Public welfare

This is to clarify the points raised in the article by Federico D. Pascual Jr. published last August 11, 2011, entitled “SEC, Solgen clash on PLDT alien equity.”

In a previous clarification, the Solicitor General himself clarified the points raised by the SEC when it publicly expressed its disappointment over the position taken by the OSG as its legal counsel in the case at hand.

To reiterate, by no means did the OSG ignore or misrepresent the SEC when it filed its Motion and Manifestation dated 13 July 2011. In fact, the SEC’s input as regards absence of negligence on the part of the agency has been incorporated by the OSG on the said Manifestation and Motion.

With regard to issue of the meaning of the term “capital”, it must be stressed that during its consultations with lawyers from the OSG, the SEC had expressly decided “not to take a stand” on the matter. In fact, in her letter to the OSG dated July 19, 2011, SEC Commissioner Ma. Juanita E. Cueto herself acknowledged the same stating:

“ . . . during the meeting with Atty. Castillo and in the inputs we submitted, we made it clear that the Commission preferred not to express any further arguments on the definition of “capital” in due deference to the Supreme Court.”

Furthermore, the Motion and Manifestation categorically indicates that the position was entirely that of the OSG and not of the SEC. The paragraph reads:

“The Office of the Solicitor General, however, agrees with the Honorable Court’s construction of Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. As the majority opinion succinctly says “In short, the term “capital” in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers only to shares of stock that can vote in the election of directors.”

Lastly, while it is true that, “a lawyer is expected to take the cudgels for his client”, we must remember that the OSG, as the People’s Tribune, is mandated to first and foremost uphold the best interest of the state in instances when it requires a position that runs counter to that of its client. No less than the Supreme Court emphasized this role:

“. . . it is not entirely impossible that the Office of the Solicitor General may take a position adverse to his clients like the Civil Service Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission, among others, and even the People of the Philippines. In such instances however, it is not proper for the Solicitor General to decline to handle the case or arbitrarily withdraw therefrom . . .” Gonzales vs. Chavez (205 SCRA 816[1992])

Moreover, endowed with a broad perspective that spans the legal interest of virtually the entire government officialdom, the OSG may be expected to transcend the parochial concerns in particular of the client agency and instead, promote and protect the public weal.

Thus to the question of Mr. Pascual, for whom is the OSG lawyering for? The answer is to the Constitution and the law, and therefore to the Republic and to the Filipino people. Mr. Pascual may as well ask, for whom is the SEC lawyering for?

It is sincerely hoped that this has shed light on the abovementioned issue.