WHAT IS THE IBP?

The IBP, acronym for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, is the official national
organization of the entire lawyers in the country.
WHAT DOES INTEGRATION OF THE BAR MEAN?
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer
population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support (in
reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law
and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with power to
do so: the State. Bar integration, therefore, signifies the setting up by government
authority of a national organization of the legal profession based on the recognition of the
lawyer as an officer of the court.
Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice and the
Rule of Law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers and ensures, through their own
organized action and participation, the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession
pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and
regulation by the Supreme Court.
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the constitutional
basis which provides for the powers of the Supreme Court, among which:
Sec.5 (5). Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of
law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall
be uniform for all the courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
The legal basis is founded on the principle that the inherent power of the
Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate the Bar.
HISTORY
The IBP came into being when the Supreme Court created on October 5, 1970 the
Commission on Bar Integration which was tasked not only to ascertain the advisability of
integration of the Bar, but even more, to serve as a common vehicle of the Court and the
Bar in fashioning a blueprint for integration and putting the same into actual operation.
Republic Act No. 6397, which became effective September 17, 1971, confirmed the power
1

of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar.
Then on January 9, 1973, the Supreme Court, by a per curiam resolution, pursuant to its
constitutional mandate, ordained the integration of the Bar in accordance with its Rule
139-A, effective January 16, 1973. Within the next succeeding months, the IBP was
organized. On February 17, 1973, local chapters all over the country were finally formed
and elections for chapter officers were held. Then on March 17, 1973, the first batch of
representatives to the IBP House of Delegates composed of 104 delegates representing
the IBP Chapters nationwide convened in Manila and elected its first set of IBP Governors.

Republic Act No. 6397 confirmed the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of court
to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar. Presidential Decree. No. 181 was
promulgated on May 4, 1973 constituting the IBP into a body corporate and providing
government assistance thereto for the accomplishment of its purposes.

OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES

The following are the general objectives of the Integrated bar:
1. to elevate the standards of the legal profession;
2. to improve the administration of justice; and
3. to enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibilities more effectively.
The purposes of the Integrated Bar are those which are included in the per curiam
decision of the Supreme Court dated 9 January 1973, ordaining the IBP:
1. Assist in the administration of justice;
2. Foster and maintain, on the part of its members, high ideals of integrity, learning,
professional competence, public service and conduct;
3. Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
4. Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
5. Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading,
practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public,
and publish information relating thereto;
6. Encourage and foster legal education; and
2

7. Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective

law, and make reports and recommendations thereon.

MEMBERSHIP
The following persons are, automatically and without exception, members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
(a) All lawyers whose names were in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court as
of January 16, 1973; and
(b) All lawyers whose names were included or are entered therein after the said
date.
A. Registration
Every person who has been admitted to the practice of law shall register with the
IBP not later than 60 days after said admission. Registration is made by filling out forms
and paying membership dues or fees at the IBP national office or local chapter. Any
change in the information entered upon registration must be reported to the Chapter
Secretary within 60 days who shall then promptly report it to the National Office.

B. Termination of Membership

A lawyer may terminate his membership in the IBP voluntarily or involuntarily.

Voluntary termination of membership may be done by filing a verified notice to the
Secretary of the Integrated Bar, which shall be then brought to the attention of the
Supreme Court. He shall forthwith cease to be a member and his name will be stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys. Involuntary membership happens when a member is
suspended or disbarred.

Retirement is another reason for termination of membership to the IBP. A lawyer

who shall have attained the age of 75 years, or shall have been 40 years as a lawyer and
is unable to engage in the practice of law by reason of physical disability or judicially
adjudged mental incapacity, may be retired from the IBP by filing a verified petition to the
Board of Governors. He shall thereafter not practice law and pay IBP dues.

C. Reinstatement of Members

Reinstatement may be made by those who voluntarily and involuntarily terminated

their membership, or those who were suspended or disbarred, by submitting a written
application to the Board of Governors according to its prescribed rules and regulations. All
applications for reinstatement shall be forwarded by the Board to the Court with its
appropriate recommendation.
A retired member may be reinstated to active membership upon written application to
and approval by the Board.
The Board shall make periodic reports of retirement and reinstatement of members to
the Supreme Court.
D. Duties of Members

A member is required and expected to:

a. Be a good lawyer. -- It shall be the duty of every member to embody the virtues
of a good lawyer as provided for by the Constitution, the laws, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics and the
Lawyers Oath. He must not perform infractions which may merit his
termination of membership in the IBP.
b. Pay membership dues religiously. As held by the Supreme Court in its per
curiam decision in the matter of the integration of the Bar ( 9 January 1973),
no organized body can operate effectively without incurring expenses;
therefore, it is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to the
support of such organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most
efficient means of doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that
requires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar. Non-payment of
dues may be a ground for termination of membership.
c. Maintain good standing in the IBP. -- - Every member who has paid all
membership dues and all authorized special assessments, plus surcharges
owing thereon, and who is not under suspension from the practice of law or
from membership privileges, is a member in good standing.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
A. National
The IBP is administered by a Governing Board consisting of nine Governors
representing the nine regions of the IBP. The Governing Board elects the IBP National
4

President and IBP Executive Vice President from among themselves or from outside the
Board. From among the Board, the national officers will be chosen.

The IBP House of Delegates decide on important matters. The chamber is

composed of not more than one-hundred-twenty (120) members apportioned among all
IBP Chapters in major cities throughout the country. Every two years, the IBP Governing
Board makes a reappointment of delegates among all IBP chapters.

There are also National Committees which perform essential functions.

a. The Board of Governors-- The Board shall have general charge of the affairs
and activities of the IBP. Among its most important functions are to make
appropriations and authorized disbursements from the IBP funds; engage the
services of employees, define their duties and fix their salaries; act on reports
and recommendations submitted to it; promulgate Canons of Professional
Responsibility, subject to approval of the Supreme Court; promulgate rules and
regulations for the establishment and maintenance of lawyer referral services;
impose sanctions for non-payment and delinquency in the payment of IBP
dues; etc. The Board holds office for two years (from July 1 to June 30), or until
their successors shall have been duly elected.

b. National Officers-- The President and Executive Vice President are to be

chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors.
The governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their respective regions.
There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be
appointed by the President with the consent of the Board.
The Executive Vice President shall automatically become President for the next
succeeding term. The Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions. Each of
the national officers perform duties as mandated by the IBP By-Laws.

c. The House of Delegates-- The House is the deliberative body of the IBP. The
delegates discuss important matters among themselves, and its Resolutions
shall bind the Integrated Bar when concurred in by the Board of Governors.
Reapportionment of the House takes place every two years.
5

d.

National Committees- The officers are appointed and the number of officers
per committee is fixed by the Board of Governors. Committees may be added
or removed according to the Rules of the IBP. The current committees are:

1.

Committee on Chapter Affairs- makes studies of, and submit reports

and recommendations on, the establishment, organization and
operation of all Chapters, the apportionment and reapportionment of the
seats in the House of Delegates, and the means and methods of
encouraging and coordinating Chapter activities and of promoting
maximum involvement and participation of the members of the
Integrated Bar in the activities thereof and of their respective Chapters.

2. Committee on Legal Aid- promotes the establishment and efficient

maintenance of Chapter legal aid organizations suited to provide free
legal service; direct and supervise all Chapter legal aid organizations;
maintain maximum levels of coordination and cooperation with other
organizations having similar objectives; receive and solicit aid and
assistance from any available and suitable source or sources, provided
that the independent character of the legal aid is not impaired; and, in
general, do or cause to be done all things necessary and proper for the
promotion of legal aid activities, projects and objectives.

3.

Committee on Administration of Justice- studies the organization and

operation of the judicial system and recommend appropriate changes in
practice and procedure to improve the efficiency thereof, and, in that
connection, shall examine all proposed changes in the system; also
collates information and submit appropriate recommendations on
judicial appointments, judicial tenure and compensation, and retirement
pensions.

4.

Committee on Legal Education and Bar Admissions- makes continuing

studies of, and submit recommendations on, the curriculum and
teaching methods in law schools, as well as standards and methods in
law schools, as well as standards and methods in determining the
qualifications of applicants for admission to the Bar, and whenever
6

requested shall assist in the investigation of the qualifications of

persons seeking admission to the Bar; also formulates, and promotes or
co-sponsors with other groups of institutions, programs designed to
afford members of the Integrated Bar suitable opportunities for
acquiring, here and abroad, additional professional knowledge, training
and skill.
5.

Committee on Professional Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarmentformulates the Canons of Professional Responsibility for adoption by
the Board of Governors and approval by the Supreme Court, and
submits recommendations on methods for the effective enforcement
thereof as well as on appropriate amendments thereto; has authority to
express advisory opinions, upon written request of any member, on any
matter affecting his own professional conduct.

6. Committee on Research Services- plans the research services of the

Integrated Bar in substantive and adjective law, and, together with other
institutions, promote legal research and law reform and development;
selects areas of the law in need of general study, revision or
codification; formulates plans and prepares budgets for specific
research projects; assesses the availability of qualified personnel to
perform research work; and submits recommendations thereon.

7.

Committee on Legislation- studies all proposed changes in the

Constitution and in statutes and laws of general interests or general
application and submits reports thereon, and, with the approval of the
Board of Governors, shall represent the Integrated Bar in supporting or
opposing such proposals.

8. Committee on Public Service- prepares and submits plans for

advancing public acceptance of the objectives and purposes of the
Integrated Bar, and shall execute such plans as are approved by the
Board of Governors.

9.

Committee on Inter-Professional and Business Relations- maintains

liaison between the legal profession and other professions as well as

business groups in order to acquaint the latter on the nature and proper
scope of the practice of law.

10.

Committee on Books and Publications- makes studies of, and submit

recommendations on, matters and materials for publication, and ways
and means of assisting in the efficient publications of legal literature at
reasonable costs, and of discouraging unnecessary publications or
duplication thereof.

11.

Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law- keeps the Integrated Bar

informed with respect to the practice of law by unauthorized persons
and entities, as well as the participation therein of members of the Bar,
and recommends ways and means for the elimination and prevention of
unauthorized practice of law.

12. Committee on Law Reporting- examines and appraises methods of

reporting and disseminating legislation, presidential decrees, court
decisions, the Rules of Court, and decisions of administrative tribunals
and agencies, with particular emphasis on the correction of deficiencies;
conducts a continuing study and evaluation of corresponding trends and
reforms
in
other
jurisdictions;
and
submits
appropriate
recommendations thereon.

B.

Local

a. Regions. The IBP is divided into nine regions:

1. Northern Luzon- consisting of the provinces of Abra, Batanes, Benguet,
Cagayan, Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, La
Union, Mountain Province, Nueva Vizcaya, and Quirino.
2. Central Luzon- consisting of the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva
Ecija, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tarlac, and Zambales;
3. Greater Manila- consisting of the City of Manila and Quezon City;

4. Southern Luzon- consisting of the provinces of Batangas, Cavite, Laguna,

Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Quezon, and
Rizal;
5. Bicolandia- consisting of the provinces of Albay, Camarines Norte,
Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate, and Sorsogon;
6. Eastern Visayas- consisting of the provinces of Bohol, Cebu, Eastern
Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar, and Southern Leyte;
7. Western Visayas- consisting of the provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz,
Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Palawan, Romblon, and Siquijor.
8. Eastern Mindanao- consisting of the provinces of Agusan del Norte,
Agusan Del Sur, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur,
Davao Oriental, Misamis Oriental, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur;
and
9. Western Mindanao- consisting of the cities of Basilan and Zamboanga,
and the provinces of Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Misamis
Occidental, South Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga
del Sur.

b. Chapters. A Chapter of the IBP shall be organized in every province. Every

city shall be considered part of the province within which it is
geographically situated.
A separate Chapter shall be organized in the following
political subdivisions or areas:

1. The sub-province of Aurora;

2. Each congressional district of the City of Manila;
3. Quezon City;
4. Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;
5. Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del Monte;
6. Cebu City; and
7. Zamboanga City and Basilan City.

A lawyer is considered a member of the Chapter of the province, city,

political subdivision or area where his office is located. In the absence of an office,
his place of residence will be the basis as to which Chapter he must belong. A
member cannot belong to more than one Chapter simultaneously.
9

Each Chapter shall have its own local government as provided for by
uniform rules to be prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by the
Supreme Court. The government of the Chapter is vested in a Board of Officers
composed of a President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Auditor, a
Public Relations Officer and five Directors. The officers shall be elected at the
biennial meeting and shall hold office for a term of two years until their successors
shall have been duly chosen and qualified. In addition to the elected officers, the
immediate Past-President shall ipso facto become an ex-officio (non-voting)
member of the Board of Directors.

