MAGNA CARTA AND THE RULE OF LAW
By Atty Gil P Tabucanon
3 April 2025
Magna Carta and the Rule of Law
Gil Marvel Tabucanon
The Magna Carta, Latin for “Great Charter” is a foundational document for democracy, in that it forced tyrannical kings - beginning with King John 1 in year 1215 AD - to submit to the rule of law, rights and justice. Though 810 years old, the document remains an important symbol - and reminder - of the triumph of basic rights and freedoms of the people amidst an arbitrary if unjust rule of an autocratic regime.
Recent world events compel us to reflect on the significance as well as urgency in tipping the balance once again towards having leaders (of any nation) submit themselves to the rule of law. Encyclopædia Britannica defined “rule of law” as that practice or norm that supports the “equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power”.
Equality of all before the law presupposes every one is subject to the rule and enforcement of the law. Either all obey law, or none at all. “Exceptionalism” is that perception or belief that some individuals or groups are not subject, or indeed need not submit themselves, to the rule of law. By implication, a person or nation claiming exemption is also saying he or they are “superior” from the rest. And, if I may add, on what bases, and if so, is such justified.
In King John’s case, his exceptionalism, stemmed from a conceit called the “divine right” of kings whereby monarchs are held not accountable to any earthly authority such as parliament or the people on the ground that divine authority underpins their right to rule. The divine rights notion had since been debunked and discredited. King John and his successor King Henry III, on pain of a full-scale revolution, were forced to submit themselves to the rule of law and justice by English noblemen barons who were fed up with the King’s arbitrary exercise of raw power: in their case the taxing of ordinary people to no end to finance a lingering war against France, as well as coercing plain people from their estates to fight and kill in a dubious battles they themselves most likely did not understand.
Leaders have peculiar if at times out of the way agendas to complete: some of these goals are good, some not so. The goals may be noble such as economic growth, protection of youth or notions of making this or that nation great again. While none could dispute the desirability of the stated goals, the means towards which the goals are achieved are another ball game.
Thus, what could stop leaders in the event their methods become threats to peace, rights and order?
Nothing - except the rule of law. Stated differently, nothing except empowered people with enough sense and will power to coerce any leader to submit to and queue under the rule of law. Threats to peace, security and order come in different names and guises. The threats can also be rolled nationally or internationally. International expansionism, that is, aggressive encroachment whether acted upon or still in planning stages, have the effect of tearing apart the fabric of world stability and order. Pogroms of whatever kind used by the powers that be invariably telegraph the message to all and sundry that “might is right”.
If this is so, we might as chuck to the bin the legal legacy earned through the years and adopt the law of the jungle. Modern-day pogroms come in many forms and disguises. International law mentions genocide, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression as so egregious and heinous as to turn their perpetrators into “hostis humanis generis”, a veritable enemy of humankind.
The acts not just shock the conscience of simple people but harms the essential “values and rights of the (entire) international community”. Arbitrary and lawless acts destroy the very fabric upon which sound society is founded. These perpetrators have to be stopped if not soon, sooner, by modern-day “barons” (to invoke the history of the Magna Carta) of ordinary men and women if we are to restore whatever shreds of dignity are left within us. That is, if we still want to call ourselves human beings.
Might is right is never a sustainable proposition. Aristotle himself distrusted men’s passions and ambitions so much that to him, only a regime founded on an adherence to just law and order will suffice. He regarded Plato’s idea that only wise men can rule as unrealistic. Aristotle said it is not only difficult to find that “highest intelligence”, granting that person is found, but that there is no guarantee that he or she will not be corrupted by the “absolute” power of the philosopher-king. As a realist, Aristotle’s solution was to strengthen law, and make it a regulator of human conduct. He proposed to make law strong and stable to be able to withstand the fickle passions of people, including those in rulers who must submit themselves to law.
This brings us back to the Magna Carta and its timeless message which reminds us that all people, including kings, have rights and responsibilities under the law. The document teaches all, including unborn people (when their time comes) through the generations that kings have to obey the law like all other people. The lessons from the Magna Carta ring true today, and especially in light of recent world events: that basic rights and freedoms of people’s need to be always protected and safeguarded from both internal and external perils. The rule of law subjecting every one to walk in its moderate ways is a means to achieve this.
