MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed the request of Public Attorney’s Office chief Persida Acosta to delete a part of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability that limits her office from invoking conflict of interest.
The high court has also noted Acosta’s “unabated public tirades against Canon III, Section 22 through social and mainstream media, branding the adoption of the CPRA as unconstitutional, and an undue interference and intrusion by the [SC] into PAO’s operations.”
Related Stories
The SC Public Information Office on Wednesday said in a statement, that the justices, sitting as full court, dismissed Acosta’s request to delete Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA, which replaced the 34-year-old guide for lawyer’s conduct in the country.
The said provision reads:
SECTION 22. Public Attorney’s Office; conflict of interest. — The Public Attorney’s is the primary legal aid service office of the government. In the pursuit of its mandate under its charter, the Public Attorney’s Office 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.
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.
The SC then ordered Acosta to explain why she should not be cited in indirect contempt for “her social media posts and newspaper publications which tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”
Acosta had earlier written to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo requesting the deletion of the provision that the PAO head said allows two lawyers from their office to represent opposing parties in a court trial.
This, Acosta said, “creates the impression that the justice system in the Philippines is a sham.” She added: “It is detrimental to public service because crucial to keeping the people’s trust in our justice system is prevention not only of actual commission but any appearance of impropriety.”
SC: Public attorney's job is to provide free legal assistance to indigents
But the SC stressed that the PAO’s primordial mandate is to “[extend] free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial services.”
To turn away indigent litigants and bar them from availing of their services contravenes their office’s principal duty, the SC PIO said.
The high court also pointed out that contrary to Acosta’s claims, the SC promulgated the CPRA following their rule-making power.
Meanwhile, the SC PIO said the tribunal characterized Acosta’s “resort to social and print media to air her unfounded grievances against the Court as a threat to the independence of the judiciary,” prompting them to order the PAO chief to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar.
According to the Rules of Court, punishment for indirect contempt is a fine not exceeding P30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.