LEADERSHIP

A. Who may run for office?

Only members in good standing may become officers. No person who is not a
member of the Integrated Bar may become an officer.

B. Who may not run for office?

Since the IBP is a non-political Bar, no lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasijudicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the
Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer or employee of the
Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso
facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for
any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality.

10

C. Duties of IBP Leaders

Leaders or officers of the IBP, whether in the local or national levels, are those that
are mandated by the By-Laws of the IBP and Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court. In general,
leaders must make sure that the objectives of the IBP are met, that the rules are properly
implemented and that their members manifest their cooperation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A. National Headquarters- The office of the National Headquarters of the IBP is

located
at:
IBP
Building,
No.15
Julia
Vargas
Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines 1600.

B. IBP Presidents

11

JOSE B.L. REYES

1973-1975

YSIDRO J. PEREZ
1981-1983

LILIANO B. NERI
1973-1975

MARCELO B. FERNAN EDGARDO J. ANGARA

1977-1979
1979-1981

RAUL S. ROCO

SIMEON M. VALDEZ

1983-1985

July 1985-Mar 1986

VICENTE D. MILLORA
Apr 1986-Mar 1987

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,JR LEON M. GARCIA, JR. EUGENE A. TAN NUMERIANO G. TANOPO,JR.

Mar 1987-June 1987

1987-1989

1989-1991

MERVYN G. ENCANTO RAOUL R. ANGANGCO JOSE AGUILA GRAPILON

1993-1995

1995-1997

1997-1999

12

1991-1993

ARTHUR D. LIM
1999-2001

TEOFILO S. PILANDO, JR.

2001-2003

SANTIAGO M. KAPUNAN

OIC, 2009-2011

JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ JOSE VICENTE B. SALAZAR FELICIANO M. BAUTISTA

2003-July 2006

July 2006-June 2007

ROAN I. LIBARIOS

VICENTE M. JOYAS

2011-2013

2013- present

13

2007-2009

C. The 21st Board of Governors (Current)

VICENTE M. JOYAS
Chairman of the Board

14

ROSARIO T. SETIAS REYESz

Vice Chairman &
Governor for Greater Manila

EDWIN O. BETGUEN
Governor, Northern Luzon

MARIA IMELDA Q. TUAZON

RAMON S. ESGUERRA
Governor, Central Luzon
Governor, Southern Luzon

AVELINO V. SALES, JR.

z Governor, Bicolandia

JOSE
VICENTE R.M. OPINION VON LOVEL D. BEDONA
Governor, Eastern Visayas

DALE BRYAN D. MORDENO

Governor, Western Visaya

Gov., Eastern Mindanao

15

NOEL A. BEN
Gov., Western Mindanao

CASES
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

January 9, 1973
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.

RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration 1 submitted its Report dated
November 30, 1972, with the "earnest recommendation" on the basis of the said Report and
the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. 526 2 of the Court, and "consistently with the
views and counsel received from its [the Commission's] Board of Consultants, as well as the
overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar" that "this Honorable
Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption and
promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule."
The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the integration of the
Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible and practicable to
existing provincial and other local Bar associations. On August 16, 1962, arguments in favor of
as well as in opposition to the petition were orally expounded before the Court. Written
oppositions were admitted, 3 and all parties were thereafter granted leave to file written
memoranda. 4
Since then, the Court has closely observed and followed significant developments relative to
the matter of the integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction.
In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there had grown a strong nationwide
sentiment in favor of Bar integration, the Court created the Commission on Bar Integration for
the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar.

16

In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled "An Act Providing for the
Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor." The measure was signed
by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on September 17, 1971 and took effect on the same day as
Rep. Act 6397. This law provides as follows:
SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court
may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under
such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal
profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out
of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out
the purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the
same purpose shall be included in the annual appropriations for the Supreme
Court.
SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
The Report of the Commission abounds with argument on the constitutionality of Bar
integration and contains all necessary factual data bearing on the advisability (practicability
and necessity) of Bar integration. Also embodied therein are the views, opinions, sentiments,
comments and observations of the rank and file of the Philippine lawyer population relative to
Bar integration, as well as a proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission and
presented to them by that body in a national Bar plebiscite. There is thus sufficient basis as
well as ample material upon which the Court may decide whether or not to integrate the
Philippine Bar at this time.
The following are the pertinent issues:
(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?
(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?
(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?
A resolution of these issues requires, at the outset, a statement of the meaning of Bar
integration. It will suffice, for this purpose, to adopt the concept given by the Commission on
Bar Integration on pages 3 to 5 of its Report, thus:
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire
lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial
support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to
the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court.

17

The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names appear in
the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar) perforce must include
all lawyers.
Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with power
to do so: the State. Bar integration, therefore, signifies the setting up by
Government authority of a national organization of the legal profession based
on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of the court.
Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice and
the Rule of Law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers, and ensures,
through their own organized action and participation, the promotion of the
objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar
autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court.
The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:
(1) Assist in the administration of justice;
(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity,
learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;
(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform,
pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and
to the public, and publish information relating thereto;
(6) Encourage and foster legal education;
(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and
adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon; and
(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively.
Integration of the Bar will, among other things, make it possible for the legal
profession to:
(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of Law;
(2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of tyrannical judges and
prosecuting officers;

18

(3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the disciplining and/or
removal of incompetent and unworthy judges and prosecuting officers;
(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself except within its
own forum, from the assaults that politics and self-interest may level at it, and
assist it to maintain its integrity, impartiality and independence;
(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and prosecuting officers;
(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break up any monopoly of
local practice maintained through influence or position;
(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased lawyers;
(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid offices and set up
lawyer reference services throughout the country so that the poor may not lack
competent legal service;
(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that are difficult to obtain
in many of our provinces;
(10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal education for practising
attorneys in order to elevate the standards of the profession throughout the
country;
(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate minimum fees schedules;
(12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal research;
(13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal rights and
obligations, on the importance of preventive legal advice, and on the functions
and duties of the Filipino lawyer; and
(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful country-wide
involvement of the lawyer population in the solution of the multifarious
problems that afflict the nation.
Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the
exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of
law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional authority
over the Bar. In providing that "the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the
integration of the Philippine Bar," Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts
the Court's inherent power, but is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar
will promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the standards of the legal

19

profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively."
Resolution of the second issue whether the unification of the Bar would be constitutional
hinges on the effects of Bar integration on the lawyer's constitutional rights of freedom of
association and freedom of speech, and on the nature of the dues exacted from him.
The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent discussion made by the Commission on
Bar Integration pages 44 to 49 of its Report:
Constitutionality of Bar Integration
Judicial Pronouncements.
In all cases where the validity of Bar integration measures has been put in
issue, the Courts have upheld their constitutionality.
The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:
Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.
The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege,
moreover, clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only
to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the
nation; and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State, the
administration of justice, as an officer of the court.
Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is far
and just that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance
with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective
action; but there can be no collective action without an organized body; no
organized body can operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it
is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such
organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of
doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all
lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.
1. Freedom of Association.
To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is not violative of his
constitutional freedom to associate (or the corollary right not to associate).
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not
already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar

20

examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national

organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of
which every lawyer is already a member.
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free
to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or
refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The body compulsion to which he
is subjected is the payment of annual dues.
Otherwise stated, membership in the Unified Bar imposes only the duty to pay
dues in reasonable amount. The issue therefore, is a question of compelled
financial support of group activities, not involuntary membership in any other
aspect.
The greater part of Unified Bar activities serves the function of elevating the
educational and ethical standards of the Bar to the end of improving the quality
of the legal service available to the people. The Supreme Court, in order to
further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional
services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion
be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the
lawyers.
Assuming that Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be a member of the
Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power
of the State. The legal profession has long been regarded as a proper subject
of legislative regulation and control. Moreover, the inherent power of the
Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate the Bar.

2. Regulatory Fee.
For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean that
the Court levies a tax.
A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation, while the
purpose of a tax is revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar,
it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for
that purpose. It would not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar
program without means to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of
implied powers necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.
The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the Bar is that the
regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The public interest
promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the inconsequential

21

inconvenience to a member that might result from his required payment of

annual dues.
3. Freedom of Speech.
A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on any subject in
any manner he wishes, even though such views be opposed to positions taken
by the Unified Bar.
For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote measures to which
said member is opposed, would not nullify or adversely affect his freedom of
speech.
Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to practice law upon
membership in the Integrated Bar, it is difficult to understand why it should
become unconstitutional for the Bar to use the member's dues to fulfill the very
purposes for which it was established.
The objection would make every Governmental exaction the material of a "free
speech" issue. Even the income tax would be suspect. The objection would
carry us to lengths that have never been dreamed of. The conscientious
objector, if his liberties were to be thus extended, might refuse to contribute
taxes in furtherance of war or of any other end condemned by his conscience
as irreligious or immoral. The right of private judgment has never yet been
exalted above the powers and the compulsion of the agencies of Government.
4. Fair to All Lawyers.
Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising because although the
requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it will give the members of
the Bar a new system which they hitherto have not had and through which, by
proper work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed, and
discharge their public responsibilities in a more effective manner than they
have been able to do in the past. Because the requirement to pay dues is a
valid exercise of regulatory power by the Court, because it will apply equally to
all lawyers, young and old, at the time Bar integration takes effect, and
because it is a new regulation in exchange for new benefits, it is not
retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not unfair.
To resolve the third and final issue whether the Court should ordain the integration of the
Bar at this time requires a careful overview of the practicability and necessity as well as the
advantages and disadvantages of Bar integration.
In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the United States, Bar integration
has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved discipline among the members of the Bar; (2)
greater influence and ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better and more meaningful participation of

22

the individual lawyer in the activities of the Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar facilities and
services; (5) elimination of unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance of costly membership
campaigns; (7) establishment of an official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession;
and (9) better and more effective discharge by the Bar of its obligations and responsibilities to
its members, to the courts, and to the public. No less than these salutary consequences are
envisioned and in fact expected from the unification of the Philippine Bar.
Upon the other hand, it has been variously argued that in the event of integration, Government
authority will dominate the Bar; local Bar associations will be weakened; cliquism will be the
inevitable result; effective lobbying will not be possible; the Bar will become an impersonal Bar;
and politics will intrude into its affairs.
It is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils prophesied by opponents of Bar
integration have failed to materialize in over fifty years of Bar integration experience in
England, Canada and the United States. In all the jurisdictions where the Integrated Bar has
been tried, none of the abuses or evils feared has arisen; on the other hand, it has restored
public confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional consciousness, energized the Bar's
responsibilities to the public, and vastly improved the administration of justice.
How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar integration? The official statistics compiled
by the Commission on Bar integration show that in the national poll recently conducted by the
Commission in the matter of the integration of the Philippine Bar, of a total of 15,090 lawyers
from all over the archipelago who have turned in their individual responses, 14,555 (or 96.45
per cent) voted in favor of Bar integration, while only 378 (or 2.51 per cent) voted against it,
and 157 (or 1.04 per cent) are non-commital. In addition, a total of eighty (80) local Bar
association and lawyers' groups all over the Philippines have submitted resolutions and other
expressions of unqualified endorsement and/or support for Bar integration, while not a single
local Bar association or lawyers' group has expressed opposed position thereto. Finally, of the
13,802 individual lawyers who cast their plebiscite ballots on the proposed integration Court
Rule drafted by the Commission, 12,855 (or 93.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof, 662 (or
4.80 per cent) vote against it, and 285 (or 2.06 per cent) are non-committal. 5 All these clearly
indicate an overwhelming nationwide demand for Bar integration at this time.
The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments
adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual data
contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration
of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable," within the context
of contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative means to raise the
standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of
the Constitution, hereby ordains the integration of the Bar of the Philippines in accordance with
the attached COURT RULE, effective on January 16, 1973.

