Mandatory free legal aid service for practicing lawyers
On 10 February 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc approved in a Resolution the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers (Bar Matter 2012).
The rule, which shall take effect on 1 July 2009, shall govern the mandatory requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or administrative) involving indigent and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It shall also govern the duty of other members of the legal profession to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
For details and to view the complete text of Bar Matter 2012, click here.
The Mandatory free legal aid service for practicing lawyers by www.soriano-ph.com, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
Starstone:
This is INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
18 February 2009, 11:42 amLawyerInLove:
I saw this reaction posted at AttyAtWork which I second the motion!
“WHAT! Is the Supreme Court (SC) kidding?
Question: What percentage of bar passers actually venture as law practitioners?
This rule will dwindle further the number of practitioners?
Does the SC want lawyers to be ambulance chasers? Does the SC want to further clog the dockets in court because practicing lawyers need that Docket numbers to comply with this Rule?
As defined, ‘Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions.’
Now how about government lawyers, PAO and prosecutors, who are not exempted from this Rule? It seems that they have been serving indigent litigants, BUT this Rule is over and above of what they do. Does this mean that when they would render free legal service in compliance with this Rule they would have to file a leave of absence without pay, otherwise it wouldn’t be free since they are actually being paid by the government? And in case they would be allowed to serve indigent litigants on government time to comply with this Rule, isn’t this an unconstitutional classification because private lawyers spend their time withour pay just to comply with this Rule?
How about government and private in-house counsels, considered by this Rule as practicing lawyers, who work 8 to 5, Monday to Friday. When will they render this free legal service? Would they have to work on a Saturday or Sunday to render this service, but would further take away time from their families? And when they appear in court in compliance with this Rule, will they, too, file for a leave of absence without pay to comply with the ’so-called’ FREE legal service?
If I am Lawyer who by law are not allowed to appear in court, why should I be penalized by filing an annual P2,000 contribution?
If I work in a Barrio or some far-flung region away from the Courts, should I venture into the City just to comply with this Free Legal Service, but will cost me board and lodging expenses?
Common, what is the SC really up to? Is this FAIR?
Would somebody please explain to me the wisdom of this Rule by addressing the questions stated above?
The IBP National Convention is coming up this March. Lawyers make a stand on this issue!”
20 February 2009, 7:24 amAttyHaHa:
MALAS talaga sa mga abogado itong MaLAS (MAndatory Legal Aid Service)!
27 February 2009, 8:10 amatty. nagtatanong:
I am trying to look at the mandatory free legal aid service circular of the Supreme Court trying to make sense out of it. But no matter how hard I try, I cant seem to justify its passage. I am sure though that the intentions of the SC is noble, its the means employed to put meat into such intention that is not Supreme Court like. Could it be that our Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court have forgotten already how it is to practice law in this country in a private capacity?
Aside from the apparent conflict of this rule with the mandate of the Public Attorney’s Office and the Public Prosecutors all over the country,the rull will likewise discriminate with corporate lawyers who are not regularly appearing in court. Likewise, this rule departs from the usual definition of “Practice of Law” as provided for in the old case of Cayetano vs. Monsod.
My concern is not so much that this rule will impose an unnecessary burden on the part of practicing lawyers, its that at the end of the day, this rule might embarass our Honorable Supreme Court.
7 April 2009, 5:25 pmMelina Benninghoff:
I am a Fresno Criminal Lawyer in California and a registered Bar Member. I often take cases for indigent people that I feel deserve the best legal council they can get. Sometimes the law is wrong and that is why it is rewritten often. If this was to cause any hardship on the lawyers in that country there must be some sort of means that the government compensate them. How would you like to have government officials tell you to get out of bed and go to work?
28 May 2009, 4:37 amFresno Criminal Lawyer:
Oh and don’t forget to elect someone new to fix the problems being made now.
28 May 2009, 8:03 amruelb1:
Thankfully, the SC has deferred the implementation of BM 2012 until next year. Here is the link: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2009/06/06230901.php
We hope everyone can convince the IBP to fight for its abolition.
25 June 2009, 1:53 pmPobreng Tikoy:
So sad. In the Philippines if you have no money and power the chance of winning a case is very remote. In the government service, the executives and directors are given lawyers whereas if you are a rank and file employee you have to pay for your lawyer and filing fees.
If the services of these new lawyers is made mandatory, will there be quality service to poor and powerless people like us? Pwera de los buenos, most lawyers now are too in a hurry to fatten their bank accounts.
6 October 2009, 11:44 am