Intro ( GWEN ) are those of a criminal who violated the

very system designed to protect the

“What is justice? Is it sealed in sanctity of human life.
paperwork… or stitched into the saving I do not dispute his medical skill. He is
of a life?” no doubt an able surgeon. But, a
doctor’s duty is to the law, as much as
Tonight, you will hear a case that defies it is to his patients.
simplicity. A transplant performed
without complete documents, without The Organ Donation Act, in all its
bureaucratic clearance but with urgency, formality, exists for one reason: to
and with one clear goal: to save a life. protect lives from exploitation, to
preserve human dignity, and to
Was it a breach of protocol? Yes. regulate the transfer of organs with
transparency and informed consent.
Was it against the law? Perhaps. This is not an arbitrary process. This is
But was it wrong? not a decision to be made in a vacuum.
Utilitarianism teaches us to look beyond (He starts pacing slowly.)
intention to outcome. To ask, not what Dr. Stauber bypassed all of that. He
rule was broken, but what good was threw away the procedures—ignored
done. the consent forms—left the ethics board
And when a dying patient opens their out of the loop—and most importantly,
eyes because someone acted without he disregarded the protocols that ensure
waiting for permission should we punish organs are given freely, without
that act… or praise it? coercion.
This is not just about medicine. It’s The law is not a suggestion. It is a duty.
about morality. Article II, Section 11 of the 1987
It’s about a system where doing the Philippine Constitution explicitly states
right thing… can cost you everything. the sanctity of life, but it also protects
the system that upholds it. The law is
Tonight, we put values on trial.
not a tool for personal judgment, it is
And by the end, you must answer:
an order of justice.
If undoing the law… saved a life…
Then did we not do right, by doing Dr. Stauber acted in defiance of it. He
wrong?” chose to be judge, jury, and
executioner in a decision that could
have been made within the established,
( PROSECUTOR) legal system. But he didn’t wait. And
now, we must face the consequences of
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we this unchecked action.
are here today not because of
compassion, not because of tragedy— (He pauses, looking directly at Dr.
but because of the law. This case is Stauber.)
about accountability. Dr. Stauber’s CRUZ:
actions are not those of a hero—they
 The law is clear. And intent cannot monument that cares only about its own
excuse illegality. existence.

Luis Salazar is alive today because Dr.

Stauber made the choice to serve
Defense Attorney Rothistle (rises humanity, not to let rules dictate the
slowly from her seat, her voice soft fate of a child.
but unwavering, as she walks
towards the jury)