23

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castillo, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar,

Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Created by Supreme Court Resolution of October 5, 1970 "for the purpose of
ascertaining the advisability of the integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction," the
Commission is composed of Supreme Court Associate Justice Fred Ruiz Castro
(Chairman), Senator Jose J. Roy, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Conrado V.
Sanchez, Supreme Court Associate Justice (then Court of Appeals Presiding Justice)
Salvador V. Esguerra, U. P. Law Center Director Crisolito Pascual, Ex-Senator Tecla
San Andres Ziga, and San Beda Law Dean and Constitutional Convention Delegate
Feliciano Jover Ledesma (Members).
2 Filed on July 11, 1962 (by a Committee composed of Jose W. Diokno, Roman
Ozaeta, Jose P. Carag, Eugenio Villanueva, Jr. and Leo A. Panuncialman), the petition
represented the unanimous consensus of 53 Bar Associations (from all over the
Philippines) reached in convention at the Far Eastern University Auditorium in Manila
on June 23, 1962.
3 Written oppositions were submitted by Attys. Cesar Fajardo and Vicente L. Arcega,
the Camarines Norte Lawyers League, Atty. Fructuoso S. Villarin, the Camarines Sur
Bar Association and the Manila Bar Association.
4 The Petitioners and the Negros Occidental Bar Association submitted memoranda in
favor of Bar integration, while the Manila Bar Association submitted a memoranda
opposing Bar integration.
5 All figures are as of January 8, 1973.

24

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
B.M. No. 1370

May 9, 2005

LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR., REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM

PAYMENT OF IBP DUES.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a request for exemption from payment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
dues filed by petitioner Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr.
In his letter,1 dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues
in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005. He
alleged that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the
Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in
December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He maintained that he cannot be
assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the Philippine Civil Service since the
Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one's profession while in government service, and
neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.
On 05 October 2004, the letter was referred to the IBP for comment. 2
On 16 November 2004, the IBP submitted its comment 3 stating inter alia: that membership in
the IBP is not based on the actual practice of law; that a lawyer continues to be included in the
Roll of Attorneys as long as he continues to be a member of the IBP; that one of the
obligations of a member is the payment of annual dues as determined by the IBP Board of
Governors and duly approved by the Supreme Court as provided for in Sections 9 and 10,
Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court; that the validity of imposing dues on the IBP members has
been upheld as necessary to defray the cost of an Integrated Bar Program; and that the policy
of the IBP Board of Governors of no exemption from payment of dues is but an implementation
of the Court's directives for all members of the IBP to help in defraying the cost of integration of
the bar. It maintained that there is no rule allowing the exemption of payment of annual dues
as requested by respondent, that what is allowed is voluntary termination and reinstatement of
membership. It asserted that what petitioner could have done was to inform the secretary of
the IBP of his intention to stay abroad, so that his membership in the IBP could have been
terminated, thus, his obligation to pay dues could have been stopped. It also alleged that the
IBP Board of Governors is in the process of discussing proposals for the creation of an inactive
status for its members, which if approved by the Board of Governors and by this Court, will
exempt inactive IBP members from payment of the annual dues.

25

In his reply4 dated 22 February 2005, petitioner contends that what he is questioning is the IBP
Board of Governor's Policy of Non-Exemption in the payment of annual membership dues of
lawyers regardless of whether or not they are engaged in active or inactive practice. He
asseverates that the Policy of Non-Exemption in the payment of annual membership dues
suffers from constitutional infirmities, such as equal protection clause and the due process
clause. He also posits that compulsory payment of the IBP annual membership dues would
indubitably be oppressive to him considering that he has been in an inactive status and is
without income derived from his law practice. He adds that his removal from nonpayment of
annual membership dues would constitute deprivation of property right without due process of
law. Lastly, he claims that non-practice of law by a lawyer-member in inactive status is neither
injurious to active law practitioners, to fellow lawyers in inactive status, nor to the community
where the inactive lawyers-members reside.
Plainly, the issue here is: whether or nor petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his
dues during the time that he was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil
Service from 1962-1986 and he was working abroad from 1986-2003?
We rule in the negative.
An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as
distinguished from bar association organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership in
which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar is essentially a process by which every member of the
Bar is afforded an opportunity to do his shares in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as well
as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or under the direction of the
State, an Integrated Bar is an official national body of which all lawyers are required to be
members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar,
including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of
the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional
responsibility, breach of which constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and,
upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the offending
member.5
The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer
population. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition sine
qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court.6
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or
not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of his
annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to foster the State's legitimate interest in elevating
the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession
in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the
lawyers.7
Moreover, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional
power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and in the
integration of the Philippine Bar8 - which power required members of a privileged class, such
as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the
profession to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is, indeed, imposed as a
regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the noble objectives and purposes
of integration.

26

The rationale for prescribing dues has been explained in the Integration of the Philippine
Bar,9 thus:
For the court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean that the
Court is attempting to levy a tax.
A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation, while tax
purpose of a tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it
follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that
purpose. It would not be possible to put on an integrated Bar program without means
to defray the expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with it the
power to impose such exaction.
The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the privilege of law is that the
regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The public interest promoted
by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the slight inconvenience to a member
resulting from his required payment of the annual dues.
Thus, payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no
one is exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long
as one's membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, the member is engaged in.
There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from payment of membership
dues. At most, as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed the Secretary of the
Integrated Bar of his intention to stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in
the IBP could have been terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been
discontinued.
As abovementioned, the IBP in its comment stated that the IBP Board of Governors is in the
process of discussing the situation of members under inactive status and the nonpayment of
their dues during such inactivity. In the meantime, petitioner is duty bound to comply with his
obligation to pay membership dues to the IBP.
Petitioner also contends that the enforcement of the penalty of removal would amount to a
deprivation of property without due process and hence infringes on one of his constitutional
rights.
This question has been settled in the case of In re Atty. Marcial Edillon,10 in this wise:
. . . Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being one that
entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here pause to
consider at length, as it [is] clear that under the police power of the State, and under
the necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the
respondent's right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a
matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a
regulatory measure is recognize[d], then a penalty designed to enforce its payment,
which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or
arbitrary.

27

But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere
privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact
compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions,11 one of which is the payment of membership dues. Failure to abide by any of
them entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's request for exemption from payment of IBP dues is DENIED. He is
ordered to pay P12,035.00, the amount assessed by the IBP as membership fees for the years
1977-2005, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of this decision, with a
warning that failure to do so will merit his suspension from the practice of law.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, and Garcia,
JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1

Rollo, p. 1.

Rollo, p. 5.

Rollo, pp. 12-16.

Rollo, pp. 18-25.

In re Atty. Marcial Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, 03 August 1978, 84 SCRA 554, 562.

In re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 09 January 1973, 49 SCRA 22, 25.

Ibid., citing Lathrop v. Donohue, 10 Wis. 2d 230, 102, N.W. 2d 404; Lathrop v. Donohue, 367
U.S. 820, 6 L. ed. 2d 1191, 81 S. Ct. 1826.
8

Article VIII, Sec. 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution.

Appendix D, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Martin, Ruperto G., p. 440.

10

Supra, note 5, pp. 567-568.

11

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Deliquency of Atty. M.A. Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, 19
December 1980, 101 SCRA 612, 617.

28

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION
(IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1)
RESOLUTION

CASTRO, C.J.:
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines.
On November 29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP for short) Board of
Governors unanimously adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. MDD-1 (In
the Matter of the Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon) recommending to
the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for "stubborn
refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the latter's constitution notwithstanding
due notice.
On January 21, 1976, the IBP, through its then President Liliano B. Neri, submitted the said
resolution to the Court for consideration and approval, pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 24,
Article III of the By-Laws of the IBP, which reads:
.... Should the delinquency further continue until the following June 29, the
Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or causes of the continued
delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem appropriate, including a
recommendation to the Supreme Court for the removal of the delinquent
member's name from the Roll of Attorneys. Notice of the action taken shall be
sent by registered mail to the member and to the Secretary of the Chapter
concerned.
On January 27, 1976, the Court required the respondent to comment on the resolution and
letter adverted to above; he submitted his comment on February 23, 1976, reiterating his
refusal to pay the membership fees due from him.
On March 2, 1976, the Court required the IBP President and the IBP Board of Governors to
reply to Edillon's comment: on March 24, 1976, they submitted a joint reply.

29

Thereafter, the case was set for hearing on June 3, 1976. After the hearing, the parties were
required to submit memoranda in amplification of their oral arguments. The matter was
thenceforth submitted for resolution.
At the threshold, a painstaking scrutiny of the respondent's pleadings would show that the
propriety and necessity of the integration of the Bar of the Philippines are in essence
conceded. The respondent, however, objects to particular features of Rule of Court 139-A
(hereinafter referred to as the Court Rule) 1 in accordance with which the Bar of the
Philippines was integrated and to the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP
By-Laws (hereinabove cited).
The authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend to the Supreme Court the removal
of a delinquent member's name from the Roll of Attorneys is found in par. 2 Section 24, Article
Ill of the IBP By-Laws (supra), whereas the authority of the Court to issue the order applied for
is found in Section 10 of the Court Rule, which reads:
SEC. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. Subject to the provisions of Section
12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall
warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such
payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
The all-encompassing, all-inclusive scope of membership in the IBP is stated in these words of
the Court Rule:
SECTION 1. Organization. There is hereby organized an official national
body to be known as the 'Integrated Bar of the Philippines,' composed of all
persons whose names now appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
The obligation to pay membership dues is couched in the following words of the Court Rule:
SEC. 9. Membership dues. Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such
annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of
the Supreme Court. ...
The core of the respondent's arguments is that the above provisions constitute an invasion of
his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to
maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the
corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said
organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the
rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent
concludes, the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no
legal force and effect.

30

The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike his name from the Roll
of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not among the justiciable cases triable by the
Court but is rather of an "administrative nature pertaining to an administrative body."
The case at bar is not the first one that has reached the Court relating to constitutional issues
that inevitably and inextricably come up to the surface whenever attempts are made to
regulate the practice of law, define the conditions of such practice, or revoke the license
granted for the exercise of the legal profession.
The matters here complained of are the very same issues raised in a previous case before the
Court, entitled "Administrative Case No. 526, In the Matter of the Petition for the Integration of
the Bar of the Philippines, Roman Ozaeta, et al., Petitioners." The Court exhaustively
considered all these matters in that case in its Resolution ordaining the integration of the Bar
of the Philippines, promulgated on January 9, 1973. The Court there made the unanimous
pronouncement that it was
... fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the
arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and
the mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission
on Bar Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar is 'perfectly
constitutional and legally unobjectionable'. ...
Be that as it may, we now restate briefly the posture of the Court.
An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as
distinguished from bar associations organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership
in which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar is essentially a process by which every member of
the Bar is afforded an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as
well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or under the direction of
the State, an integrated Bar is an official national body of which all lawyers are required to be
members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar,
including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of
the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional
responsibility breach of which constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and,
upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the offending
member. 2
The integration of the Philippine Bar was obviously dictated by overriding considerations of
public interest and public welfare to such an extent as more than constitutionally and legally
justifies the restrictions that integration imposes upon the personal interests and personal
convenience of individual lawyers. 3
Apropos to the above, it must be stressed that all legislation directing the integration of the Bar
have been uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of the police power over an
important profession. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege
moreover clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his

31

client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part
in one of the most important functions of the State the administration of justice as an
officer of the court. 4 The practice of law being clothed with public interest, the holder of this
privilege must submit to a degree of control for the common good, to the extent of the interest
he has created. As the U. S. Supreme Court through Mr. Justice Roberts explained, the
expression "affected with a public interest" is the equivalent of "subject to the exercise of the
police power" (Nebbia vs. New York, 291 U.S. 502).
When, therefore, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6397 5 authorizing the Supreme Court to
"adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it
shall see fit," it did so in the exercise of the paramount police power of the State. The Act's
avowal is to "raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice,
and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively." Hence, the Congress
in enacting such Act, the Court in ordaining the integration of the Bar through its Resolution
promulgated on January 9, 1973, and the President of the Philippines in decreeing the
constitution of the IBP into a body corporate through Presidential Decree No. 181 dated May 4,
1973, were prompted by fundamental considerations of public welfare and motivated by a
desire to meet the demands of pressing public necessity.
The State, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with and regulate personal
liberty, property and occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to restraints and
burdens in order to secure the general prosperity and welfare of the State (U.S. vs. Gomez
Jesus, 31 Phil 218), for, as the Latin maxim goes, "Salus populi est supreme lex." The public
welfare is the supreme law. To this fundamental principle of government the rights of
individuals are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty
should not be made to prevail over authority because then society win fall into anarchy
(Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726). It is an undoubted power of the State to restrain some
individuals from all freedom, and all individuals from some freedom.
But the most compelling argument sustaining the constitutionality and validity of Bar integration
in the Philippines is the explicit unequivocal grant of precise power to the Supreme Court by
Section 5 (5) of Article X of the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, which reads:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and pro. procedure in all
courts, and the admission to the practice of law and the integration of the
Bar ...,
and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6397, which reads:
SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court
may adopt rules of Court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under
such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal

