Kho Yute, Rotsen

LlB-1C

March 8, 2014

REACTION PAPER IN THE MOVIE “ON THE JOB”

The movie tells the story of two distinct characters namely Mario

“Tatang” Maghari who is a veteran hit man from Manila Jail on which his

status as a prisoner is changed whenever he is called to do an

assassination job and Francis Colonel, Jr. who is a NBI agent and an

idealistic lawyer investigating the murder case of a drug dealer slayed

publicly. While watching the movie, I felt sorry for our country. Ironically, our

country is facing a lot of situations revolving around corruption scandals at

the highest ranks of our government and sadly nothing has been done to

punish those who are culprits. It is not a new concept to me that the penal

system in our country is infected with corruption and a lot of influence

coming from high-profile personas dominates the system and as a result,

injustice consumes the country. This reaction paper will focus to the role of

Francis Colonel, Jr.

Worthy of noting is the role of Francis Colonel, Jr. in this movie. As a

lawyer, it is his primary duty to society to uphold the Constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. This duty

is emphasized in Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and in

the attorney’s oath. By swearing the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a

guardian of truth and the rule of law and an indispensable instrument in the

fair and impartial administration of justice. Further, rule 1.01 states that a

lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct. In the later part of the movie, Francis violated this rule. He

concealed and was hesitant to disclose the information he knew regarding

the trade that is running under prison. It is my understanding that it is a

favor asked by the father of his wife who also happens to be a

congressman. I understand that he have personal obligations he owe to his

family but as a lawyer, where I assume he voluntarily chose for himself,

Francis swore to be the guardian of truth and the rule of law. When

confronted with a situation like this, he should have chosen to divulge what

he knew at the very beginning because of the duty he promised to fulfill in

compliance to his oath in his chosen profession. He was dishonest and his

decision in the later part of the movie to disclose what he knew is already

too late.

In connection to the violation of rule 1.01 is another violation in rule

6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.02 states that a

lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to

promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere

with his public duties. Government lawyers are public servants and they

owe utmost fidelity to the public service in consonance of the principle that

a public office is a public trust. They do not shed their professional

obligations in assuming public positions. Furthermore, under Section 4 of

R.A. No. 6713, public officials are required to uphold the public

interest over and above personal interest; must discharge their duties

with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and

skill; act with justness and sincerity; provide service without discrimination;

extend prompt, courteous and adequate service to the public; be loyal to

the Republic; commit themselves to the democratic way of life and values;

and lead modest lives. I personally believe that Francis, as he was

occupying a public position as an NBI agent and as a lawyer at the same

time, violated this rule in his heed to honor the request of his father-in-law.

It is a clear violation of this rule despite of his intentions in the later part to

amend his mistakes. But I am impressed and I really commend Francis in

his decision before the movie ends. Let’s face it, in reality this is rarely

happening and let us add to that as an element our culture. In our culture,

family should be valued at all times. This is the concept that the movie

wanted us to realize that family should not be the basis of our decisions

especially if we knew in our hearts that they are wrong or that they had

committed a wrongful act. How can we administer justice if in ourselves we

are not just? But then again as I said, this is a sad reality in our society that

we should accept. Somehow, through this movie, I believe that those who

are guilty of doing what was portrayed should be ashamed of themselves

and I think the realization that this movie gave to its viewers after watching

it would help in slowly changing the system.

In the ending of the movie, I was left hanging. There are many

questions that are running to my mind like what now will happen since

Francis died at the end and the evidences he gathered, what will happen to

those? Is there going to be someone who will utilize it to bring justice? I

think this movie must have a sequel in order to fully conclude the storyline.

To be honest, I was too focused in the tragic death of Francis because I

rarely see movies of this kind where the main character dies. I think the

movie is a really good material to appreciate the application of legal ethics

but of course here comes a big comparison that can be made; in the

movies versus reality. As always, reality is in conflict with what the movie

wanted to conclude though movies are considered to be reflections of a

perfect reality. This movie somehow portrays scenarios very close to what

is really happening in our society. To conclude I wanted to share my

favorite quote in connection to the essence of this movie: “Three Simple

Rules in Life: 1. If you do not go after what you want, you’ll never have it.;

2. If you do not ask, the answer will always be no.; 3. If you do not step

FORWARD, you will ALWAYS be in the same place. Change is a big word

but I believe that we should embody the meaning of this word to become

more flexible and successful in our chosen professions.