*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD
In my years of observing courts, legislatures, and the
political arena, I have noticed a recurring conflict—justice measured in
numbers versus justice measured in truth. On paper, both may appear legitimate.
But in reality, quantitative justice and qualitative justice are worlds apart.
Quantitative justice is a game of counting. It relies on
majority votes, consensus, or popular opinion. It says, “If most of us agree,
then it must be right.” This is the logic behind majority rule—a principle that
works well in elections and decision-making processes but one that can be
deeply flawed when applied to matters of justice. Numbers, after all, can be
manipulated. People can be swayed by propaganda, fear, or personal gain. The
loudest voices do not always speak the truth, and the majority does not have a
monopoly on morality.
Qualitative justice, on the other hand, looks beyond
numbers. It asks: Is the decision fair? Is it backed by facts and evidence?
Does it uphold the principles of truth, dignity, and equality? It is not about
how many agree, but whether the decision can stand the test of reason,
morality, and time.
In my own professional journey—as an academician, a former
municipal councilor, an adviser to law enforcement, a sportsman, a businessman, and a
political leader—I have seen the consequences of favoring quantity over
quality. In politics, a qualified but unpopular proposal can be shot down
simply because the votes aren’t there. In court, a well-argued case can lose to
a decision swayed by influence rather than evidence. In organizations, the
majority can force through policies that benefit themselves while harming the
rest.
The danger with quantitative justice is that it can create
the illusion of legitimacy. When a verdict or resolution has the backing of
“the majority,” it is easy to sell it as fair and democratic. But democracy
without moral grounding is fragile—it becomes mob rule wrapped in the language
of legality. History is littered with examples where the majority supported
decisions that, in hindsight, were unjust, oppressive, or even catastrophic.
Qualitative justice demands more from us. It requires deep
thinking, moral courage, and the humility to admit when the truth lies outside
popular opinion. It forces decision-makers to weigh each case on its own
merits, to listen to the marginalized, and to ensure that rights are protected
even when inconvenient.
I once walked away from a position in an institution because
I saw that decisions were being made based on numbers, not on wisdom. Remaining
there would have dulled my intellect and eroded my self-respect. Choosing
quality over quantity was not easy—it meant leaving comfort for principle—but
it was the right thing to do.
In the end, quantitative justice counts heads; qualitative
justice counts truth. One focuses on the will of the many; the other defends
the rights of all. A society that values the first over the second risks losing
its moral compass. But a society that treasures qualitative justice builds a
foundation that can withstand not just the test of popularity but the test of
history.
Because justice is not about how many say you are right—it
is about actually being right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