32

profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to

discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
Quite apart from the above, let it be stated that even without the enabling Act (Republic Act No.
6397), and looking solely to the language of the provision of the Constitution granting the
Supreme Court the power "to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in
all courts, and the admission to the practice of law," it at once becomes indubitable that this
constitutional declaration vests the Supreme Court with plenary power in all cases regarding
the admission to and supervision of the practice of law.
Thus, when the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal profession, his practice of law and
his exercise of the said profession, which affect the society at large, were (and are) subject to
the power of the body politic to require him to conform to such regulations as might be
established by the proper authorities for the common good, even to the extent of interfering
with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to submit himself to such reasonable interference
and regulation, he should not have clothed the public with an interest in his concerns.
On this score alone, the case for the respondent must already fall.
The issues being of constitutional dimension, however, we now concisely deal with
them seriatim.
1. The first objection posed by the respondent is that the Court is without power to compel him
to become a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, hence, Section 1 of the Court
Rule is unconstitutional for it impinges on his constitutional right of freedom to associate (and
not to associate). Our answer is: To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is
not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. 6
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a
member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. 7 All that
integration actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a member. 8
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or
not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections
as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues.
The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this
fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers. 9
Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to be a member of
the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the
State. 10
2. The second issue posed by the respondent is that the provision of the Court Rule requiring
payment of a membership fee is void. We see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the

33

Court, under its constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to
the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section 5 of the 1973
Constitution) which power the respondent acknowledges from requiring members of a
privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses
of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed
imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and
purposes of integration. 11
3. The respondent further argues that the enforcement of the penalty provisions would amount
to a deprivation of property without due process and hence infringes on one of his
constitutional rights. Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being
one that entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here pause to
consider at length, as it clear that under the police power of the State, and under the
necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the respondent's right to
practise law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation
and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize, then a
penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by
payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. 12
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere
privilege, 13 and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact
compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to strike the
name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of admission,
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and supervision
have been and are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities,
and the authorities holding such are legion. 14
In In Re Sparks (267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W. (2d) 194), in which the report of the Board of Bar
Commissioners in a disbarment proceeding was confirmed and disbarment ordered, the court,
sustaining the Bar Integration Act of Kentucky, said: "The power to regulate the conduct and
qualifications of its officers does not depend upon constitutional or statutory grounds. It is a
power which is inherent in this court as a court appropriate, indeed necessary, to the proper
administration of justice ... the argument that this is an arbitrary power which the court is
arrogating to itself or accepting from the legislative likewise misconceives the nature of the
duty. It has limitations no less real because they are inherent. It is an unpleasant task to sit in
judgment upon a brother member of the Bar, particularly where, as here, the facts are
disputed. It is a grave responsibility, to be assumed only with a determination to uphold the
Ideals and traditions of an honorable profession and to protect the public from overreaching
and fraud. The very burden of the duty is itself a guaranty that the power will not be misused or
prostituted. ..."
The Court's jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 Constitution when it explicitly
granted to the Court the power to "Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice ... and the
admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Bar ... (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power

34

to pass upon the fitness of the respondent to remain a member of the legal profession is
indeed undoubtedly vested in the Court.
We thus reach the conclusion that the provisions of Rule of Court 139-A and of the By-Laws of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines complained of are neither unconstitutional nor illegal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous sense of the Court that the
respondent Marcial A. Edillon should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby
ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Muoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Adopted in the Supreme Court's Resolution, promulgated on January 9, 1973,
ordaining the integration of the Bar of the Philippines.
2 114 A.L.R. 101.
3 Memorandum of Authorities on the Constitutionality of Bar Integration, cited in the
Report of the Commission Bar Integration on the Integration of the Philippine Bar, Nov.
30, 1972; see also Supreme Court Resolution of January 9, 1973, ordaining the
integration of the Philippine Bar.
4 In re Integrating the Bar, 222 Ark 35, 259 S. W. 2d 114; Petition of Florida State Bar
Association, 40 So. 2d 902; Petition of Florida State Bar Association, 134 Fla. 851, 186
So. 280: In re Edwards, 45 Idaho 676, 266 P. 665; Commonwealth ex rel. Ward vs.
Harrington, 266 Ky. 41 98 S. W. 2d 53; Ayres vs. Hadaway 303 Mich. 589, 6 N. W. 2d
905; Petition for Integration of Bar of Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195; Petition for Integration
of Bar of Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195, 12 N. W. 2d 515; Clark vs. Austin, 101 S. W. 2d
977; In Re Integration of Nebraska State Bar Assn., 133 Neb. 283, 275 N. W. 265, 114
A.L.R. 151; In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 292 291; Baker vs. Varser, 240 N.C. 260, 82 S.E.
2d 90; In re Integration of State Bar of Oklahoma, 185 Okla, 505, 95 P. 2d 113; State ex
rel. Rice vs. Cozad, 70 S. Dak. 193, 16 N. W. 2d 484; Campbell vs. Third District
Committee of Virginia State Bar, 179 Va. 244, 18 S. E. 2d 883; Lathrop vs. Donahue, 10
Wis. 2d 230,102 N. W. 2d 404.
5 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, approved on September 17,1971.
6 In re Unification of New Hampsire Bar, 248 A. 2d 709; In re Gibson, 35 N. Mex. 550,
4P. 2d 643; Lathrop vs. Donahue, 10 Wis. 2d 230, 102 N. W. 2d 404; Lathrop vs.
Donahue, 367 U.S. 820, 6 L. ed. 2d 1191, 81 S. Ct. 1826; Railways Employes' Dept. vs.
Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 100 L. ed. 1112, 76 S. Ct. 714.

35

7 Diokno, Jose W., "Bar Integration A Sword and a Shield for Justice" (Manor Press,
Q.C., 1962) p. 17.
8 Fellers James, "Integration of the Bar Aloha!", Journal of the Am. Judicature
Society, Vol. 47, No. 11 (1964) p. 256. 9 Lathrop vs. Donahue, 10 Wis. 2d 230, 102,
N.W. 2d 404; Lathrop vs. Donahue, 367 U.S. 820, 6 L, ed. 2d 1191, 81 S. Ct. 1826.
9. Lathrop vs. Donohue, 10 Wis., 2d 230, 102, N.W. 2d 404; Lathrop vs. Donohue, 367
U.S. 820, 6L. ed. 2d 1191, 81 S. Ct. 1826.
10 Hill vs. State Bar of California, 97 P. 2d 236; Herron vs. State Bar of California, 24
Cal. 53, 147 P. 2d 543; Carpenter vs. State Bar of California, 211 Cal. 358, 295 P. 23; In
re Mundy, 202 La. 41, 11 SO. 2d 398; In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 292 P. 291; In re Platz, 60
Nev. 24, 108 P. 2d 858, In re Gibson, 35 N. Mex. 550, 4 P. 2d 643; Kelley vs. State Bar
of Oklahoma, 148 Okla, 282, 298 P. 623.
11 Petition of Florida State Bar Association, 40 So. 2d 902; In re Integration of Bar of
Hawaii, 432 P. 2d 887; Petition for Integration of Bar of Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195, 12 N.
W. 2d 515; In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 292 P. 291; In re Unification of New Hampshire Bar,
248 A. 2d 709; In re Gibson, 35 N. Mex. 550, 4 P. 2d 643; State Bar of Oklahoma vs.
McGhnee 148 Okla, 219, 298 P. 580; Kelley vs. State Bar of Oklahoma, 148 Okla, 282,
298 P. 623; Lathrop vs. Donahue, 10 Wis. 2d 230,102 N. W. 2d 404.
12 In re Gibson, 4 P. 2d 643.
The following words of Justice Harlan are opposite: "The objection would make every
Governmental exaction the material of a 'free speech' issue. Even the income tax would
be suspect. The objection would carry us to lengths that have never been dreamed of.
The conscientious objector, if his liberties were to thus extended, might refuse to
contribute taxes in furtherance of war or of any other end condemned by his conscience
as irreligious or immoral The right of private judgment has never yet been exalted
above the powers and the compulsion of the agencies of Government." (Concurring
opinion of Harlan, J, joined by Frankfurter, J., in Lathrop vs. Donahue, 367
U.S. 820, 6 L.ed. 21191, 81 S. Ct. 1826, citing Cardozo, J. with Branders and Stone,
JJ., concurring, in Hamilton vs. Regents of Univ. of California, 293 U.S. 245, 79 L.ed.
343, 55 S. Ct. 197.)
13 Inre Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 292 P. 291.
14 Bar Flunkers Case, 50 O.G. 1602; In re Aguas, 1 Phil. 1, and others.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

36

B.M. No. 712 March 19, 1997

RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH

RESOLUTION

PADILLA, J.:
Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however
deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In
Homicide.
The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte
during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991. Petitioner and seven (7) other
accused initially entered pleas of not guilty to homicide charges. The eight (8) accused later
withdrew their initial pleas and upon re-arraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide.
On the basis of such pleas, the trial court rendered judgment dated 11 February 1993 imposing
on each of the accused a sentence of imprisonment of from two (2) years four (4) months :and
one (1) day to four (4) years.
On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein petitioner's application for probation.
On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an order approving a report dated 6 April 1994
submitted by the Probation Officer recommending petitioner's discharge from probation.
On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this Court a petition to be allowed to take the lawyer's
oath based on the order of his discharge from probation.
On 13 July 1995, the Court through then Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano
issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that he
may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed
upon those seeking admission to the bar.
In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15)
certifications/letters executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and
six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship
foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint
efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.
On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to comment
on petitioner's prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.

37

In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty. Camaligan states that:

a. He still believes that the infliction of severe physical injuries which led to the death of his son
was deliberate rather than accidental. The offense therefore was not only homicide but murder
since the accused took advantage of the neophyte's helplessness implying abuse of
confidence, taking advantage of superior strength and treachery.
b. He consented to the accused's plea of guilt to the lesser offense of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide only out of pity for the mothers of the accused and a pregnant wife of one
of the accused who went to their house on Christmas day 1991 and Maundy Thursday 1992,
literally on their knees, crying and begging for forgiveness and compassion. They also told him
that the father of one of the accused had died of a heart attack upon learning of his son's
involvement in the incident.
c. As a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner and his co-accused for the death of his son.
However, as a loving father who had lost a son whom he had hoped would succeed him in his
law practice, he still feels the pain of an untimely demise and the stigma of the gruesome
manner of his death.
d. He is not in a position to say whether petitioner is now morally fit for admission to the bar.
He therefore submits the matter to the sound discretion of the Court.
The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and
moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to "weed out" lawyers who
have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to
prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer's oath, thereby further tarnishing the public image of
lawyers which in recent years has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
The resolution of the issue before us required weighing and reweighing of the reasons for
allowing or disallowing petitioner's admission to the practice of law. The senseless beatings
inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident absence of that moral fitness required for
admission to the bar since they were totally irresponsible, irrelevant and uncalled for.
In the 13 July 1995 resolution in this case we stated:
. . . participation in the prolonged and mindless physical behavior, [which]
makes impossible a finding that the participant [herein petitioner] was then
possessed of good moral character. 1
In the same resolution, however, we stated that the Court is prepared to consider de novo the
question of whether petitioner has purged himself of the obvious deficiency in moral character
referred to above.
Before anything else, the Court understands and shares the sentiment of Atty. Gilbert
Camaligan. The death of one's child is, for a parent, a most traumatic experience. The
suffering becomes even more pronounced and profound in cases where the death is due to
causes other than natural or accidental but due to the reckless imprudence of third parties. The
feeling then becomes a struggle between grief and anger directed at the cause of death.

