Integrated Bar Quezon City Chapter Official Paper on Bar Matter No. 2012 (MLAS)

15 June 2009 The Board of Governors Integrated Bar of the Philippines Doña Julia Vargas Avenue Ortigas Center, Pasig City Re: Bar Matter No. 2012 – Proposed Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers GENTLEMEN: As earlier mentioned in our letter dated 30 April 2009, we, the Board of Officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Quezon City Chapter, have conducted a survey among 100 of our members and/or fellow practitioners to obtain their insights on Bar Matter No. 2012 (hereinafter, “BM No. 2012”), the results of which may be summarized thus: 89 are aware of BM No. 2012 and 9 are not. The remaining 2 did not affirm or deny knowledge of BM No. 2012; 78 have rendered free legal assistance to friends, family and indigent clients, while 20 have not. The remaining 2 did not state whether or not they did so; 68 are aware that BM No. 2012 will be implemented on 1 July 2009, while 29 are not. The remaining 3 did not affirm nor deny knowledge of the date of implementation of BM No. 2012; 44 want BM No. 2012 to be implemented, while 48 do not. The remaining 14 did not categorically state whether they want BM No. 2012 to be implemented or not. It is relevant to note that of the 44 persons who wanted BM No. 2012 to be implemented, only 10 agreed to it in toto. The remaining 34, on the other hand, though supportive of the measure in principle, expressed varied reservations as regards its implementation, including among others that: a. it is discriminatory, as it singles our private practitioners who are engaged in litigation; b. it will clog court dockets; c. the 60 hours is excessive and confiscatory as it detracts from time well spent on paying clients and deprives the lawyer of much needed income as well as time for rest and relaxation with his/her family; d. its is impractical considering the limited universe of possible clients vis-à-vis the number of practitioners engaged in litigation; e. it imposes the additional burden of securing certifications every month, considering the number of cases the practitioner will have to handle in addition to his/her current caseload; f. it is superfluous as the same services are performed by the Public Attorney’s Office, various non-government offices, IBP, etc.; and g. the rules are vague and must be clarified. In light of the foregoing, the following recommendations were noted: a. BM No. 2012 should be made voluntary; otherwise all lawyers, regardless of specialization should be required to comply with said measure; b. Senior Citizens, government employees, single parents, parents of children with special needs and those suffering from any physical disability and/or require medical supervision should be exempt from the coverage of BM No. 2012; b. Time spent rendering free legal advise to indigents and preparation for trial should be considered, and the time allocated for drafting pleadings and motions, adjusted; c. Monetary contributions may be required from practitioners in lieu of the 60 hour requirement; d. Compliance with BM No. 2012 should be accorded MCLE credits; e. Law schools should institutionalize the rendition of free legal aid or that the same be imposed on new lawyers prior to their signing of the roll of attorneys; f. Fridays may be designated as free legal aid day where members of the Chapter may rotate in rendering free legal aid; g. Lawyers should be assigned to handle one free legal aid case per year, instead of requiring them to render 60 hours of free legal aid; h. Penalties should be removed; and i. The implementation of BM No. 2012 be suspended. In this regard, we transmit herewith, copies of the duly accomplished survey forms, as well as a more detailed summary of the comments and tabulation of the survey which we conducted, for your ready reference and files.