While their judgments deserve respect, they are not beyond reproach because they, too, are imperfect human beings.
REGINALD B. TAMAYO,
Marikina City