38

Atty. Camaligan's statement before the Court- manifesting his having forgiven the accused is
no less than praiseworthy and commendable. It is exceptional for a parent, given the
circumstances in this case, to find room for forgiveness.
However, Atty. Camaligan admits that he is still not in a position to state if petitioner is now
morally fit to be a lawyer.
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino
to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the
following admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not
inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a
devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.
The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul
Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the
general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.
We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for
practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn
promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly
according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration
of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned.
The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with the assistance he has been
giving to his community. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to render legal and
other services to the more unfortunate members of society.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino is hereby ALLOWED to take the
lawyer's oath on a date to be set by the Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to
practice the legal profession.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Resolution, p. 8.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 6689

August 24, 2011

39

RIZALINA L. GEMINA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA, Respondent.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We review Resolution No. XVIII-2008-101 dated March 6, 2008 of the Board of Governors of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), dismissing the complaint filed by Rizalina L.
Gemina (complainant). The complaint charged Atty. Isidro S. Madamba (respondent) with
deceit, malpractice and gross negligence, and prayed for his suspension/disbarment. 1
The complainant alleged that she is an heir of the registered owner of several parcels of land
located in Laoag City.2 These parcels of land were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio in
connivance with the respondent. The documents pertaining to the transactions over these
lands were notarized by the respondent either without the presence of the affiants or with their
forged signatures. The documents the complainant referred to were:
1. Waiver of Rights & Interest
2. Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee
3. Deed of Adjudication3 & Sale
4. Affidavit of Non-Tenancy
5. Deed of Absolute Sale
The complainant alleged that the Waiver of Rights and Interests was submitted by Eugenio to
the Department of Agrarian Reform. This document shows that it was entered in the
respondents Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2283, Page No. 252, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003.
However, when she went to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Regional Trial Court,
Isabela, to request for a copy, she found out that Doc. No. 2283, Page No. 252, Book No. VIII,
Series of 2003 was an Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee allegedly executed by the Spouses Efren
Alonzo and Imelda Alonzo on September 29, 2003. In the column "REMARKS" of Document
No. 2283, the word cancelled was written, but no reason was given for the cancellation, nor
was a copy of the alleged cancelled document in the records. The same Affidavit of
Buyer/Transferee was also entered in the respondents Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2285,
Page No. 253, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003. The complainant submitted a Certification dated
May 3, 2004 issued by Clerk of Court Artemio H. Quidilla, Jr., that a certified true copy of Doc.
No. 2283, Page No. 252, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003 cannot be issued because the
respondent did not submit notarial reports for the years 2003 and 2004, although he was
commissioned as a Notary Public for these years.4
The complainant also asked for a certified true copy of a Deed of Adjudication and Sale
allegedly executed by Eugenio and the other heirs, and notarized by the respondent on July
22, 2003. The instrument shows that this document was entered in the respondents Notarial
Register as Doc. No. 2263, Page No. 248, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003, but no copy was
submitted to the OCC. In the column "REMARKS," the words "without copy" appeared, without

40

stating the reason for the absence of a copy. Clerk of Court Quidilla issued a Certification
dated June 21, 2004 that indeed, no copy was submitted.5
In another unlawful sale of a parcel of land, an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy was notarized by the
respondent. It was entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2448, Page No. 276, Book No.
VIII, Series of 2004. The affidavit referred to a Deed of Sale involving a 2,500-square meter
property. The Deed of Sale was notarized by the respondent on November 14, 2002 and
entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 2212, Page No. 239, Book No. VIII, Series of
2002. To verify the authenticity of the Deed of Sale, the complainant tried to secure a copy but
she discovered that no such Deed of Sale existed. In fact, a different document corresponds to
Doc. No. 2212, Page No. 239, Book No. VIII, Series of 2002. It refers to an Affidavit of
Discrepancy, instead of a Deed of Sale. On the column "REMARKS," the word "cancelled"
appeared without indicating the reason for the cancellation. This was confirmed by Clerk of
Court Quidilla in his 1st Indorsement dated July 16, 2004, stating that "Doc. No. 2212, Series
of 2002 pertains to an Affidavit of Discrepancy executed by Joseph Lim Clemente on
November 15, 2002."6
In his Comments and Compliance dated August 29, 2006, 7 the respondent admitted the
complainants allegations on the notarization of the subject documents, but denied any
participation in the sale and transfer of the lands covered by the documents. He claimed that it
was his secretary who prepared and drafted the documents. He claimed that his only
participation was to affix his signature on the documents; he was already 82 years old and
insulin dependent, so he had no more time to prepare documents and enter documents in his
notarial register. He begged for leniency and consideration from the Court, and asked for
forgiveness for his inadvertent acts. He apologized and committed himself not to repeat these
misdeeds.
In a resolution dated November 29, 2006, we referred the complaint to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation.8
In the position paper she submitted to the IBP, the complainant reiterated her charges against
the respondent, further stating that as a member of the Philippine Bar, the respondent allowed
himself to be used as a Notary Public to illegally enable third parties to claim rights over
properties to which the complainant has hereditary rights. By notarizing documents through
false representations, without the signatories personally present before him as required under
the Notarial Law, the respondent should be held guilty of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming
of a member of the Philippine Bar.9
The respondent likewise reiterated in his position paper 10 his explanations contained in his
comment submitted to this Court Respondent does not deny having affix[ed] his signatures in the subject documents but he was
never a participant in the alleged unlawful sale. His participation is limited to the affixing [of] his
signature in the subject documents. The alleged manipulation was committed by her [sic]
clerk[-]secretary who enjoyed his trust and confidence having been in said position for almost
two decades. Said clerk-secretary is responsible for the preparation and entry of the
documents in the Notarial Book. As such, he has all the chance to do [the] things he wanted to
do, which of course respondent has no least suspicion to suspect him to do illegal and
unlawful acts to his Notarial Register.
When respondent was still strong, he personally prepare [sic] document and personally do [sic]
the entry of his Notarial Documents in his Notarial Book, but in the early [year] of 1999, his

41

sickness was aggravated and he became insulin dependent. This necessarily weakens his
body and eyesight. And so he has no choice except to trust said secretary-clerk for the
preparation and entry of notarial documents in his notarial register.
On February 12, 2008, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala submitted to the IBP Board
of Governors her Report and Recommendation, 11 recommending the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit, finding that:
In her Complaint, complainant alleged that she is an heir of a registered owner of some
parcels of land in Laoag City. However, no documentary evidence was presented to support
the same. She insisted that respondent notarized documents without the appearance before
him of the persons who executed the same, but no clear and sufficient evidence was also
presented.
Rule 130, Section 14 of the Rules of Court provides that "Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance
of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated." In the
herein case, although complainant made it appear that she has evidence to prove that there
was anomaly in the notarization of the subject documents, she failed to present the same.
An attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred against
him until the contrary is proved and that as an officer of the court he has performed his duties
in accordance with his oath (Acosta v. Serrano, 75 SCRA 254; Atienza v. Evangelista, 80
SCRA 338). The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to overcome the presumption and
establish his charges by a clear preponderance of evidence (Baldoman v. Luspo, 64 SCRA 74;
In re De Guzman, 55 SCRA 139).
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-101 dated March 6, 2008
adopted and approved Commissioner Maalas Report and Recommendation, and dismissed
the complaint against the respondent for lack of merit. 12
We totally disagree with the findings of Commissioner Maala for the following reasons: First,
the IBP cannot inquire into whether the complainant is an heir of the registered owner of the
land. It is not within its authority to determine whether the complainant has a legal right to the
properties involved in the transactions and to require her to submit proof to that effect. Its
function is limited to disciplining lawyers, and it cannot determine issues of law and facts
regarding the parties legal rights to a dispute. Second, from the respondents own admissions,
it cannot be doubted that he is guilty of the charges against him. His admissions show that he
had notarized documents without reading them and without ascertaining what the documents
purported to be. He had completely entrusted to his secretary the keeping and the
maintenance of his Notarial Register. This eventually resulted in inaccuracies in the entry of
the notarial acts in his Notarial Register.
The excerpts from the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearing held on
November 12, 2007, presided by IBP Commissioner Oliver L. Pantaleon, 13 show:
MR. GEMINA:
Your Honor, itong Affidavit of Discrepancy is not an Affidavit of Discrepancy. Minamanipulate
niya yong ano This is a Deed of Sale. Pinalitan niya yong ano, eh, document number. This is
a Deed of Sale pertaining to the property Noong sinita na namin siya pinalitan naniya, the

42

same number pero iba na ang pangalan. Affidavit of Discrepancy na ang pinalabas. The same
document number, page 3, number 8. And we were able to get a copy of these documents.
COMM. PANTALEON:
You can submit that also.
ATTY. MADAMBA:
That is really true, Your Honor, because I have said I am not the one anymore preparing my
reports on notarial. I relied on my secretary. So everything there will present to me and I sign it
believing that all are clear.
COMM. PANTALEON:
So you admit that particular allegation.
ATTY. MADAMBA:
Yes, that I have notarized that two documents.
MR. GEMINA:
Not only that, Your Honor, there are several documents we can prove.

ATTY. MADAMBA:
Well, I have already submitted.
The Court is likewise convinced that the respondent notarized the Waiver of Rights and
Interests executed by one Juanito Peniera without asking for proof of identity, relying merely on
assurances and his belief that the person before him was a "wise man." 14 It was shown during
the hearing on November 12, 2007 that the document was a forgery. The transcript of
stenographic notes of what transpired during the hearing on November 12, 2007 15shows:
COMM. PANTALEON:
Right now, what is your evidence to show that this person did not personally appear before the
respondent?
MR. GEMINA:
Can I talk, your Honor?
COMM. PANTALEON:
What is your name?

43

MR. GEMINA:
I am Candido Gemina, Jr., husband of the complainant. The signature of Juanito Peniera was
a forgery. In fact, we also filed a case against Francisco Eugenio and he was sentenced to jail
on that matter.
COMM. PANTALEON:
On this document?
MR. GEMINA:
Yes, on that document.
COMM. PANTALEON:
Why do you say that the signature of Juanito Peniera in this case was forged?
MR. GEMINA:
He testified in court in Laoag City that he did not sign.
COMM. PANTALEON:
Juanito Peniera testified in court?
MR. GEMINA:
Yes, sir.
The IBP resolution, based wholly on Commissioner Maalas Report and Recommendation,
totally missed and disregarded the submitted evidence and the respondents testimony during
the hearing of the complaint. The IBP apparently had treated the respondent with exceptional
leniency. In our view, the respondents age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to
disregard the serious lapses he committed in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as
a notary public. The inaccuracies in his Notarial Register entries and his failure to enter the
documents that he admittedly notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public. He
cannot escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not merely
his secretary, should be held accountable for these misdeeds.16
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are
the acknowledgement and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance of
these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal
affixed on documents. The notarial seal converts a document from a private to a public
instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its
genuineness and due execution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty,
meaningless or routinary act. A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and
faithfulness. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they
should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions. 17

44

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
The Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, moreover, require a duly
commissioned notary public to make the proper entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain
from committing any dereliction or any act which may serve as cause for the revocation of his
commission or the imposition of administrative sanctions.18
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondents failure to make the proper entry
or entries in his Notarial Register of his notarial acts, his failure to require the presence of a
principal at the time of the notarial acts, and his failure to identify a principal on the basis of
personal knowledge by competent evidence are grounds for the revocation of a lawyers
commission as a notary public.19
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba GUILTY of violating the
Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and hereby orders the REVOCATION of his notarial commission, if still existing. He is further
SUSPENDED indefinitely from reappointment as a Notary Public. Considering the seriousness
of his violations, he deserves disbarment from the practice of law but taking into account his
old age and sickness, the Court, for humanitarian reasons, hereby orders his SUSPENSION
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in
the country for their information and guidance. Let also a copy of this decision be appended to
Atty. Isidro S. Madambas personal record as a member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

Footnotes

45

Designated additional Member vice Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno per Special
Order No. 1067 dated August 23, 2011.
1

Rollo, p. 123.

Id. at 99-102.

Referred to as Adjunction in the complaint.

Rollo, p. 11.

Id. at 12.

Id. at 14.

Id. at 30-31.

Id. at 33.

Id. at 92-98.

10

Id. at 119-120.

11

Id. at 124-127.

12

Supra note 1.

13

Rollo, pp. 82-84.

14

Id. at 58.

15

Id. at 54-55.

16

Aquino v. Pascua, A.C. No. 5095, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 1; and Agagon v.
Bustamante, A.C. No. 5510, December 20, 2007, 541 SCRA 286.
17

Agagon v. Bustamante, supra.

18

Ibid.

19

Section 1, Rule 41, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

EN BANC

46

[G.R. No. 141284. August 15, 2000]

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA,
GEN. PANFILO M. LACSON, GEN. EDGAR B. AGLIPAY, and GEN. ANGELO
REYES, respondents.
DECISION
KAPUNAN, J.:
At bar is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of a
temporary restraining order seeking to nullify on constitutional grounds the order of President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada commanding the deployment of the Philippine Marines (the Marines)
to join the Philippine National Police (the PNP) in visibility patrols around the metropolis.

