quote” If a lawyer encourages people to not pay their taxes or to ignore traffic lights and other laws, can that lawyer be disbarred?” unquote
MY COMMENT: If the lawyer gives it as a form of advice to a client without stating what all options are and the risks, i would say, maybe he/ she should be disbarred for it.
In giving legal advice, i’d say maybe lawyers should inform their clients of all the options open to them and the consequences of taking each option. If the lawyer gives it out to the public as a legal opinion (that “it’s legal not to pay your taxes and to ignore traffic lights” or urges people to perform those acts without informing them of the consequences and or stating the purpose and context, at best he/ she can be charged with stupidity or gross incompetence. If the lawyer gives it out as an expression of disgust and with context, i would argue that that lawyer’s statement as an expression of disgust and with context does not pose a clear and present danger and is protected by the free speech clause. Legal advice is different from legal advocacy. For lawyers who may have people’s organizations for clients, based on our previous experience, when the client asks for legal advice, the lawyer should inform the client of all the options, the advantages and disadvantages and risks for each option and your calculation of the likelihood of each risk; but the lawyer cannot decide for them, i.e., you cannot tell them what to do. (well… sometimes, when a rule or decision is brazenly violative of the Bill of Rights, we goad them, er, este, we explain it… 🙂 (big smile) … was cleaning up files after the holidays (a yearly ritual), look what i found! a statement i wrote in 1999 (Erap was already President; Attorney Romy Capulong was organizing a progressive movement within the IBP); some sort of an orientation paper: xxxxx The lawyer’s job, we have been taught, is to study the law and ensure that the laws are observed and enforced. For this purpose, many of us spend years and years mastering the technique of law practice: what motion to file, how to prep and cross witnesses, which court or forum to go, what jurisdictional requirements to watch out for, when to stall, when to speed up, dispose of, and finally and most important, how to bill a client. In our personal experiences, we learned that it was not only technique that mattered but tactic: how to talk to a judge, how to talk to people who know the judge. We were measured not by our advocacy, ability, and goodwill established, but by the figures we produced: cases won, network spread, client base, how many hours billed for the firm. By and large, however, no matter how hard we worked, law practice had always been touch-and-go unless supported by big business. We were and are such lawyers. Those of us who got burned out or disillusioned went to corporate work or moved on to the more practical and stable job of in-house counseling. We did not have to deal with an unpredictable legal system and the pressure of meaningless deadlines and appearances. As in-house counsel or corporate lawyer (realty companies, vital companies, telecommunication, transportation, petroleum, banks, transnationals), the work was 9 to 5, we could raise a family, and have a life. We only needed to master how to manage and protect the business and ensure that our company’s profits were not diminished. We were judged by a different set of figures: how our advice and tactics saved the company millions of pesos or prevent losses. By and large, however, our usefulness was determined by the company’s profitability and the market. We were and are such lawyers, too. Some of us moved on to government service: we hitched our wagon to a rising star, and when that star shone, we became undersecretaries, spokespersons, department heads. By and large, however, even as we relied on dint of hard work as chiefs and staffmembers, our chances of advancing were affected by changing political fortunes. We were and are such lawyers. We are such lawyers – in private practice, as in-house counsel, as government servants, some have practised abroad and come back; some have been in the corridors of power and back. But many have come to ask, probably, recurring questions: is this what we had set out to be? How is it that we have become unrecognizable from how we started? How is it that we have become other people’s tools: measured by figures, peso signs, titles; traded like a commodity among big business, politicians, landed clans, warlords, transnationals, and now, movie stars. The job of lawyers, we have been taught, is to study the law and ensure that the laws are observed and enforced. Somewhere along the way, we got lost and entangled in the legal system; only to realize that the laws are not the ideals or mystified concepts that we have been taught they were. We became so good at chanting “rule of law” when in reality we were becoming part of those who ruled; not realizing that laws and rules are made by legislators and executives who were elected or appointed because they represented or carried the interests of the wealthy and powerful. These rules mandate how the wealth of the land would be divided, and the procedure for doing so. These rules provide how the exercise of civil liberties and the collective rights of the people shall be curbed or controlled and the mechanism for doing so. These rules provide