Rules of Court – Page 98 – marichulambino.com

By René Magritte. “The Secret Player” 1927. Oil on canvas. 152 x 195 cm. Private collection. From abcgallery.com

So…when Budget Secretary Nonoy Andaya, Cabinet member, alter-ego of the President, and a lawyer, was called in and allowed into the executive session to give legal advice; or to lend legal assistance; to former NEDA director Romy Neri (according to the Inquirer, Juliet Javellana) was he……acting as Romy Neri’s lawyer? Or as the President’s lawyer?

Or as Malacañang’s “eyes and ears”? (forgive me for the phrase “eyes and ears”, that seems to be a law-enforcement criminal-case term, but I have a really small vocabulary, you know); or as the “point-guard” of the Palace in handling Romy Neri? (forgive me for the term “point-guard” that seems to be a gaming term but as I said, small me, small vocabulary), or as the executive staff’s “informant”? (forgive me, another criminal- case term, small me, small vocabulary), or as Romy Neri’s “warden” ? (another criminal-law term, I will replace it once I find another word…)

What constitutes practice of the profession (law profession)?

The following have been considered practice of the profession: 1.appearing in court; 2.appearing in quasi-judicial agencies as lawyer; 3.signing pleadings and motions; 4.giving legal advice; 5. teaching law has also been ruled upon as “practice of the profession” when a law professor was appointed to the Comelec; etc.

So, giving legal advice and legal assistance in a Senate investigation constitutes practice of the profession. (Giving legal advice to a client is probably different from giving your advice to the President as his Cabinet secretary). Was Cabinet secretary Nonoy Andaya acting as Romy Neri’s lawyer?

You know what…. He’s not allowed. He’s not allowed to practise his profession. He knows it, you don’t see him lending his name to law offices or appearing in court.

Here’s the constitutional provision:

“Art. VII. Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession xxx”

In other words, Cabinet secretaries are not allowed to practise their profession (except of course as, for instance, government lawyers who represent the government or the People in criminal cases, or as presidential legal counsel who gives advice on matters of the State; when they give advice to protect the President’s personal interest or that of the First Family, they do that as partymates or individuals who share the President’s personal interests).

So, in what capacity was he there?

Would you be able to ask him what instructions were given him when they were game-planning this scenario? If he was acting as the President’s lawyer, would he be able to invoke attorney-client; I guess not; but he would invoke executive privilege.

What were the instructions? Not to worry, everything will go on recess next week, and forgotten.

William Blake. The Punishment of The Thieves 1824-7. Chalk, pen and ink and watercolour on paper, 372 x 527 mm. “Purchased (by Tate Britain) with the assistance of a special grant from the National Gallery and donations from the National Art Collections Fund, Lord Duveen and others, and presented through the National Art Collections Fund 1919” from tate.org.uk

The Comelec being a constitutionally independent body (not covered by the Administrative Code of course) , the Chair can resign and get clearance even if, as it were, there was a pending “administrative” complaint as it were, against him, i.e., if you want to stretch the characterization of an impeachment as administrative. But you can’t. It’s now moot.

The Speaker is probably required to take “judicial notice” of the announced resignation even without any official document being forwarded to his office on the resignation; and he (the Speaker) was probably in his right place when he announced that the impeachment complaint was now moot and academic and that he would therefore instruct that the impeachment be be shelved or archived. All these, legally defensible.

The “damage control” executed in a matter of minutes; the moves may be brilliant; the public official concerned did not even take fifteen minutes to file a written resignation with Comelec and the other public official concerned (the Speaker) did not take one hour to wait for any official document to reach his office.

Any discussion on the Abalos impeachment is moot.

It only becomes not moot if the impeachment complainants had reached such a momentum that they are willing to pursue the impeachment complaint to its logical conclusion by amending the complaint and impleading the only other public official who could be removed only by impeachment, who had ultimate control over the ZTE contract, and is immune from any suit except an impeachment suit. That requires the number 80 plus and, more important than the number, that requires discernment of accountability, commitment to eradicate corruption at the highest level of public office, and wisdom to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Follow the evidence where it leads, follow the accountability.

I don’t know whether you have at least 80 congressmen who have that discernment, that commitment, that wisdom. I guess not.