Rhona Canoy SO... Throughout my life, I have been (and still am) frequently asked why I didn’t follow in my father’s footsteps and become a lawyer. I never really gave that question much thought since a shoulder shrug was an easier way to end the conversation. I ran into Court of Appeals Justice Romy Borja at a recent social event and in our conversation he told me a story about my early childhood. He has a lot of those, I suppose, because I had the great privilege of having his mother, Mama Dulcing, be my baptismal ninang. And she took that responsibility to heart. Therefore, I had many conversations with Tito Tinying, some of which I remember, and some long forgotten. Evidently, as a little girl, my father told Tito Tinying that I wanted to be a lawyer. So I was interviewed by the formidable Mayor Justiniano Borja regarding this life choice (which at six or seven years old, was a toss-up with fairy princess). At the end of the conversation which I guess focused on what it entailed to become and also be a lawyer, I reportedly replied, “Mag-medicine na lang ko.” And the question regarding my unfulfilled legal career has followed me all through my life. There is no particular thing I can point to that would explain why I’m not “A Tourney”. I have had the distinct experience of being around lawyers, whether through blood, friendship or through necessary services. They have provided me with much to think about, a lot of amusement, and the occasional condescension. But it was not until my dad ran for mayor in 1995 and lost that I got my peculiar perspective on the law and those who practice it. I was tasked to collect, collate, reconcile and analyze all the electionelated documents for the lawyers to use in filing the complaint. Being the obsessive-compulsive creature that I am, I figured that I wouldn’t be able to do a good job if I didn’t first read and study the Electoral Omnibus Code. As I got deeper and deeper into understanding both the law and the documents, I also began to argue with the legal panel (composed of respected lawyers and upcoming young legal guns) because I believed that they were on the wrong track. Since this is not a legal treatise, suffice it to say that this particular case provided me with observations upon which my insight into the legal profession is founded. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter. I think the lawyer must function under the limitations and specifications of the laws which are created by our lawmaking bodies, both national and local. Interpretation of these laws are based on similar cases, Supreme Court rulings and the personal viewpoint of the legal practitioner. I suppose there must be a subject in law school that prepares future “a tourneys” to acquire a specific thought process... And since most lawyers seem hesitant to file a precedent case (one that has never been filed ever ever ever under a particular set of circumstances or perspective), I guess the lawyer who dares to go into uncharted legal territory is rare. Which makes me wonder whether they are brave and/or creative... Then there is the legal end goal—to win the case. For some lawyers, at all cost. So the legal procedure is adversarial in nature. Someone must win and someone must lose. Although compromise is a possibility, in most legal cases that I have been part of or have kept track of, in the end one side is going to benefit more than the other. Win-lose situations are difficult for me. I have never been competitive. Still am not. My comfort zone is bounded by what is right and what is wrong, and what is best for everybody. I’ve spent too many years dedicated to the world of education, aiming to mold young people to go out and make a better world, to be fired up by all the possibilities. Contests, whether legal or otherwise, are not interesting to me because I tend to root for the side of equality and fairness, which (by the way) are not the same thing. My perspective is fueled by compassion and empathy, finding ways to see all the what-ifs, and most of all the belief that we can all make this world a better place. Let me emphasize that I think lawyers are like that. But given their paradigms, I feel for them. Because it seems counter-intuitive. I appreciate the  “a tourneys” of this world. I am grateful for the service they provide, and I have respect for their niche in our existence. But I don’t know if I could be of that world. Somewhere inside of me I guess I have always known that to be a lawyer would dim my spirit. My passion does not lie there. So there is the answer to the question. I am not “a tourney”. I would probably not be a good “a tourney”. I don’t think I could live my life as “a tourney”. Postscript: I ended up prevailing over the legal panel in that electoral argument. All because one Atty. Concordio Diel Sr. saw fit to see the merit of my arguments and stood up in my defense. Once in a while, I consider the possibility. So maybe the jury is still out on this question.