In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, like

robberies, kidnappings and carnappings, the President, in a verbal directive, ordered the PNP
and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and
suppression. The Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (the AFP), the Chief of the PNP and the Secretary of the Interior and Local
Government were tasked to execute and implement the said order. In compliance with the
presidential mandate, the PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar B. Aglipay,
formulated Letter of Instruction 02/2000 [1] (the LOI) which detailed the manner by which the
joint visibility patrols, called Task ForceTulungan, would be conducted.[2] Task
Force Tulungan was placed under the leadership of the Police Chief of Metro Manila.
Subsequently, the President confirmed his previous directive on the deployment of the
Marines in a Memorandum, dated 24 January 2000, addressed to the Chief of Staff of the AFP
and the PNP Chief. [3] In the Memorandum, the President expressed his desire to improve the
peace and order situation in Metro Manila through a more effective crime prevention program
including increased police patrols.[4] The President further stated that to heighten police
visibility in the metropolis, augmentation from the AFP is necessary. [5] Invoking his powers as
Commander-in-Chief under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President directed
the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper deployment
and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or lawless
violence.[6] Finally, the President declared that the services of the Marines in the anti-crime
campaign are merely temporary in nature and for a reasonable period only, until such time
when the situation shall have improved.[7]
The LOI explains the concept of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility patrols as
follows:
xxx

47

2. PURPOSE:
The Joint Implementing Police Visibility Patrols between the PNP NCRPO and the Philippine
Marines partnership in the conduct of visibility patrols in Metro Manila for the suppression of
crime prevention and other serious threats to national security.

3. SITUATION:
Criminal incidents in Metro Manila have been perpetrated not only by ordinary criminals but
also by organized syndicates whose members include active and former police/military
personnel whose training, skill, discipline and firepower prove well-above the present
capability of the local police alone to handle. The deployment of a joint PNP NCRPOPhilippine Marines in the conduct of police visibility patrol in urban areas will reduce the
incidence of crimes specially those perpetrated by active or former police/military personnel.
4. MISSION:
The PNP NCRPO will organize a provisional Task Force to conduct joint NCRPO-PM visibility
patrols to keep Metro Manila streets crime-free, through a sustained street patrolling to
minimize or eradicate all forms of high-profile crimes especially those perpetrated by
organized crime syndicates whose members include those that are well-trained, disciplined
and well-armed active or former PNP/Military personnel.
5. CONCEPT IN JOINT VISIBILITY PATROL OPERATIONS:
a. The visibility patrols shall be conducted jointly by the NCRPO [National Capital Regional
Police Office] and the Philippine Marines to curb criminality in Metro Manila and to preserve
the internal security of the state against insurgents and other serious threat to national
security, although the primary responsibility over Internal Security Operations still rests upon
the AFP.
b. The principle of integration of efforts shall be applied to eradicate all forms of high-profile
crimes perpetrated by organized crime syndicates operating in Metro Manila. This concept
requires the military and police to work cohesively and unify efforts to ensure a focused,
effective and holistic approach in addressing crime prevention. Along this line, the role of the
military and police aside from neutralizing crime syndicates is to bring a wholesome
atmosphere wherein delivery of basic services to the people and development is achieved.
Hand-in-hand with this joint NCRPO-Philippine Marines visibility patrols, local Police Units are
responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in their locality.
c. To ensure the effective implementation of this project, a provisional Task Force
TULUNGAN shall be organized to provide the mechanism, structure, and procedures for the
integrated planning, coordinating, monitoring and assessing the security situation.

48

xxx.[8]
The selected areas of deployment under the LOI are: Monumento Circle, North Edsa (SM
City), Araneta Shopping Center, Greenhills, SM Megamall, Makati Commercial Center,
LRT/MRT Stations and the NAIA and Domestic Airport.[9]
On 17 January 2000, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (the IBP) filed the instant
petition to annul LOI 02/2000 and to declare the deployment of the Philippine Marines, null and
void and unconstitutional, arguing that:
I
THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MARINES IN METRO MANILA IS VIOLATIVE OF
THE CONSTITUTION, IN THAT:
A) NO EMERGENCY SITUATION OBTAINS IN METRO MANILA AS WOULD JUSTIFY, EVEN
ONLY REMOTELY, THE DEPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT WORK;
HENCE, SAID DEPLOYMENT IS IN DEROGATION OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION;
B) SAID DEPLOYMENT CONSTITUTES AN INSIDIOUS INCURSION BY THE MILITARY IN A
CIVILIAN FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT (LAW ENFORCEMENT) IN DEROGATION OF
ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 5 (4), OF THE CONSTITUTION;
C) SAID DEPLOYMENT CREATES A DANGEROUS TENDENCY TO RELY ON THE
MILITARY TO PERFORM THE CIVILIAN FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
II
IN MILITARIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN METRO MANILA, THE ADMINISTRATION IS
UNWITTINGLY MAKING THE MILITARY MORE POWERFUL THAN WHAT IT SHOULD
REALLY BE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.[10]
Asserting itself as the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the bounden duty
to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, the IBP questions the validity of the deployment
and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement.
Without granting due course to the petition, the Court in a Resolution, [11] dated 25 January
2000, required the Solicitor General to file his Comment on the petition. On 8 February 2000,
the Solicitor General submitted his Comment.
The Solicitor General vigorously defends the constitutionality of the act of the President in
deploying the Marines, contending, among others, that petitioner has no legal standing; that
the question of deployment of the Marines is not proper for judicial scrutiny since the same
involves a political question; that the organization and conduct of police visibility patrols, which

49

feature the team-up of one police officer and one Philippine Marine soldier, does not violate the
civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution.
The issues raised in the present petition are: (1) Whether or not petitioner has legal
standing; (2) Whether or not the Presidents factual determination of the necessity of calling
the armed forces is subject to judicial review; and, (3) Whether or not the calling of the armed
forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violates the constitutional provisions on
civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of the PNP.
The petition has no merit.
First, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it is in possession of the requisites of
standing to raise the issues in the petition. Second, the President did not commit grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction nor did he commit a violation of the
civilian supremacy clause of the Constitution.
The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, to wit:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there
has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
When questions of constitutional significance are raised, the Court can exercise its power
of judicial review only if the following requisites are complied with, namely: (1) the existence of
an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity;
and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.[12]
The IBP has not sufficiently complied with the requisites of standing in this case.
Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest
in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged. [13] The term interest means a material interest, an
interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved, or a mere incidental interest.[14] The gist of the question of standing is whether a party
alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[15]
In the case at bar, the IBP primarily anchors its standing on its alleged responsibility to
uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration, however, the IBP
asserts no other basis in support of its locus standi. The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty

50

to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe
it with standing in this case. This is too general an interest which is shared by other groups
and the whole citizenry. Based on the standards above-stated, the IBP has failed to present a
specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case. Its fundamental purpose which,
under Section 2, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court, is to elevate the standards of the law
profession and to improve the administration of justice is alien to, and cannot be affected by
the deployment of the Marines. It should also be noted that the interest of the National
President of the IBP who signed the petition, is his alone, absent a formal board resolution
authorizing him to file the present action. To be sure, members of the BAR, those in the
judiciary included, have varying opinions on the issue. Moreover, the IBP, assuming that it has
duly authorized the National President to file the petition, has not shown any specific injury
which it has suffered or may suffer by virtue of the questioned governmental act. Indeed, none
of its members, whom the IBP purportedly represents, has sustained any form of injury as a
result of the operation of the joint visibility patrols. Neither is it alleged that any of its members
has been arrested or that their civil liberties have been violated by the deployment of the
Marines. What the IBP projects as injurious is the supposed militarization of law enforcement
which might threaten Philippine democratic institutions and may cause more harm than good
in the long run. Not only is the presumed injury not personal in character, it is likewise too
vague, highly speculative and uncertain to satisfy the requirement of standing. Since petitioner
has not successfully established a direct and personal injury as a consequence of the
questioned act, it does not possess the personality to assail the validity of the deployment of
the Marines. This Court, however, does not categorically rule that the IBP has absolutely no
standing to raise constitutional issues now or in the future. The IBP must, by way of
allegations and proof, satisfy this Court that it has sufficient stake to obtain judicial resolution of
the controversy.
Having stated the foregoing, it must be emphasized that this Court has the discretion to
take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirement of legal standing when
paramount interest is involved. [16] In not a few cases, the Court has adopted a liberal attitude
on the locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of
transcendental significance to the people. [17] Thus, when the issues raised are of paramount
importance to the public, the Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure. [18] In this case,
a reading of the petition shows that the IBP has advanced constitutional issues which deserve
the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as
precedents. Moreover, because peace and order are under constant threat and lawless
violence occurs in increasing tempo, undoubtedly aggravated by the Mindanao insurgency
problem, the legal controversy raised in the petition almost certainly will not go away. It will
stare us in the face again. It, therefore, behooves the Court to relax the rules on standing and
to resolve the issue now, rather than later.
The President did not commit grave abuse of discretion in calling out the Marines.

In the case at bar, the bone of contention concerns the factual determination of the
President of the necessity of calling the armed forces, particularly the Marines, to aid the PNP
in visibility patrols. In this regard, the IBP admits that the deployment of the military personnel
falls under the Commander-in-Chief powers of the President as stated in Section 18, Article VII

51

of the Constitution, specifically, the power to call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. What the IBP questions, however, is the basis for the
calling of the Marines under the aforestated provision. According to the IBP, no emergency
exists that would justify the need for the calling of the military to assist the police force. It
contends that no lawless violence, invasion or rebellion exist to warrant the calling of the
Marines. Thus, the IBP prays that this Court review the sufficiency of the factual basis for said
troop [Marine] deployment.[19]
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that the issue pertaining to the
necessity of calling the armed forces is not proper for judicial scrutiny since it involves a
political question and the resolution of factual issues which are beyond the review powers of
this Court.
As framed by the parties, the underlying issues are the scope of presidential powers and
limits, and the extent of judicial review. But, while this Court gives considerable weight to the
parties formulation of the issues, the resolution of the controversy may warrant a creative
approach that goes beyond the narrow confines of the issues raised. Thus, while the parties
are in agreement that the power exercised by the President is the power to call out the armed
forces, the Court is of the view that the power involved may be no more than the maintenance
of peace and order and promotion of the general welfare. [20] For one, the realities on the
ground do not show that there exist a state of warfare, widespread civil unrest or
anarchy. Secondly, the full brunt of the military is not brought upon the citizenry, a point
discussed in the latter part of this decision. In the words of the late Justice Irene Cortes
in Marcos v. Manglapus:
More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the Presidents powers as protector of the
peace. [Rossiter, The American Presidency]. The power of the President to keep the peace is
not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to
leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not
only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending
to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in
times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law,
in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative
want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in making the
President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude
the Presidents exercising as Commander-in-Chief powers short of the calling of the armed
forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law, in
order to keep the peace, and maintain public order and security.
xxx[21]
Nonetheless, even if it is conceded that the power involved is the Presidents power to call
out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, the
resolution of the controversy will reach a similar result.

