NOT surprisingly, former president Rodrigo Duterte now faces a disbarment case before the Supreme Court filed by human rights groups and advocates, religious leaders, and relatives of victims of extrajudicial killings that took place during this term from 2016 to 2022.
The disbarment case against Duterte comes on the heels of the recommendation of the quad committee in the House of Representatives to file cases against the ex-Chief Executive before the Department of Justice for summary executions of more than 6,400 drug suspects as officially reported by the Philippine National Police in the course of their implementation of his bloody war on drugs.
And it follows what is an ongoing investigation of Duterte by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity during his violent campaign against illegal drugs, for which an arrest warrant could be issued soon.
The string of cases against Duterte can hardly be called political persecution, as his rabid apologists and supporters are saying, simply because there is enough concrete evidence that could put him behind bars for the rest of his life.
The disbarment case against Duterte should actually be the least of his legal worries. The complainants claim he violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, for which he stands accused for conduct unbecoming a lawyer.
Duterte obtained his law degree from San Beda, and was admitted to the Bar in 1973. Apart from sitting as Davao City mayor for more than 20 years, he was also prosecutor and a member of Congress.
Given all his positions in government, Duterte should have upheld the rule of law at all times. But obviously he did not, as his record in public office shows repeated violations of due process and strict adherence to the law.
Disbarment is the removal of a lawyer’s right to practice law. Once disbarred, a lawyer’s name will be stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys.
As a general rule, disbarment proceedings against lawyers are confidential under the Rules of Court, but such confidentiality is not a restriction on the freedom of the press.
The Supreme Court has ruled that as long as there is a legitimate public interest, the media is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate news report about a disbarment complaint.
The complainants in the disbarment case against Duterte urge the Supreme Court to clarify not just how the law should work in the country, but also what it constitutes dignified and proper conduct in the practice of law.
These are legitimate concerns the High Tribunal should address at the soonest possible time, and should decide according to its best judgment.