Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Erratum for Errata

Our human inequities could result to wrong decisions, when we do not consult experts, policies and even laws, and when our decisions are based on precedents we know yet we did not happen to really know. Organizations operate based on its policies that have been debated upon, evaluated at several times, voted upon and written out in its finest form to guide practices. This is the same framework in which societies are built, the least in a democracy.

The constitution stands as the statutory law of the land, all other laws are subsumed under it. All other governing policies that guide practices and decisions are based on the law that is grounded in the constitution. In the academe, in the honorable ones, the faculty intelligently adapt their practices according to the manual. So are the students, they are to perform and behave according to what is inked in the student handbook. For both, all other decisions, policies and memorandum must be aligned to the existing manual or handbook.

Violations of which are also sanctioned according to what is stated in them. Management prerogatives are also subject to the manual of operation, and to the laws of the land. A position in the organizational hierarchy does not excuse anyone to do anything that is not according to the manual, which is supposed to be deterministic of what is right and just for all. All are subject to consult the organization's Constitution.

In juridical procedures, precedents do not merely refer to cases. They refer to decisions on cases, and those decisions are based on the law. The counsel can pose an inquiry to the previous decision, and when that plea is made, the judge will have to act justly on reexamining the case. For it is possible that a human error can be made. The just court treats a case, as it is, and the wise judge judges justly based on the merits of the case, and not immediately on precedents he know about. In this matters, the case can be brought up to the higher courts, and appealed at a certain period of time. When a decision is challenged, the law and the constitution is reexamined, all over again, until justice is served.

Non-alignment of decisions to existing, out of the knowledge of precedents, is tantamount to lawlessness, in the organization. There the law becomes flesh, not the word that is powerful to excise order and propriety. Then, what is the policy for, when decisions are made based on precedents, and the preceding decision was not according to the policy. Is this not perpetuating the vicious cycle of error? Then where is righteousness? What then is the policy for?

A righteous leader, with authority and position who happened to be a victim of the same precedent should have had wisdom after all, when he got into the position, to straighten the path, which others would also walk through. A righteous man who knows that there is something wrong with the previous practice, upon realization, should exert effort to correct it. Following a wrong decision does not make anyone right. It is but cowardice, lack of authority, and impervious thinking.

Now, I don't wonder, why it becomes possible to send out an official communication to everyone with an error and another with an error correcting the previous erroneous communication. Or, an addendum to the addendum. If this is so, then it is possible to have an erratum to the errata. Correcting a mistake is not wrong, it is an act of righteousness. An errata is a correction, when it is evident that we have committed many mistakes in the past, as we knew of the error, we need to make the correction.