Lawyers protest

VARIOUS lawyers’ groups in Cebu oppose the compulsory free legal aid initiative of the Supreme Court (SC), which is poised to be implemented this year.

The lawyers’s groups, which include the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cebu City and Province chapters and the
Young Lawyers’ Association of Cebu (YLAC), are up in arms against the Mandatory Legal Aid Service (MLAS).

Click here for Election 2010 updates

They are planning to demonstrate their protest by signing a manifesto in front of the Palace of Justice in Cebu City on June 25.

Lawyer Ian Sapayan, YLAC president, considered the legal aid initiative as a “duplication of the function” of public attorneys.

“The giving of free legal services is opposed to the mandate of PAO (Public Attorney’s Office),” Sapayan told Sun.Star
Cebu by the phone.

Lawyer Michael Yu, IBP Cebu City chapter president, said lawyers in Cebu are supporting only the “voluntary free legal aid” to indigents, and not the mandatory initiative.

The lawyers’ groups aired their opposition to the program following the pronouncement of SC Justice Renato Corona recently that he will implement the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers, which requires all practicing lawyers to render a minimum number of hours every year of free legal aid to indigents.

The program would have taken effect in June 2009 but the SC deferred its implementation following several letters it received from IBP chapters nationwide opposing to the program.

Sapayan said Yu checked the status of MLAS in Manila and found out the legal aid program is yet to be calendared in the agenda of the High Tribunal.

Sapayan said the IBP Cebu City and Province chapters are worried the implementation of the initiative will clog court dockets because some litigants may just use the initiative to file cases in courts.

Also, Sapayan said the rule defines legal aid initiative merely as a legal assistance to indigents or deserving litigants inside the courtroom alone.

But the practice of law includes studying, researching and the drafting of pleadings for the litigants, among others, said Sapayan.

The free legal service initiative of the High Tribunal is contained in Bar Matter 2012, which compels lawyers to give at least 60 hours of free legal assistance to indigents—five free hours of actual courtroom lawyering a month—or risk being barred from court.

The rule covers “every practicing lawyer” and directs them to fulfill their duty as “agents of change in society” by “serving the less privileged.”

Excluded are lawyers employed in the private sector but who do not appear on behalf of parties in courts or any quasi-judicial agencies.

In resolving to defer its implementation, the High Tribunal instead directed the IBP’s Board of Governors to draft the implementing regulations for the initiative.

It also directed the body to submit its comment on Bar Matter 2012 itself, particularly on the concerns that the giving of free legal aid service should be voluntary and the rule will spawn litigation and clog court dockets.

While the SC has yet to act upon the implementing rules for the initiative, Sapayan said the IBP Cebu City and Province chapters have passed separate resolutions reiterating their opposition to the implementation of the program.

Yu said they consulted their new league members on the new mandatory legal aid service as early as April 2009.

“The general sentiment was against (the) mandatory imposition (of initiative). A resolution was passed by the board asking the recall or deferment of the implementation to consult the other lawyers nationwide,” Yu said.

Yu said the High Tribunal agreed to defer the implementation until Dec. 31, 2009 or the approval of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the initiative.

But the IRR remained pending even after former SC justice Renato Puno retired, said Yu.

“Based on reliable information, Corona is bent on approving the IRR,” said Yu.

Yu said they will hold a manifesto-signing and a press conference on June 25 “to demonstrate that the lawyers support only voluntary legal aid, and not mandatory.”

Instead of a compulsory legal aid program, the IBP Cebu City chapter suggested three points to the High Court.

These are that law schools so volunteerism must be encouraged in law schools as part of legal ethics; for Congress to appropriate a budget for legal aid administered by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ National Committee on Legal Aid, for distribution to IBP local chapters, and prior to taking bar exams, law graduates are to engage in internship for one year, handling free legal aid or two years’ internship for new lawyers as a condition for passing the bar.(GMD)