The Burden of Proof on Power

Throughout her life, Sor Juana had to defend and justify her intellectual work, her choices, her authority to speak—the burden fell on her to prove her legitimacy. Yet her writings question this very dynamic: why should those without power bear the burden of proving their claims while institutions claim authority without justification? In anti-corruption frameworks, this reversal becomes crucial. Standard approaches require whistleblowers and critics to prove corruption happened; officials need only deny. This asymmetry protects corruption. The concept of placing burden of proof on power means: institutions and officials should justify themselves, explain their decisions, and prove their legitimacy. This shift—demanding transparency from authorities rather than demanding evidence from citizens—aligns with Sor Juana's implicit argument: those holding power should be most accountable. Practical applications include presuming corruption until officials prove otherwise, requiring mandatory disclosure of government operations, placing legal burden on officials to justify suspicious actions. This concept rebalances epistemic authority toward justice rather than toward those simply holding institutional positions.