ROTHISTLE: WITNESS TESTIMONIES

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we
must ask ourselves one very important
question. What is the law for?
Is it for the people—or is it for itself? Mrs. Salazar (her voice trembles as
The law exists to serve humanity, not to she stands, holding back tears)
imprison it in red tape.
MRS. SALAZAR:
Yes, the Organ Donation Act is a If waiting meant my son’s death, how
framework. But it is also just that—a could I wait? How could I let him slip
framework. Laws can never account for through my fingers just because some
every circumstance, every emergency, pieces of paper hadn’t been filled out?
or every moment where lives are at
stake. I am a mother. I looked into my son’s
eyes, and I saw the life draining from
Luis Salazar, a child, was on the brink of him. The hospital was telling me there
death. His heart was giving out. His were procedures to follow. But in that
body was failing. The paperwork that moment, the only procedure that
was supposed to save him—it took too mattered was saving his life.
long. He didn’t have days. He had
hours. Dr. Stauber didn’t ask for forms. He
asked, “Where is he?” And he did what
Dr. Stauber didn’t act out of greed or was needed.
personal ambition. He acted to save a
life. He acted because, in that moment, (She steps forward, her voice gaining
nothing else mattered. strength.)
MRS. SALAZAR:
(She pauses, her voice growing more I am forever grateful that my son is
impassioned as she looks to the alive, because Dr. Stauber acted when
jury.) no one else could. He gave us a
ROTHISTLE: chance—the chance that the law could
This is not a question of whether the not give us.
law was broken. This is a question of
whether the law can be a living,
breathing thing that serves the needs
of society, or whether it is a stone Cross-Examination: Law vs. Morality
Clash
CRUZ (his eyes narrowing as he looks but as someone who deeply cares for
at the professor) the future of our healthcare system.
CRUZ:
Professor Navarro, are you suggesting (She glances briefly at Dr. Stauber,
that doctors should simply decide which then turns to face the jury.)
laws to follow based on their own moral While I recognize the gravity of the
beliefs? situation, we cannot ignore the
consequences of overreaction. Dr.
ATTORNEY ROTHISTLE Stauber, as skilled and well-intentioned
No, Mr. Cruz. I am saying that when the as he is, acted without the necessary
law fails to protect life—when it gets in institutional support. His actions were
the way of saving a child, for instance— not approved by the hospital’s ethics
it becomes an instrument of harm, board, nor did they follow the legal
not help. We must, as a society, processes set in place to ensure that all
question such a law, not as a form of aspects of organ transplantation are
defiance, but to make it serve humanity. done ethically and with full
Laws are meant to protect us. But when transparency.
they fail in their purpose, they must be
reformed. (Her tone shifts slightly, becoming
more forceful.)
CRUZ: (coldly) This trial is not just about one surgeon
So, we abandon the law altogether in —it is about the future of our medical
favor of an individual’s judgment? institutions. The reputation of Hillary
Medical Group is at stake. We cannot
ATTORNEY ROTHISTLE allow this case to set a dangerous
No, Mr. Cruz. We reform the law so it precedent. If doctors are allowed to
can adapt to the needs of the people it bypass the law based on their own
was created to protect. Otherwise, we sense of urgency or moral decision,
become slaves to a broken system. then every medical institution could be
in jeopardy. The trust patients place in
( ASK QUESTIONS TO THE DOCTOR ) doctors, in hospitals—it’s fragile. If we
say that one breach can be forgiven, we
open the door for others, until the entire
system unravels.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY ROTHISTLE

INTRODUCTION OF EMMA (approaching, voice sharp):
FUSSELBACH – THE HOSPITAL Mr. Hillary, as CEO of Hillary Medical
DEFENSE Group, are you aware that Dr. Stauber
performed an emergency transplant
EMMA FUSSELBACH (to the judge
without prior documentation, bypassing
and the courtroom, in a professional yet
your institution’s chain of command?
urgent tone)
Your Honor, members of the jury, I GEORGE HILLARY (leaning forward,
represent Hillary Medical Group. I calm but stern):
stand before you not just as an attorney
 I am painfully aware. And let me be monster. I’m glad the child lived. But
clear: that was not how this hospital let’s not be naïve—one saved life can’t
operates. Not under my leadership. Not excuse the opening of a dangerous
under our values. precedent.

ROTHISTLE: Today, it’s a child’s heart. Tomorrow,

Values? Do your values include saving what? An organ removed from someone
a child’s life? who never consented? A family who
wakes up to find their loved one gutted
GEORGE HILLARY (stone-faced): in the name of “necessity”?
Our values include saving lives—yes
—but also preserving order, ethics, If we let this slide, then everything we
and legal compliance. If every doctor built—our protocols, our standards, our
acted on instinct alone, this hospital reputation—burns in the fire of one
would descend into chaos, not care. man’s moral crusade.

PROSECUTOR CRUZ: ROTHISTLE (firm):

Mr. Hillary, would you say Dr. Stauber’s So you'd rather he had waited? Until
actions harmed your hospital? the child died?

GEORGE HILLARY: GEORGE HILLARY (bitterly):

Harmed? I’d rather he had asked. That he had
(He stands for a moment, then turns respected the institution that trained
to the jury.) him, paid him, and trusted him.
Let me tell you what was harmed: trust. Dr. Stauber made himself a martyr,
Public trust. Stakeholder trust. and left my hospital to clean up the
Government partnerships. We are not ashes.
just a hospital—we are an institution. A Lives are saved every day—but we do
symbol of stability and regulation in an it within the lines. That's how
already fragile healthcare system. civilization works.

