Dura Lex, Sed Lex

The law is harsh, but it is the law. This is the literal meaning of the Latin legal
term Dura lex, sed Lex which is well known by those in the legal profession.
Dura means hard or harsh, lex is the word for written or customary law or a law
made by man. It is to be differentiated from jus, which is natural law and sed means
but. The phrase originated in the 11th century as a principle of cannon law (church
law) by Bishop Buchard of Worms. It stands for the "Rule of Law", that is the letter of
the law must be followed by everyone and no one is above the law.
This Latin maxim may have advantages on cases for extracting out the truth in
getting most or all of the resources available or anything that can support the
litigants for the evidences. For example, an individual who cant bring himself to
testify in court against the offender due to some reasons, the law says it will be
tough, but testify anyway. This was made in this way to be able to come up with an
empirical judgment but can harm the testifier subjectively.
Apparently, the law equally applies to all which means having no favor to anyone.
This means that before the law everybody has exactly the same standing regardless
of their authority in power or their wealth. So justice will always prevail even if the
offender holds position and/or wealth or not as a general.
The law is just for people concerned and for the society but there is still some
instances where law remains unjust like in some cases wherein equality is given for
the fortunate and less fortunate under the same law. For example, giving the same
value-added tax for the very rich and very poor people. Since there is a big
difference on their ability to buy and ability to pay for the added taxes, is it not fair
to imply or take more VAT from rich people and lesser from poor ones? But then
again as the rule of the law implies value-added taxes must be taken from both of
the rich and the poor to generate the governments revenue, in the end, no
argument can be raised against this issue.
Also, there are laws that can be deemed as inhumane or immoral yet it is being
applied by some countries. Examples are abortion law and divorce which are very
controversial issues in many societies throughout the history. In abortion law, many
find it detestable to take out the fetus life just to follow the traditional practices
(like having 2-child policy) but still they can do nothing about it for it is legal to do
so. Some, especially the churches, may see divorce as being immoral because it
allows having 2 or more marriages to an individual which nullifies the sacredness of
it.
Sometimes it seems implausible to say that law is always being acted upon because
exemption can arise, like for an instance wherein an individual is given an immunity
from any prosecution due to his position, it depicts a man being above the law if in

case that individual is conflicted with some trial or anything that is against the law.
Therefore law contradicts itself for implying exemptions in some case scenario.
*Even when it is just in nature, the problem comes from the enforcers of it. When
someone who has the power and influence to do what is right and just do work for
personal gain and did some conspiracy (example: a judge who took bribes from the
litigants to alter the decision of the court) and taking advantage of position, the
judgment done will only result to unjust and detestable decisions.
There can be just and unjust decisions on trials but the thing to say is that whatever
it may cause to an individual after litigation, the existing law must always be
observed and if the individual disagrees with the results, there would be no
alternative other than seeking to change the law. Of course the right of a person is
also taken into consideration but whats more important is following the due process
and making the judgment for the benefit of the majority. The law may be hard to
observe or may be too difficult to obey, but it is still the law and therefore must be
followed.