For nearly two decades now since I started writing this column, I would encounter much too often not only legalese and jargon—the abstruse English of the law and jurisprudence—but also their kindred baffling specimens that I pejoratively label as academese, bureaucratese, and corporatese. At their most incomprehensible extremes, of course, they veer toward the gibberish or nonsense known as gobbledygook.
IMAGE CREDIT: FACEBOOK.COM/PHIJURISOFFICIAL/PHOTOS FORMS OF LEGALESE IN PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE
(Above, left photo)
CLEAR, UNDERSTANDABLE LEGALESE: Jurisprudence on social justice "The policy of social justice is not intended to
countenance wrongdoing simply because
it is committed by the underprivileged." [G.R. No. 184011, September 18, 2013]
(Above, right photo)
TOUGH LEGALESE BORDERING ON JARGON: Jurisprudence on marital incapacity "Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility could
not be equated with psychological Incapacity." [G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014]
I recall that back in 2003, my son Carlo who was then a high school junior brought to my attention this English sentence that he thought was “very impressive” but couldn’t seem to understand: “Basically, globalization indicates a qualitative deepening of the internationalization process, strengthening the functional and weakening the territorial dimension of development.”
After quickly going over the sentence, I told him that the educator who wrote that convoluted academese—it was in a scholarly article in a major national newspaper’s op-ed page—probably meant to say this: “Globalization is a deeper form of internationalization, one where a nation’s drive for development becomes more important than its territorial size,” or, in even simpler English, that “A nation can be small but it can become a major world economic power.”
IMAGE CREDIT: EDUCBA.COM“That certainly makes sense,” my son said, “but why do these educators say it the way they do? They are writing not only for English experts but also for people like me, aren’t they? Why then use such fuzzy words as ‘qualitative deepening’ and ‘territorial dimension of development’?”
“Son, this article was not written for you,” I replied. “It was probably written with the best intentions for their fellow educators and higher-ups, but somehow it landed on this newspaper without being adapted and edited for readers like us.” (
“Why not a few academics encode their insights into turgid English”)
At least until about 20 years ago—that was before the plain and simple English movement started in the United States—bureaucratese like what follows lorded it over in federal trade communication: “Purification of unliquidated obligations is essential for the early identification and correction of invalid obligation amounts to ensure full and effective fund utilization.”
In plain and simple English, that statement is probably saying this: “To make sure that our funds are fully and effectively utilized, unliquidated expenses and invalid claims must be identified and rectified right away.”
IMAGE CREDIT: SLIDESERVE.COMWorse yet is this bureaucratic reply—it almost borders on gobbledygook—by an American military general to a subordinate’s request way back in the 1980s: “Because of your predisposition to your position’s productive capacity, it would momentarily be injudicious, as per government standards, to advocate an increment.”
What the general probably meant to say was simply this: “You don’t deserve a pay increase now because of your poor performance in your position.”
But are we in the Philippines any better in our law and jurisprudence by using—if not plain and simple English—at least clear and fathomable legalese? I was hoping that we have made great progress on this aspect until a Forum member brought to my attention this Supreme Court jurisprudence about “consignation” (GR L-8496, April 25, 1956):
“(T)he disagreement between a lessor and a lessee as to the amount of rent to be paid by a lessee cannot be decided in an action of consignation but in that of forcible entry and unlawful detainer that the lessor institutes when the lessee refuses to pay the lessor the rents that he has fixed for the property.” (
“Making sense of abstruse legalese”)
Honestly, I thought the grammar and syntax of that piece of jurisprudence were scrupulously correct and beyond reproach, so I actually made every effort to make its sense clearer. Until this time, though, I’m still scratching my head over the complicated, mind-bending justification for how our own Supreme Court had ruled in such cases.
(Next:
Did the First Mass historians ever talk to one another?) September 9, 2021
This essay, 2062nd of the series, appeared in the column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in the Campus Press section of the September 9, 2021 Internet edition of The Manila Times
,© 2021 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved. Read this article online in
The Manila Times:
How plain English and legalese differ, or vice versa- 3To listen to the audio version of this article, click the encircled double triangle logo in its online posting in
The Manila Times
