"Thank you compañeros and compañeras for your service."
"Thank you compañeros and compañeras for your service."
Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution is perhaps the most famous constitutional provision, known by both legal practitioners and non-lawyers alike. It provides that “(i)n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel xxx.” This is a fundamental concept, taught as early as first year in law school, and serves as a reminder to all lawyers that the right of an accused to counsel by a member of the bar is immutable, and to deprive the accused of this right is akin to the denial of due process.
On Monday, May 6, Peter Joemel Advincula alias Bikoy surfaced in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines main office in Pasig. During a press conference, he asked for legal assistance to sue presidential son and former Davao City Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte and presidential aide and senatorial candidate Bong Go, among others, in connection with the drug trade. However, his request for representation was denied, with IBP President Abdiel Fajardo saying that the “IBP cannot be seen to be siding with or going against any candidate or political party.” He also said that such a decision was reached independently through a perusal of the National Center of Legal Aid Manual of Operations. Fajardo also said all communications and documents provided, according to the IBP, will also remain confidential, protected by attorney-client privilege.
As a response to the events of Monday, IBP-Davao City Chapter released a statement lashing out at the IBP national leadership, claiming that the latter allowed itself to be used, and that Advincula’s case is not deserving of the Chapter’s support because the IBP is supposedly non-partisan, and should not cater to political interest. Solicitor General Jose Calida has also weighed in and accused the IBP leadership of allowing itself to be a platform against the Duterte government.
This criticism of the IBP leadership is absolutely unfounded. The IBP, as manifested by the statements of Fajardo and Egon Cayosa, incoming President, has acted fairly and in the most upright way on this issue. Its National Center of Legal Aid, headed by the brilliant and committed June Ambrosio, have acted in accordance with its rules and has made the right decision here. Indeed, the IBP cannot be seen as being politically partisan. The current leadership has been consistent on that, calling issues as they see it.
Allow me to use this controversy as a teaching moment, evoking issues beyond the Bikoy controversy.
The right to counsel is a fundamental right that every Filipino possesses, regardless of one’s gender, history, political affiliation, religious beliefs, or the lawyer’s own opinion regarding the guilt of the person. This is found in Rule 14.01, Canon 14, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The former case of estafa filed against Bikoy Advincula is not sufficient reason not to avail himself of this particular right. To refuse him this right will not further the ends of justice. It will, instead, derail it.
On the other hand, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has the mission, under R.A. 6397, to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. It self-identifies as the sentinel of the rule of law, in line with its mandate to maintain independence and credibility as the umbrella organization of all lawyers in the Philippines. However, this does not mean that it cannot speak up on national issues. It has in fact, spoken up in the past regarding various issues that are of national interest, including releasing a statement in support of judicial independence and upholding the rule of law during the Sereno quo warranto issue, and fighting for Philippine sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea. These acts that it has done in the past are but testaments to the fact that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has the ability, if need be, to make political stances, with the view to extend justice, especially to those who need it most.
Whether the IBP will reconsider its stance on representing Bikoy Advincula is up to it, but one thing remains certain—Bikoy Advincula has the right to be represented, and he can ask it from any lawyer or organization of lawyers he deems fit will defend him best. On the flip side of this, the IBP must make its own independent decision to defend or not defend a client.
When I was a young lawyer, the late Romy Capulong, founder of the National Union of People’s Lawyers and icon of human rights and social justice lawyering in the Philippines asked me, to join the national legal aid committee of the IBP. Capulong chaired that committee and wanted me to help transform it so we could take on big causes.
The current IBP leadership, including of the National Center of Legal Aid, is doing this. It’s a wonderful group of people leading us—Fajardo, Cayosa, Ambrosio, and our Governors. Thank you compañeros and compañeras for your service. You live today the words of our founder Justice JBL Reyes: “No master but law, no guide but conscience, no aim but justice.”
Facebook Page: Professor Tony Laviña Twitter: tonylavs