In Forma Pauperis

"Equal Justice under the Law," thus sayeth the words on the front face of the marble roof of the U.S. Supreme Court Building.

But justice remains elusive when citizens "more" equal among their peers have greater access to the judicial system by virtue of their considerable means.

Although, at least in theory and in terms of political rights, we are all equal, to say that political equality necessarily entails economic parity has been the subject of philosophical debates since the beginning of recorded history, and the object of great disagreement among the ancient, medieval, and modern thinkers of all disciplines. Indeed, Plato's notion of a republic ruled by state-raised guardians certainly influenced Karl Marx's conception of "the worker's paradise" and the justification for an enlightened few which would lead a society of laborers towards a communist utopia.

More so, both were an attempt to solve human inequality in terms of sustaining human needs by bringing together and blurring what Hannah Arendt describes as the difference among labor, work, and action. By dissolving the boundaries of political and economic action, a society of equals was expected to be born. However, it was also an attempt which Arendt describes as a shrouded and tyrannical response to ease the "burden of rule" of citizens.

In the Roman Republic, citizens were divided between the patricians and plebians, the rich and the poor. The aristocrats, although they were few, held political power through hereditary succession in the Roman Senate, and through right by birth in the offices of the state such as the praetor and the sought-after consulship. Nonetheless, as Aristotle observed, since most of the times the poor are the many, and the many thus composes the majority, the poor, as the majority, can exert political influence and could become a force to be reckoned with.

One does not need to mention how the ancient Athenian democracy was founded to make my point. But by the end of the Roman Republic, the plebians established among themselves the office of the tribunes - officers of the state which came from the plebians and held tremendous power over the affairs of the plebians. The aristocrats, fearing the power of numbers, made considerable concessions to plebians, rights and powers not held by them under the republic since its conception; to appease the many who were threatening a rebellion, the few yielded to the many and thus, the republic found stability.

But what is the lesson of the story? Treat them fairly, or they may rise up in rebellion. Give them enough breathing space, and they will co-exist with you. The protection of individual rights cannot be realized when extreme social inequality exists in society; in extreme cases, it could threaten the stability of the republic, if nothing is done to mitigate the plight of the unfortunate.

If subsidizing justice means providing the poor with counsel or lowering the threshold of those eligible to free counsel, then so be it. The Philippines is still an industrializing country, not an industrialized one. When the time comes that they are able to afford access in the justice system, then that is the time to charge fees in order for them to access the courts of law. After all, the poor does not typically involve themselves in civil cases; what they do not have is money and property. They are more exposed to criminal cases, and criminal cases, in modern liberal states with common law traditions, recognize the right to free counsel of the accused.

All in all, we must reevalute current laws that pertains to the accessibility of the courts of law and see what can be done to give more access to those who cannot afford access to it.

For justice equates to equality. One ought not to say that the degree of justice one can attain depends on the means one can expend. As to the question of whether political rights necessarily entails economic rights, I leave the inquiry for philosophers to think about.