Intense rivalry at the IBP

As one observer noted, to expect the election of the board of governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to be smooth-sailing would be futile because lawyers thrive on chaos.

The June 30 scheduled oathtaking of the nine-member IBP board has been postponed indefinitely until such time that the special committee of three created by the Supreme Court to look into the controversy surrounding the election of the IBP executive vice-president has submitted its recommendations to the SC.

The position of IBP executive vice-president, the only post elected by the board, is crucial because whoever becomes EVP will automatically become the IBP president for the succeeding term. The IBP president for 2009-2011 is Rollie Vinluan, who was the EVP of the previous term.

Fighting for the EVP position are Elpidio “Dondon” Soriano, formerly president of the IBP Quezon City chapter, and Roan Libarios.

With nine regions represented in the board, the position of EVP of the IBP is rotated among the regions such that with Vinluan representing Southern Luzon and this term’s EVP from Greater Manila, the next EVP will have to come from another region. Greater Manila thus will have an EVP, and consequently an IBP national president, only after the rotation is completed or after eight more elections.

The controversy started when the IBP board split and held two sets of elections for the EVP position. One side included Soriano and the other included Manuel Maramba. Soriano belongs to the Sigma Rho fraternity while Maramba is supported by the Alphans, rival fraternities in the UP College of Law. Soriano and Maramba are contesting the Greater Manila region governorship. Libarios is of course an Alphan.

So why the interest of the SC in the IBP board? The Constitution itself provides that the Integrated Bar, meaning the official national body composed of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys of the SC, is under the supervision of the High Tribunal. One of the powers of the SC under the Constitution is promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar which is the reason why the Rules of Court provide for the manner of election of the IBP board of governors as well as the officers.

Mandatory legal aid

The SC has deferred until Dec. 31, 2009 the implementation of the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service, which should have taken effect on July 1. Instead, the Rule will take effect on Jan. 1, 2010 provided its implementing regulations have been published prior to the said date, according to the SC.

In an en banc resolution, the Court directed the IBP Board of Governors to finalize and submit the draft implementing regulations for the final approval of this Court as soon as possible. Likewise, it directed the IBP to submit its comment on the Rule itself, particularly on the concerns that rendition of free legal aid service should be voluntary and that the Rule will spawn litigations and clog court dockets and other related concerns.

The Court has yet to receive from IBP the draft implementing regulations of the Rule. The Rule’s effectivity on July 1 was conditioned on the required publication of the Rule and its implementing regulations.

The implementing regulations are supposed to provide guidelines for the proper and orderly enforcement of the Rule, as well as to address the operational and other administrative concerns raised by lawyers and lawyers’ organizations regarding the Rule.

Under the Rule, every practicing lawyer will be mandated to render a minimum of 60 hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants yearly, among others.

The Rule is aimed at enhancing the duty of lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the courts as officers thereof by helping improve access to justice by the less privileged members of society and expedite the resolution of cases involving them.

For comments, email at [email protected]