The Rizalist put forth a curious theory yesterday when we had our "side" discussions at the iBlog2 Summit.
The Honorable and new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court apparently elevated the right to prosperity as a universal human right, as opposed to the right to pursue prosperity (which is what we probably have now).
What are the implications of this "apparent" direction the Panganiban Supreme Court is heading into?
There is a "wild" theory that this will be used to justify all the constitutionally off-tangent actions of the current administration. Yes, folks, Proclamation 1017, Executive Order No. 464, Calbrated Preemptive Response, the whole wheel of cheese. Everything can be justified in the name of the right to prosperity.
Disturbing because to do this in the name of such right, the right to prosperity must be given more weight or stature in the heirarchy of rights. Yes, it should be more important that the right to liberty or even life. That's not what I've been taught in law school.
Machiavellian. But come to think of it, not that far-fatched.
But it cuts both ways, my friend. The right to prosperity must be treated both as personal and state prosperity. And this is where the fun begins.
I could, theoretically, sue a bank for not granting my loan application because that would curtail my right to prosperity. And under that principle also, crimes such estafa, unfair competition and even robbery may become unconstitutional. The possibilities are endless.
But why stop there? Why not expand that right to prosperity to "the right to happiness?"
Why? Don't I have the right to be happy?