52

We now address the Solicitor Generals argument that the issue involved is not
susceptible to review by the judiciary because it involves a political question, and thus,
not justiciable.
As a general proposition, a controversy is justiciable if it refers to a matter which is
appropriate for court review.[22] It pertains to issues which are inherently susceptible of being
decided on grounds recognized by law. Nevertheless, the Court does not automatically
assume jurisdiction over actual constitutional cases brought before it even in instances that are
ripe for resolution. One class of cases wherein the Court hesitates to rule on are political
questions. The reason is that political questions are concerned with issues dependent upon
the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or measure being assailed. Moreover, the
political question being a function of the separation of powers, the courts will not normally
interfere with the workings of another co-equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for
the courts to step in to uphold the law and the Constitution.
As Taada v. Cuenco[23] puts it, political questions refer to those questions which, under
the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
government. Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for
discretionary action by a particular branch of government or to the people themselves then it is
held to be a political question. In the classic formulation of Justice Brennan in Baker v. Carr,
[24]
[p]rominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a
textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political
department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or
the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for
nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a courts undertaking independent resolution
without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual
need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of
embarassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on the one
question.
The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of judicial review by providing that (T)he
Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. [25] Under this
definition, the Court cannot agree with the Solicitor General that the issue involved is a political
question beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to review. When the grant of power is qualified,
conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or
conditions have been met or the limitations respected, is justiciable - the problem being one of
legality or validity, not its wisdom. [26] Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit constitutional
boundaries has been given to this Court. [27] When political questions are involved, the
Constitution limits the determination as to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is
being questioned.[28]

53

By grave abuse of discretion is meant simply capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment

that is patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. [29] Under this
definition, a court is without power to directly decide matters over which full discretionary
authority has been delegated. But while this Court has no power to substitute its judgment for
that of Congress or of the President, it may look into the question of whether such exercise has
been made in grave abuse of discretion. [30] A showing that plenary power is granted either
department of government, may not be an obstacle to judicial inquiry, for the improvident
exercise or abuse thereof may give rise to justiciable controversy.[31]
When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his
wisdom. This is clear from the intent of the framers and from the text of the Constitution
itself. The Court, thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the Presidents wisdom or substitute
its own. However, this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised
within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting
grave abuse of discretion. In view of the constitutional intent to give the President full
discretionary power to determine the necessity of calling out the armed forces, it is incumbent
upon the petitioner to show that the Presidents decision is totally bereft of factual basis. The
present petition fails to discharge such heavy burden as there is no evidence to support the
assertion that there exist no justification for calling out the armed forces. There is, likewise, no
evidence to support the proposition that grave abuse was committed because the power to call
was exercised in such a manner as to violate the constitutional provision on civilian supremacy
over the military. In the performance of this Courts duty of purposeful hesitation [32] before
declaring an act of another branch as unconstitutional, only where such grave abuse of
discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the Presidents judgment. To doubt is
to sustain.
There is a clear textual commitment under the Constitution to bestow on the President full
discretionary power to call out the armed forces and to determine the necessity for the
exercise of such power. Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, which embodies the powers
of the President as Commander-in-Chief, provides in part:
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
xxx
The full discretionary power of the President to determine the factual basis for the
exercise of the calling out power is also implied and further reinforced in the rest of Section 18,
Article VII which reads, thus:

54

xxx
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in
regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation
shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may,
in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function,
nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall
be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
Under the foregoing provisions, Congress may revoke such proclamation or suspension
and the Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. However, there is no
such equivalent provision dealing with the revocation or review of the Presidents action to call
out the armed forces. The distinction places the calling out power in a different category from
the power to declare martial law and the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped together the
three powers and provided for their revocation and review without any qualification. Expressio
unius est exclusio alterius. Where the terms are expressly limited to certain matters, it may
not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters. [33] That the intent of the
Constitution is exactly what its letter says, i.e., that the power to call is fully discretionary to the
President, is extant in the deliberation of the Constitutional Commission, to wit:
FR. BERNAS. It will not make any difference. I may add that there is a graduated power of the
President as Commander-in-Chief. First, he can call out such Armed Forces as may be
necessary to suppress lawless violence; then he can suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, then he can impose martial law. This is a graduated sequence.

55

When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, his judgment is subject to review. We are making it subject to review by the
Supreme Court and subject to concurrence by the National Assembly. But when he exercises
this lesser power of calling on the Armed Forces, when he says it is necessary, it is my opinion
that his judgment cannot be reviewed by anybody.
xxx
FR. BERNAS. Let me just add that when we only have imminent danger, the matter can be
handled by the first sentence: The President may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. So we feel that that is sufficient for handling
imminent danger.
MR. DE LOS REYES. So actually, if a President feels that there is imminent danger, the
matter can be handled by the First Sentence: The President....may call out such Armed
Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. So we feel that that is
sufficient for handling imminent danger, of invasion or rebellion, instead of imposing martial law
or suspending the writ ofhabeas corpus, he must necessarily have to call the Armed Forces of
the Philippines as their Commander-in-Chief. Is that the idea?
MR. REGALADO. That does not require any concurrence by the legislature nor is it subject to
judicial review.[34]
The reason for the difference in the treatment of the aforementioned powers highlights the
intent to grant the President the widest leeway and broadest discretion in using the power to
call out because it is considered as the lesser and more benign power compared to the power
to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law, both
of which involve the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil rights and individual
freedoms, and thus necessitating safeguards by Congress and review by this Court.
Moreover, under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, in the exercise of the power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or to impose martial law, two conditions
must concur: (1) there must be an actual invasion or rebellion and, (2) public safety must
require it. These conditions are not required in the case of the power to call out the armed
forces. The only criterion is that whenever it becomes necessary, the President may call the
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." The implication
is that the President is given full discretion and wide latitude in the exercise of the power to call
as compared to the two other powers.
If the petitioner fails, by way of proof, to support the assertion that the President acted
without factual basis, then this Court cannot undertake an independent investigation beyond
the pleadings. The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable
and cannot be objectively established since matters considered for satisfying the same is a
combination of several factors which are not always accessible to the courts. Besides the
absence of textual standards that the court may use to judge necessity, information necessary
to arrive at such judgment might also prove unmanageable for the courts. Certain pertinent

56

information might be difficult to verify, or wholly unavailable to the courts. In many instances,
the evidence upon which the President might decide that there is a need to call out the armed
forces may be of a nature not constituting technical proof.
On the other hand, the President as Commander-in-Chief has a vast intelligence network
to gather information, some of which may be classified as highly confidential or affecting the
security of the state. In the exercise of the power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be
imperatively necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass
destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the military to prevent or suppress
lawless violence must be done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any effect at all. Such a
scenario is not farfetched when we consider the present situation in Mindanao, where the
insurgency problem could spill over the other parts of the country. The determination of the
necessity for the calling out power if subjected to unfettered judicial scrutiny could be a
veritable prescription for disaster, as such power may be unduly straitjacketed by an injunction
or a temporary restraining order every time it is exercised.
Thus, it is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to vest upon the President, as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, full discretion to call forth the military when in his
judgment it is necessary to do so in order to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. Unless the petitioner can show that the exercise of such discretion was gravely
abused, the Presidents exercise of judgment deserves to be accorded respect from this Court.
The President has already determined the necessity and factual basis for calling the
armed forces. In his Memorandum, he categorically asserted that, [V]iolent crimes like
bank/store robberies, holdups, kidnappings and carnappings continue to occur in Metro
Manila...[35] We do not doubt the veracity of the Presidents assessment of the situation,
especially in the light of present developments. The Court takes judicial notice of the recent
bombings perpetrated by lawless elements in the shopping malls, public utilities, and other
public places. These are among the areas of deployment described in the LOI
2000. Considering all these facts, we hold that the President has sufficient factual basis to call
for military aid in law enforcement and in the exercise of this constitutional power.
The deployment of the Marines does not violate the civilian supremacy clause nor does
it infringe the civilian character of the police force.
Prescinding from its argument that no emergency situation exists to justify the calling of
the Marines, the IBP asserts that by the deployment of the Marines, the civilian task of law
enforcement is militarized in violation of Section 3, Article II [36] of the Constitution.
We disagree. The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian
supremacy clause. The calling of the Marines in this case constitutes permissible use of
military assets for civilian law enforcement. The participation of the Marines in the conduct of
joint visibility patrols is appropriately circumscribed. The limited participation of the Marines is
evident in the provisions of the LOI itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of
the Marines authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones in charge of the
visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila

57

Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility patrols. [37] Under
the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol procedures.
[38]
It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the Marines. [39] It is, likewise,
their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines and render logistical support to
these soldiers.[40] In view of the foregoing, it cannot be properly argued that military authority is
supreme over civilian authority. Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist the PNP
does not unmake the civilian character of the police force. Neither does it amount to an
insidious incursion of the military in the task of law enforcement in violation of Section 5(4),
Article XVI of the Constitution.[41]
In this regard, it is not correct to say that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the AFP,
by his alleged involvement in civilian law enforcement, has been virtually appointed to a civilian
post in derogation of the aforecited provision. The real authority in these operations, as stated
in the LOI, is lodged with the head of a civilian institution, the PNP, and not with the
military. Such being the case, it does not matter whether the AFP Chief actually participates in
the Task Force Tulungan since he does not exercise any authority or control over the
same. Since none of the Marines was incorporated or enlisted as members of the PNP, there
can be no appointment to civilian position to speak of. Hence, the deployment of the Marines
in the joint visibility patrols does not destroy the civilian character of the PNP.
Considering the above circumstances, the Marines render nothing more than assistance
required in conducting the patrols. As such, there can be no insidious incursion of the
military in civilian affairs nor can there be a violation of the civilian supremacy clause in the
Constitution.
It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in various
forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is not averse
to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution of certain
traditionally civil functions. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, some of the
multifarious activities wherein military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that
bring both the civilian and the military together in a relationship of cooperation, are:
1. Elections;[42]
2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross; [43]
3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;[44]
4. Amateur sports promotion and development;[45]
5. Development of the culture and the arts;[46]
6. Conservation of natural resources;[47]
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;[48]

58

8. Enforcement of customs laws;[49]

9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;[50]
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;[51]
11. Conduct of nationwide tests for elementary and high school students; [52]
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;[53]
13. Sanitary inspections;[54]
14. Conduct of census work;[55]
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautics Board;[56]
16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;[57]
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.[58]
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from a systematic,
unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and, yet, never
before questioned.[59] What we have here is mutual support and cooperation between the
military and civilian authorities, not derogation of civilian supremacy.
In the United States, where a long tradition of suspicion and hostility towards the use of
military force for domestic purposes has persisted, [60] and whose Constitution, unlike ours,
does not expressly provide for the power to call, the use of military personnel by civilian law
enforcement officers is allowed under circumstances similar to those surrounding the present
deployment of the Philippine Marines. Under the Posse Comitatus Act[61] of the US, the use of
the military in civilian law enforcement is generally prohibited, except in certain allowable
circumstances. A provision of the Act states:
1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution
or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as posse comitatus or
otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more
than two years, or both.[62]
To determine whether there is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act in the use of military
personnel, the US courts[63] apply the following standards, to wit:
Were Army or Air Force personnel used by the civilian law enforcement officers at Wounded
Knee in such a manner that the military personnel subjected the citizens to the exercise of
military power which was regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory[64] George Washington Law

59

Review, pp. 404-433 (1986), which discusses the four divergent standards for assessing
acceptable involvement of military personnel in civil law enforcement. See likewise HONORED
IN THE BREECH: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE LAWS WITH MILITARY
FORCE, 83 Yale Law Journal, pp. 130-152, 1973. 64 in nature, either presently or
prospectively?
x x x
When this concept is transplanted into the present legal context, we take it to mean
that military involvement, even when not expressly authorized by the Constitution or a
statute, does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act unless it actually regulates, forbids or
compels some conduct on the part of those claiming relief. A mere threat of some future injury
would be insufficient. (emphasis supplied)
Even if the Court were to apply the above rigid standards to the present case to determine
whether there is permissible use of the military in civilian law enforcement, the conclusion is
inevitable that no violation of the civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution is
committed. On this point, the Court agrees with the observation of the Solicitor General:
3. The designation of tasks in Annex A[65] does not constitute the exercise of regulatory,
proscriptive, or compulsory military power. First, the soldiers do not control or direct the
operation. This is evident from Nos. 6,[66] 8(k)[67] and 9(a)[68] of Annex A. These soldiers,
second, also have no power to prohibit or condemn. In No. 9(d)[69] of Annex A, all arrested
persons are brought to the nearest police stations for proper disposition. And last, these
soldiers apply no coercive force. The materials or equipment issued to them, as shown in
No. 8(c)[70] of Annex A, are all low impact and defensive in character. The conclusion is
that there being no exercise of regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory military power, the
deployment of a handful of Philippine Marines constitutes no impermissible use of military
power for civilian law enforcement.[71]
It appears that the present petition is anchored on fear that once the armed forces are
deployed, the military will gain ascendancy, and thus place in peril our cherished
liberties. Such apprehensions, however, are unfounded. The power to call the armed forces is
just that - calling out the armed forces. Unless, petitioner IBP can show, which it has not, that
in the deployment of the Marines, the President has violated the fundamental law, exceeded
his authority or jeopardized the civil liberties of the people, this Court is not inclined to overrule
the Presidents determination of the factual basis for the calling of the Marines to prevent or
suppress lawless violence.
One last point. Since the institution of the joint visibility patrol in January, 2000, not a
single citizen has complained that his political or civil rights have been violated as a result of
the deployment of the Marines. It was precisely to safeguard peace, tranquility and the civil
liberties of the people that the joint visibility patrol was conceived. Freedom and democracy
will be in full bloom only when people feel secure in their homes and in the streets, not when
the shadows of violence and anarchy constantly lurk in their midst.