When a surgeon—no matter how

brilliant—goes rogue, ignores
procedure, violates the law, and then JUDGE SANTIAGO (raising a brow):
expects applause for it, that’s not Mr. Hillary, is your position that protocol
heroism. That’s recklessness. is more important than results?

GEORGE HILLARY (pauses, then

quietly):
DEFENSE: No, Your Honor. I’m saying both
But the patient survived. Doesn’t that matter.
matter? A hospital is not just a place of healing
—it's a place of order. Without rules, it
GEORGE HILLARY (his tone becomes a battlefield. We don’t just
measured, but cold): save lives—we safeguard them.
Of course it matters. I am not a
 must be malleable to human need—not
the other way around. We, the people,
DEFENSE ATTORNEY ROTHISTLE should not be slaves to the law; the law
(sarcastic): must be a servant to us. To life. To
And what exactly have you humanity.
safeguarded, Mr. Hillary—your patients?
Or your reputation?

GEORGE HILLARY (eyes narrowing): VERDICT SCENE – RESOLUTION

Both. Because without trust, without a WITH WEIGHT
name, we can’t save anyone.
Not now. Not ever. JUDGE SANTIAGO (his voice calm, but
the weight of his words heavy as the
courtroom listens in silence)
This court must weigh not just statutes
Prosecutor Cruz (his voice rising —but suffering.
with intensity)
Dr. Stauber, you did violate RA 7170,
CRUZ: but your actions revealed something
Ladies and gentlemen, do we want a larger: the inability of the system to
world where anyone can decide the law respond to life-and-death situations in
doesn’t apply to them, simply because time.
they claim to be doing it for a noble
cause? Therefore, while you are guilty of
procedural violations, I find that your
Do we want a world where coercion intentions were not criminal.
and manipulation go unchecked? Where
emergency decisions become arbitrary (He pauses, before delivering his
—based on who has the most authority final decision.)
or the most urgent need? You are sentenced to two years of
community service, where you will
We cannot allow this case to be a advocate for the reform of transplant
precedent. The law cannot—and must laws and emergency procedures.
not—bend to individual whims.
Let this be the moment the law learns to
serve not just order—but compassion
Defense Attorney Rothistle (now GEORGE HILLARY (coldly
standing, her tone fierce and composed):
passionate) …Because without trust, without a
name, we can’t save anyone.
ROTHISTLE: Not now. Not ever.
What is the point of law if it kills what it
was meant to protect? (A long pause. The silence is heavy.
Even the wind outside seems to halt. All
(She looks directly at the jury.) eyes shift to the bench.)
Luis Salazar is alive today, and that is
not a crime. His life is proof that the law
JUDGE SANTIAGO (stern, voice deep (Silence. Every breath is held. Even
with the weight of conscience): George Hillary falters, eyes narrowing.)
Mr. Hillary.
Are you telling this court... that JUDGE SANTIAGO (softly, almost to
reputation is of higher value than a himself):
human heartbeat? The law is a body. But without a heart...
it is nothing more than a corpse.
(Gasps ripple through the courtroom.)
PROSECUTOR CRUZ (cold,
GEORGE HILLARY (unblinking): deliberate):
I’m saying that institutions must We have laws because chaos is the
survive if we want to keep saving lives. alternative.
One man, one child—even one miracle And when a man decides that his
—cannot come at the cost of anarchy judgment sits above process, above
in medicine. consent, above every safeguard we
have,
JUDGE SANTIAGO (voice he threatens the very trust that holds
sharpening): this system together.
You speak of institutions. I speak of
justice. (Turns to the jury.)

