This article over at iloiloviews.com is getting a lot of deserving attention. It provides an interesting perspective on the whole Brian Gorrell (yes, that Australian blogger trying to shame his ex-lover into paying back $70,000) brouhaha. To wit:

Our legal system calls this thoughtless extravagance, or the ostentatious display of wealth – an act made illegal under Article 25 of Republic Act 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines. This law prohibits “thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want.”

But the website left out an important part of the article: “… or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.” Just like any law, Article 25’s effectiveness relies on how well it is enforced. Which is practically impossible in this case.

In the first place, who gets to decide if the Philippines is in a state of “acute public want or emergency?” President GMA has declared a state of emergency many times while in office, especially when faced with challenges to her administration. These declarations have mostly lasted la few days, during which no attempt has been made to curtail the apparently lavish lifestyles of some “upper class” Filipinos. The lack of political will notwithstanding, GMA was simply too busy to attempt such a thing.

On the other hand, Article 25 could be a useful tool for GMA. Her critics are convinced that the Juan de la Cruz hasn’t enjoyed the benefits of the country’s supposed economic gains. Could this perception have something to do with the “high society” crowd having their fun while many Filipinos try their very best to attain productive stability? What if GMA cracked down during the next state of emergency? Impossible. Aside from the need to prioritize as mentioned above, our President simply cannot take on those who are supposedly rich and powerful, without any severe consequences at least.

Most importantly, Article 25 is simply too vague to be effective. I’ve already covered how the definition of “public want or emergency” can so arbitrary. It is obvious that Article 25 doesn’t even provide a clear framework for enforcement. Iloilo views theorizes that any party can file a petition in court. Even if it’s accepted, would it remain valid when it undergoes review or appeal? And how exactly do you curtail extravagance? Threaten steep fines, prison time, or even confiscation of assets? Won’t these options be challenged vigorously by these people who supposedly have limitless resources at their disposal?

The point is that while the intention behind Article 25 is noble, I don’t see how it can be practically enforced. Jorge Bocobo et al. may have had a good reason to include the law into the Civil Code of the Philippines. But how exactly they meant for it to be implemented remains a mystery to me. Anyone who can shed light on this law, feel free to do so below.