Questions Judge Alaras

1. What was the most challenging case that you

have ever handled?
When the case is similar to the other, it should
be resolved by citing the applicable case
(Jurisprudence). The only reason why cases go
to court is that they feel that there is another
interpretation of the law which was not tackled
by the case cited so thats one reason.
1.1 Whats a difficult case for you? Difficult cases are very interesting. Sometimes
difficult cases are just small cases that are
decided by just 2-3 pages. But in cases which
there are a lot of issues, a lot of facts, for me,
its quite interesting because I try to
understand, weave everybody and make it
understandable to both parties.

1.2 Whats a good case for you? A good case for me is a Civil Case. It has a lot
of interesting issues.

2. Are there statutes that you find very
complicated and difficult to interpret? How
come?

All statutes are complicated. We cannot
resolve cases by Judicial Legislation because
that is not allowed. How I deal with that is
through Judicial Activism. You apply the law
and offer some remedies or amendments which
relays to the people involve so that they can do
something about that. Basically, if the law is
really very deficient we stretch it a little. When
the law is made, it doesnt take into
consideration all that may happen. Like the
Revised Penal Code, our penalties in amounts
and the manner which imposes penalties are no
longer updated. This is why somehow we
stretch a little by asking the prosecutor to
cooperate. As a judge we try to stretch in order
to assist the accused, not only to assist him but
also to help judiciary to declog the doctrines,
declog the jails and so that the people who
needs to be there are there.
3. Which legal maxim do you find most
important or have relied on mostly in the past?
Personally as a judge and as a teacher it is the
Dura Lex Sed Lex maxim. It is so hard to
teach the law and not live the law, how can I
convince you to follow the law if I cannot
follow the law? The moment I feel that Im no
longer qualified, Im corrupt, I violate the law
myself then I will leave my profession. The
law is hard but thats the law, simple rule.

4. Are there statutes that you find unwise?
What are they?
The intention is good but sometimes along the
way they insert things. Like the Cybercrime
Law, it is something thats good because we
practically live our life in cyberspace. Thats a
very good law but then again they insert things
like libel and all those things which have not
really defined well.
5. The Law states that the Courts shall
administer the law, not as what they think it
should be but what the law says it to be. Was
there a time that you regretted your judgment
or decision?
Sometimes you realize youre wrong but then
thats already done. When you render a
decision with an open mind and you go
through tons of papers and missed something,
you sort of look back and ask yourself, should
I have considered this? Sometimes you do, I
have to tell that, Im also a human but Im sure
that the major issues were tackled.
6. Was there a time that you had feelings of
sympathy or pity for an accused but you had to
render him guilty?

Not for an accused but for a victim.

7. What are the main factors that you consider
in construing the law?

Constitutional interpretation, Jurisprudence,
and Equity. If the issue could be dealt simply
by applying the law constitutional and it does
well then go down to statutory laws and check
if the issues are substantial. You have to
identify what are the main and other issues
because when you file a case you have to offer
a cause of action and the cause of action will
dictate what we need to do but sometimes we
tend to find some other cause of action and all
other remedies just and equitable. Law,
Constitutional, Statutory. Sometimes it goes
through procedural or other implementing rules
and regulations, check for jurisprudence.
Sometimes there are exceptions but the law
doesnt say that, that it should be included, it
should be excluded. If the law is silent we
could somehow make interpretations and
hopefully some congressmen or senators can
pick it up or also someone like you can pick it
up and try to amend law by including that.
Sometimes when Statutory Law is solid and
there is no jurisprudence to apply, you really
feel that somehow it is a novel issue that you
need to do and that becomes a problem. So you
have to balance it with equity. Equity is part of
judicial discretion. Being a judge doesnt mean
you have to be arbitrary, at the end judicial
discretion is used when you apply equity.
Discretion and arbitrary, theres a really wide
gap between them.
8. Have you tried reporting for an executive
clemency in a case? What was your basis for
such?

Not yet, no opportunity to do that. Clemency
should come from the public attorney, osg, but
not from judiciary. If we feel that the law is
harsh we could recommend in our decisions
the different interpretation but we are only
limited to recommendations.