The Public Attorney’s Office is questioning the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for its supposed refusal to accept indigent clients despite its P130.9 million government subsidy and the annual dues from 60,000 private and public lawyers.
During a media briefing, PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta took a swipe at the IBP for approving a board resolution backing a Supreme Court policy that al lows two public defenders from her agency to face each other in court.
“We as public defenders are also active members of IBP but we have never been consulted about its support,” she told the Manila Standard.
She urged the IBP to adhere to Republic Act 9999 or the Free Legal Assistance Act of 2020 stating that “a private lawyer or professional partnership/firm provides legal assistance to indigents who cannot secure legal services from the PAO, the Department of Justice or any accredited association of the Supreme Court…”
“After all, having been ordained by the Supreme Court and subsidized by the latter with P130.9-million funding in maintenance and other operating expenses for the year 2023 (under the General Appropriations Act 2023), it is sufficiently equipped to at least partially fill the gap in access to justice,” the PAO chief said.
Regarding the subsidy, Acosta said: “We don’t know where their money goes.”
The PAO chief and her agency’s 3,500 lawyers opposed the “conflict of interest” provision of the Supreme Court’s recently approved Section 22, Canon III or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) allowing public defenders to go against one another in the same case.
The IBP said it fully supports the CPRA, which it said sets aside the challenge of “conflict of interest” posed by the PAO.
PAO had sought a revision of CPRA’s Section 22, Canon III, which states: “A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office incident to services rendered for the office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor.
Such conflict of interest shall not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office from representing the affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.”
In its public statements and in letters sent to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo and the 14 other SC justices, PAO said that the provision in CPRA allows PAO lawyers to be pitted against each other before the courts by representing opposing parties in cases.
Acosta said the provision puts PAO attorneys at risk because if things go wrong, clients would be given reason to suspect that “their counsels double-crossed them.”
“There were instances when conflict-of-interest representation was the cause of death of former public attorneys,” Acosta said.
In its statement, the IBP said it remains “confident in the Court’s intention and object to reflect the values of fairness, justice, and ethical practice as envisioned in the CPRA to the benefit of the entire legal community and the public.”
It said the provision in CPRA already addressed the concerns of the PAO.
“We thus firmly stand with the tribunal’s position upholding Section 22 of the CPRA. This provision appropriately addresses conflict of interest that may arise within PAO’s organization while safeguarding the rights and interests of its clients,” it also said.
The IBP said the CPRA limited the conflict-of-interest rule “only to the handling PAO lawyer and his or her direct supervisor, with full disclosure and written and informed consent.”
“The subject provision is in consonance with the constitutionally provided right of all persons to equal protection of law by ensuring that all parties are afforded their right to counsel,” it said.
While PAO has the right to be cautious against any appearance of impropriety, the IBP said “unflinching adherence to a broad and antiquated concept of ‘conflict of interest’ should not stand in the way of all persons’ right to counsel.”
It said it stands “ready to provide any assistance that can alleviate the concerns.”
It stressed that “lawyers must stand united in the legal profession and work together as one as we ensure greater access to justice.”
