Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, July 12) — The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday denied the request of Persida Acosta, the head of the Public Attorney’s Office, to remove part of the updated Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
According to the SC, Acosta, in an April letter addressed to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, wanted Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA deleted.
The section discusses conflict of interest concerning lawyers from the PAO.
RELATED: SC launches updated code of conduct for lawyers
The CPRA said the PAO, being the government’s primary legal aid service “shall ensure ready access to its services by the marginalized sectors of society in a manner that takes into consideration the avoidance of potential conflict of interest situations which will leave these marginalized parties unassisted by counsel.”
The court added that any conflict of interest of PAO lawyers in services for the office “shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor,” and will not disqualify other PAO lawyers from representing the affected client.In their statement, the SC reminded PAO that its primary mandate is to provide free legal services to indigent persons, and that to turn them away due to alleged conflict of interest would be against PAO’s duty.Contrary to the claims of Atty. Acosta, the Court promulgated the CPRA in the exercise of its exclusive rule-making power under the Constitution,” the High Court said. It was likewise in furtherance of the Court’s authority to supervise the practice of law and to provide free legal assistance to the underprivileged,” the SC said.The SC likewise took note of Acosta’s “unabated public tirades” against the CPRA which they said branded the adoption of CPRA as “unconstitutional, and an undue interference and intrusion by the Supreme Court into PAO’s operations.The court has directed Acosta to show cause why she should not be cited in direct contempt because of her actions, adding they see such actions “as a threat to the independence of the judiciary.In a separate briefing on Wednesday, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla said the PAO was not a law office and its mandate is to provide service.
“Ang conflict of interest frame of mind na pinamamalas ng PAO sa atin ay isang pagtingin sa kanilang opisina bilang isang law office. Hindi po, sila ay legal service ng Republika ng Pilipinas,” Remulla said.
[Translation: The conflict of interest frame of mind exhibited by the PAO, to me, is them seeing their agency as a law office. It’s not. It’s a legal service of the Republic of the Philippines.]
Remulla added that he has spoken to Acosta about the issue before.
“Kinausap ko na siya tungkol diyan dati,” he said. “Sabi niya, yun daw ang manual of operations nila. Eh yung manual, ikaw din naman yung gumawa nun eh. Kaya mabuti na ang Korte Suprema na ang kumausap pero alam ko na yang probelma na yan, matagal na. Napakatagal na ng problema na yan.”
[Translation: I’ve talked to her about it before. She said that was their manual operations. But they make their manual. It’s better that the Supreme Court talk to them, but I know that problem has been around for a long time.]