(He stands slowly, gripping the edge of CRUZ:

his bench as if weighing every word.) If we let this go — we open the door to
every doctor playing god.
JUDGE SANTIAGO: Would you trust a system that bends for
We build laws to preserve life—not to one child, but not the others?
strangle it in paperwork. This is not justice — it’s selective
And yet… we must also ask: mercy. And that is injustice in disguise.
If a doctor becomes his own law, then
who decides where the line is drawn?
And if a hospital forgets its humanity in
the name of image—what, then, is it EMMA FUSSELBACH (rising smoothly,
healing? voice laced with corporate steel):
Your Honor, members of the jury —
(He looks around the courtroom.) Hillary Medical Group is not on trial. But
we must speak.
JUDGE SANTIAGO: If every doctor circumvents protocol
The law demands obedience. because they feel the pressure of the
But justice demands wisdom. moment, we don't just risk legal
This court is not here to protect power, consequences —
nor to vilify it. we risk collapsing the very order of
We are here to answer a simple medical ethics.
question that is anything but simple:
Is it a greater crime to break the law (Steps toward the judge.)
to save a life... or to keep the law and
let that life be lost? EMMA:
What if the donor hadn’t been
compatible?
 What if something had gone wrong? ROTHISTLE:
We would be dealing not with a miracle, If the law becomes a wall instead of a
but a lawsuit, a scandal, a funeral. bridge, if it stops healing instead of
Hospitals have systems for a reason — ensuring it —
not to delay healing, but to guard it. Then it is not justice. It is tyranny in
Dr. Stauber endangered us all by acting slow motion.
like the system didn’t matter.

SILENCE. The courtroom is frozen.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY ROTHISTLE Then:
(rising, thunder in his voice):
And what is a system worth, Ms. JUDGE SANTIAGO (solemn, weight in
Fusselbach, if it lets a child die to his voice):
protect its own paperwork? This court has heard passion. Pain.
Principle.
(Walks toward the jury slowly, We have heard the law recited, and the
passionately.) spirit of the law invoked.
We have seen the cost of delay. And
ROTHISTLE: the price of defiance.
Yes, laws matter. So do systems. But
not more than life itself. (He leans forward.)
(Turns to face the judge, the JUDGE SANTIAGO:
prosecutors, the entire courtroom.) Dr. Stauber did violate Republic Act
7170.
ROTHISTLE: But he did so under duress, not for
What Dr. Stauber did was illegal — yes. gain, but for life.
But it was necessary.
And in moral philosophy, necessity is (Beat.)
not an excuse. It is a truth.
Ask Jeremy Bentham. Ask John Stuart JUDGE SANTIAGO (CONT'D):
Mill. And under Article 11 of the Revised
Utilitarianism tells us: the right action is Penal Code,
the one that produces the greatest good a person who commits a crime to
for the greatest number. prevent a greater harm —
may be exempt from criminal liability.
(Pointing toward Luis Salazar.)
(He turns to Dr. Stauber.)
ROTHISTLE:
One child saved. One family kept JUDGE SANTIAGO:
whole. You will serve two years of
One nation forced to ask: Are we community service,
protecting life? Or protecting rules about educating medical institutions on the
protecting life? moral weight of urgency, and advocating
for reform in emergency organ
(To the jury.) protocols.
(To the court.)

JUDGE SANTIAGO:
Let this ruling not encourage
recklessness —
but inspire compassion that is
informed, and systems that respond.
Let us remember that the law exists to
serve humanity,
not to punish it for surviving.

GWEN:

“You have heard the facts. You’ve seen

the consequences. A life was saved—
not by policy, but by principle. Not by
law… but by action.

Yes, the law was bypassed.

But no one can deny the result: a
human being still lives.

So we ask you—what is the true crime?

To act without papers? Or to stand by,
watching life slip away… with everything
signed and stamped?

Utilitarianism is not always clean. It is

not always comfortable.
But it demands courage. It demands
that we choose the greater good… even
when the path there is messy, flawed,
human.

In this courtroom, let us not confuse

legality with morality.
Let us not punish the hands that gave
life… because they forgot to wait for a
signature.*

Let this be a turning point. Where

compassion rises above compliance.
Because in the end… if saving a life is
wrong—then maybe it’s time we rethink
what we call justice.”