“DOUBLE JEOPARDY” Reaction Paper

Marika Grace M. Palasi                                                                                     Sir Kiev Albarico

HUB31                                                                                                                        SOSC106

“DOUBLE JEOPARDY” Reaction Paper

The movie’s plot is outstanding! I could request for more acting or for more famous actors and actresses, but the plot just remains the same (Well, I don’t really have any problem with the cast. I just used this sentence for emphasis on the plot.). All of the following views and opinions are all based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

The plot is a very unique one in a sense that the Constitutional law pertaining Double Jeopardy (Stated in Article III, Section 21 of the Philippine Constitution) is very familiar, especially to us students who are studying the Philippine Constitution.  But it never really came to my mind to use the term “what if” so as to be able to mimic the plot of this story. This movie became “brilliant” for me, because the idea from which the story revolved is so obvious, but I was not able to expand my imagination and thought of this kind of story before watching it.

Libby is such a wise woman. She did not just accept the things that happen to her. She is not passive. I admire her. Her actions are so wise and practical, especially in the matter of redeeming herself to see and be with her son once more. She knows her rights were sequestered from her unjustly. At first she wanted to do it tamely but when she discovered the truth that her supposedly dead husband is still alive, her indignancy is revived. Actually, I am not convinced that she was given a fair and speedy trial as stated in Article III, Section I and XVI. It seems that the conclusions were so fast. There was not enough cross examination. Yet I am convinced that she was given the rights stated in Section XII and XIII but maybe not enough. Her side was not thoroughly examined in court. Her conviction was probably influenced by the prerogatives of the judges based on the “obvious” evidences against her. Because of this, Libby, by herself, made her own way to prove her innocence.

Article III, Section X made Libby’s husband liable to their marriage contract. Having this dilemma of his, he has devised this plan of setting up Libby just to get away with her “legally”. When Libby’s husband’s mistress died because of an accident, Libby knew he might have something to do with the “accident”. He is really capable of doing it anyhow. So when Libby accidentally killed her husband, I, thinking that she just did justice to both of them, was relieved. This guy is frantic about capturing and then getting of women whenever he wants to. Maybe he has this certain charm that could attract women, but then when he “has” them; he just doesn’t know how to value them. I’m really irritated with such guys. They are meant to be leaders of their own home and family. But in such case, they should be the ones being led to the right path. Fathers and husbands are as crucial as mothers and wives.

For me, if I were Libby, I would most likely do the same. I would endure the hardship for the moment and then seek an opportunity to clear my name and prove the injustice done to me. I could somehow relate to her urgency to have this done. She knows that she has been robbed of chances to freely do what she wants. This indignant feeling just simply piled up, since she cannot do anything about it for the mean time. But I could relate to that feeling of storing every feeling, thought and plan you have, because you are restrained to act upon it. The fulfillment of those are so satisfying and relieving. I believe she NEEDED to do it. I am on here side on this. And besides, she didn’t mean to harm or kill her husband. It was just an accident. And by killing her husband in the end of the movie, she truly had redeemed herself by:

1.     Proving that her husband is still alive. So she did not kill him the “first time”. She was imprisoned wrongly.

2.     Putting an end to her husband’s life. This is nearly an equivalent of retributtal and punishment for her husband’s deeds. Actions do have their consequences.

I say this movie is possible, and Libby’s actions are legal. If I were to add an extension of the movie’s ending, I would suggest that she truly have redeemed her freedom. Nobody could chase her and ask her to pay for her husband’s death. No matter how I look at it, the plot is simply amazing and genius. The schemes Libby’s husband made to make Libby end up in prison is nothing compared to Libby’s retributtal. She took back the fight. She was in control in the end. She already paid for her husband’s “first death” that didn’t really happen. So doing it “again” is already legal. She already paid for it in advance.

The movie portrayed a positive connotation to the Double Jeopardy law. And for that, I agree with this law. But what I am afraid of is the other implications of this law. It could be interpreted in a wide scope. I could not foretell what other circumstances this law may favor convicts, and so suggest another law that may counteract this Double Jeopardy law. This is a downside to laws. Article III, Section XXII states that only those laws favoring the accused could be implemented. So someone who gains positive implications of this Double Jeopardy law could not be chased by the court to answer again, if the convicted gains positively from the situation. This is comforting for me if I were a convict but scary if I would look at it as a justice pursuer.

The Double Jeopardy law truly protects the rights of accused. I do agree that this is essential, since the complainant would do everything just to convict the accused. The accused needs some protection because there are chances that he is not really the guilty one. The stiff characteristic of our laws could be manipulated by brilliant minds to turn it to their advantage. I could not imagine what a brilliant mind could do. They could make injustice be justice in the eyes of the law. So for safekeeping, because we could not be sure if the accused should really be convicted, I agree with the implementation of the Double Jeopardy law.

This law also prevents the repetitive and unending trial and punishment of convicted people. The complainant would surely not heal fast from the offense done to him, so he may resort to continually make the convicted pay of the offense which he is already sentenced of. Because without this law, the peace of mind of the convicted would entirely be based upon the peace of mind of the complainant. And knowing the nature of our humanity, our being selfish, we cannot stand that our “enemy” is not paying for what they have done to us. If there were no Double Jeopardy law, the complainant may repeat the punishment of the convicted whenever he feels like it, whenever the memory is refreshed. And this may be unending. The punishment may be repeated by the complainant even though the convicted had already paid for the crime he had done. All of the provisions of the Double Jeopardy law apply to the same crimes. For crimes not to fall under the Double Jeopardy law, they may be of the same nature but of different circumstances.

So a practical advice that I could say to all the Libbys out there is this: Be ALL out. Since you are already in there, it is lawful that you truly do it. But this is in the perspective of the law and legalities. Human life is still sacred no matter what, and prolonging one’s life gives him more chances to be changed. Even imprisonment has that goal and tries to pursue that goal till the end: To change and rehabilitate a person. Death sentence is the very last option.