how the rights of workers, peasants, indigenous communities, urban poor, professionals, shall be overridden for the common good, the “common good” being that of the elite. We propose a critical outlook of such laws and rules. We propose that lawyers’ organizations go beyond working to elevate the standards of the profession or the improvement of the system of administration of justice. Lawyers should organize themselves to find meaning in the profession and to effect meaningful change in society. This, we cannot do by ourselves. This, we can do only by aligning ourselves with those who have a main stake in changing the alienating social structures, and working for empowerment, reforms, and structural change. We propose to be lawyers for the majority stakeholders in Philippine society. XXX (three more pages, national situationer, 1999, i didn’t quote because it was outdated) In particular, our movement will examine and work to: (this part was written by Atty. Marie Yuvienco and Atty. Jayson Lamchek, 1999) “1.Invalidate oppressive decrees, laws, issuances, including General Orders 66 and 67 (authorizing checkpoints and warrantless searches); Batas Pambansa 880 (restricting and controlling the right to peaceful assembly); Executive Order 129 (authorizing the demolition of urban poor communities); Executive Order 264 (legalizing CAFGU’s); Executive Order 272 (lengthening the allowable periods of detention); Memorandum Circular 139 (allowing the imposition of food blockades); Presidential Decree 169 as amended (requiring physicians to report cases of patients with gunshot wounds to the police/ military); and the Supreme Court Guidelines on the Conduct of Demonstrations, Pickets, and Rallies. “2.Campaign against moves to allow foreign bases, troops, or facilities into the country in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and exempting such troops from our criminal laws and rendering us powerless to inspect their vessels for nuclear weapons (the Visiting Forces Agreement) “3.Organize to cause the revisit of pro-elite decisions that perpetuate elite democracy, notably the reversal by the Court en banc of the decision of the division of the Court finding Imelda Marcos guilty of graft. “4.Organize to cause the revisit of controversial Supreme Court cases that trample upon: “a)civil and political rights, including the imprimatur of the Supreme Court on impunity for violations of human rights through its doctrines on warrantless arrests (Umil vs. Ramos), checkpoints (Valmonte vs. De Villa), saturation drives (Guanzon vs. De Villa), warrantless searches (Posadas vs. CA), effectivity of search warrants beyond the territorial boundaries of the issuing court (Malalaoan vs. CA), the futility of the resort to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus upon the subsequent filing of charges (Ilagan vs. Ponce Enrile), and the validity of the death penalty. “b)Workers’ rights including the decision in St. Martin Funeral Homes where the Court added another layer of appeal by requiring that appeals from the NLRC go to the CA before the SC, forcing workers to endure greater delays; the decisions in Progressive Development Corporation, Pizza Hut, and Protection Technology (imposing stricter standards in union registration) as well as in Development Bank of the Philippines (giving greater preference to secured creditors over workers’ claims for unpaid wages and benefits) “c) Peasants’ rights, including CMU vs. Buffalo (removing the idle and abandoned lands from the coverage of CARL based on mere declaration of the landowner; Natalia Realty vs. DAR (establishing that reservation of human settlements are not covered by agrarian reform despite its non-use by the landowner). “d)Other socio-economic and cultural rights, notably Tanada vs. Angara (validating the ratification of GATT-WTO by the Senate). “5.Popularize and institutionalize committed and competent lawyering for the workers, peasants, and other oppressed and exploited sectors of society; “6.Work for the promotion and protection of human rights as a major program of the IBP, including IBP chapters nationwide.” Unquote. Where do we begin? The tasks seem daunting, how do we start? Perhaps, we should first organize and get together. The first step is to be able to examine the legal profession and to acquire a consciousness that is keenly aware of how lawyers have often been used to protect the wealth and welfare of big business and the local elite; in other words, a consciousness that becomes conscious of itself, that comprehends its role in society either as perpetuator of the established elite or instrument for change. Laws and Supreme Court doctrines are not immutable precepts. They can be changed. What should law be but nothing more than our feeble attempt to approximate justice. And justice for us is not a mere ideal but a living reality. It is as real as peasants organizing in order to rightfully own the land they till; workers moving in unison to claim their share of the fruits of labor. It is as real as the country being able to defend itself from the transgressors of our sovereignty, as well as being able to mete out justice to those who killed innocent civilians and plundered the land. We invite you to be part of this movement. 23 April 1999, IBP National Convention, Davao. (signed by 30 or so lawyers)
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