60

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Purisima,
Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Pardo,

Buena,

Gonzaga-Reyes,

Ynares-

Bellosillo, J., on official leave.

Puno, J., see separate opinion.
Vitug, J., see separate opinion.
Mendoza, J., see concurring and dissenting opinion.
Panganiban, J., in the result.
Quisumbing, J., joins the opinion of J. Mendoza.

Footnotes
1

Sec. 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.

Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051, 1067 [1957], citing 16 C.J.S. 413.

Tanada v. Cuenco, supra, 1067, quoting In re McConaughy, 119 NW 408 [1909].

Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines A Commentary, p. 859 [1996].

5 Phil. 87 [1905].

Id. at 97.

Id. at 104.

See Cruz, Philippine Political law, p. 87 [1998].

Id. at 113-114.

10

Id. at 106-107.

11

46 Phil. 83 [1924].

12

Id. at 97.

13

77 Phil. 192 [1946].

61

14

78 Phil. 1 [1947].

15

Id. at 4-5. The court also adopted the enrolled bill theory which, like findings under the political
question doctrine, imports absolute verity on the courts-at 12.
16

97 Phil. 358 [1955].

17

109 Phil. 863 [1960].

18

83 Phil. 17 [1949].

19

Id. at 21-22.

20

Id. at 68-69.

21

103 Phil. 1051 [1957].

22

Id. at 1068.

23

Id. at 1083.

24

5 SCRA 1 [1962].

25

21 SCRA 774 [1967].

26

41 SCRA 702 [1971].

27

Id. at 785-786.

28

Id. at 787.

29

41 SCRA at 713.

30

Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines A Commentary, p. 861 [1996].

31

16 Phil. 366 [1910].

32

Id. at 401.

33

45 Phil. 612 [1924].

34

Id. At 630.

35

Id. at 637-638.

36

16 Phil. 534 [1910].

37

Id. at 568-569, 576.

62

38

94 Phil. 903 [1954].

39

Untal v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 84 Phil. 586 [1949]; Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 [1945].

40

91 Phil. 882 [1952].

41

Id. at 887.

42

42 SCRA 448 [1971].

43

Id. at 474.

44

Id. at 480-481.

45

50 SCRA 30 [1973].

46

Id. at 138, 140-141.

47

59 SCRA 183 [1973].

48

Ibid.

49

121 SCRA 472 [1983].

50

Id. at 490-491.

51

Id. at 500-501.

52

121 SCRA 538 [1983].

53

Id. at 563.

54

See Concepcions sponsorship speech, I Record 434-435; see also Bernas, the Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines A Commentary, p. 863 [1996].
55

J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413, 423-426 [1970].

56

Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192, 215 [1946]; see also Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 4th ed., p. 454
[1998].
57

Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the laws, 2d ed., p. 39 [1911].

58

SCRA at 506-507, see also Rossiter, The Supreme Court and the Commander-in-Chief, pp. 16-17
[1951].
59

Baker v. Carr, 7 L Ed 2d at 682.

60

Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3, 2d ed., p. 1336 [1929].

63

61

Tanada v. Macapagal, 103 Phil. At 1067, quoting In re McConaughy, 119 NW 408 [1909].

62

Id.

64

PERTINENT LAWS

REPUBLIC ACT No. 6397

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.
Section 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules
of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in
order to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and
enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
Section 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out of any funds
in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act.
Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the same purpose shall be included in the
annual appropriations for the Supreme Court.
Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: September 17, 1971

65

RULE 139-A
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Section 1. Organization. There is hereby organized an official national body to be known as
the "Integrated Bar of the Philippines," composed of all persons whose names now appear or
may hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
Section 2. Purposes. The fundamental purposes of the Integrated Bar shall be to elevate
the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar
to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
Section 3. Regions. The Philippines is hereby divided into nine Regions of the Integrated
Bar, to wit:
(a) Northern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Abra, Batanes, Benguet, Cagayan,
Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, La Union, Mountain
Province, Nueva Vizcaya, and Quirino.
(b) Central Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija,
Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tarlac, and Zambales;
(c) Greater Manila, consisting of the City of Manila and Quezon City;
(d) Southern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Batangas, Cavite, Laguna,
Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Quezon, and Rizal;
(e) Bicolandia, consisting of the provinces of Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur,
Catanduanes, Masbate, and Sorsogon;

66

(f) Eastern Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Bohol, Cebu, Eastern Samar, Leyte,
Northern Samar, Samar, and Southern Leyte;
(g) Western Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Iloilo, Negros
Occidental, Negros Oriental, Palawan, Romblon, and Siquijor.
(h) Eastern Mindanao, consisting of the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan Del
Sur, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Misamis
Oriental, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur; and
(i) Western Mindanao, consisting of the cities of Basilan and Zamboanga, and the
provinces of Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Misamis Occidental, South
Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur.
In the event of the creation of any new province, the Board of Governors shall, with the
approval of the Supreme Court, determine the Region to which the said province shall belong.
Section 4. Chapters. A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized in every province.
Except as hereinbelow provided, every city shall be considered part of the province within
which it is geographically situated.
A separate Chapter shall be organized in each of the following political subdivisions or areas;
(a) The sub-province of Aurora;
(b) Each congressional district of the City of Manila;
(c) Quezon City;
(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;
(e) Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del Monte;
(f) Cebu City; and
(g) Zamboanga City and Basilan City.
Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be
considered a member of the Chapter of the province, city, political subdivision or area where
his office, or, in the absence thereof, his residence is located. In no case shall any lawyer be a
member of more than one Chapter.
Each Chapter shall have its own local government as provided for by uniform rules to be
prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Supreme Court, the provisions of
Section 19 of this Rule notwithstanding.

67

Chapters belonging to the same Region may hold regional conventions on matters and
problems of common concern.
Section 5. House of Delegates. The Integrated Bar shall have a House of Delegates of not
more than one hundred twenty members who shall be apportioned among all the Chapters as
nearly as may be according to the number of their respective members, but each Chapter shall
have at least one Delegate. On or before December 31, 1974, and every four years thereafter,
the Board of Governors shall make an apportionment of Delegates.
The term of the office of Delegate shall begin on the date of the opening of the annual
convention of the House and shall end on the day immediately preceding the date of the
opening of the next succeeding annual convention. No person may be a Delegate for more
than two terms.
The House shall hold an annual convention at the call of the Board of Governors at any time
during the month of April of each year for the election of Governor, the reading and discussion
of reports including the annual report of the Board of Governors, the transaction of such other
business as may be referred to it by the Board, and the consideration of such additional
matters as may be requested in writing by at least twenty Delegates. Special conventions of
the House may be called by the Board of Governors to consider only such matters as the
Board shall indicate. A majority of the Delegates who have registered for a convention,
whether annual or special, shall constitute a quorum to do business.
Section 6. Board of Governors. The Integrated Bar shall be governed by a Board of
Governors. Nine Governors shall be elected by the House of Delegates from the nine Regions
on the representation basis of one Governor from each Region. Each Governor shall be
chosen from a list of nominees submitted by the Delegates from the Region, provided that not
more than one nominee shall come from any Chapter. The President and the Executive Vice
President, if chosen by the Governors from outside of themselves as provided in Section 7 of
this Rule, shall ipso facto become members of the Board.
The members of the Board shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their
election and until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified. No person may
be a Governor for more than two terms.
The Board shall meet regularly once every three months, on such date and such time and
place as it shall designate. A majority of all the members of the Board shall constitute a
quorum to do business. Special meetings may be called by the President or by five members
of the Board.
Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, the Board shall adopt By-Laws and promulgate
Canons of Professional Responsibility for all members of the Integrated Bar. The By-Laws and
the Canons may be amended by the Supreme Courtmotu propio or upon the recommendation
of the Board of Governors.

68

The Board shall prescribe such other rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to
carry out the purposes of the Integrated Bar as well as the provisions of this Rule.
Section 7. Officers. The Integrated Bar shall have a President and an Executive Vice
President who shall be chosen by the Governors immediately after the latter's election, either
from among themselves or from other members of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at least
five Governors. Each of the regional members of the Board shall be ex officio Vice President
for the Region which he represents.
The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a term of one year from
the date of their election and until their successors shall have duly qualified. The Executive
Vice President shall automatically become the President for the next succeeding full term. The
Presidency shall rotate from year to year among all the nine Regions in such order or rotation
as the Board of Governors shall prescribe. No person shall be President or Executive Vice
President of the Integrated Bar for more than one term.
The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers and employees
as may be required by the Board of Governors, to be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Board, and to hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such terms as it
may fix. Said officers and employees need not be members of the Integrated Bar.
Section 8. Vacancies. In the event the President is absent or unable to act, his duties shall
be performed by the Executive Vice President; and in the event of the death, resignation, or
removal of the President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting President during
the remainder of the term of the office thus vacated. In the event of the death, resignation,
removal, or disability of both the President and the Executive Vice President, the Board of
Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold office until the next succeeding election or
during the period of disability.
The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates, Board of Governors, and all other positions
of Officers of the Integrated Bar shall be as provided in the By-Laws. Whenever the term of an
office or position is for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy therein shall serve
only for the unexpired term.
Section 9. Membership dues. Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual
dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A
fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collection from each Chapter shall be set
aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of
deceased members thereof.
Section 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this
Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground
for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

69

Section 11. Voluntary termination of membership; re-instatement. A member may terminate

his membership by filing a written notice to that effect with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar,
who shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court. Forthwith he
shall cease to be a member and his name shall be stricken by the Court from the Roll of
Attorneys. Reinstatement may be made by the Court in accordance with rules and regulations
prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Court.
Section 12. Grievance procedures. The Board of Governors shall provide in the By-Laws
for grievance procedures for the enforcement and maintenance of discipline among all the
members of the Integrated Bar, but no action involving the suspension or disbarment of a
member or the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys shall be effective without the
final approval of the Supreme Court.
Section 13. Non-political Bar. The Integrated Bar shall be strictly non-political, and every
activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized
accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the
Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election
of appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of
candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
Section 14. Positions honorary. Except as may be specifically authorized or allowed by the
Supreme Court, no Delegate or Governor and no national or local Officer or committee
member shall receive any compensation, allowance or emolument from the funds of the
Integrated Bar for any service rendered therein or be entitled to reimbursement for any
expense incurred in the discharge of his functions.
Section 15. Fiscal matters. The Board of Governors shall administer the funds of the
Integrated Bar and shall have the power to make appropriations and disbursements therefrom.
It shall cause proper Books of Accounts to be kept and Financial Statements to be rendered
and shall see to it that the proper audit is made of all accounts of the Integrated Bar and all the
Chapters thereof.
Section 16. Journal. The Board of Governors shall cause to be published a quarterly
Journal of the Integrated Bar, free copies of which shall be distributed to every member of the
Integrated Bar.
Section 17. Voluntary Bar associations. All voluntary Bar associations now existing or
which may hereafter be formed may co-exist with the Integrated Bar but shall not operate at
cross-purposes therewith.
Section 18. Amendments. This Rule may be amended by the Supreme Court motu
propio or upon the recommendation of the Board of Governors or any Chapter of the
Integrated Bar.

70

Section 19. Organizational period. The Commission on Bar Integration shall organize the
local Chapters and toward this end shall secure the assistance of the Department of Justice
and of all Judges throughout the Philippines. All Chapter organizational meetings shall be held
on Saturday, February 17, 1973. In every case, the Commission shall cause proper notice of
the date, time and place of the meeting called to organize a Chapter shall constitute a quorum
for the purpose, including the election of a President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a
Treasurer, and five Directors.
The Commission shall initially fix the number of Delegates and apportion the same among all
the Chapters as nearly as may be in proportion to the number of their respective members, but
each Chapter shall have at least one Delegate. The President of each Chapter shall
concurrently be its Delegate to the House of Delegates. The Vice President shall be his
alternate, except where the Chapter is entitled to have more than one Delegate, in which case
the Vice President shall also be a Delegate.
The Board of Directors of the Chapter shall in proper cases elect additional as well as alternate
Delegates.
The House of Delegates shall convene in the City of Manila on Saturday, March 17, 1973 for
the Purpose of electing a Board of Governors. The Governors shall immediately assume office
and forthwith meet to elect the Officers of the Integrated Bar. The Officers so chosen shall
immediately assume their respective positions.
Section 20. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on January 16, 1973.

RULE 139-B
Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

71

Section 1. How Instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of

attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly
and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantiate said facts.
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a
Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper
charges against erring attorneys including those in the government service.
Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the
Secretary of any of its chapter who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of
Governors for assignment to an investigator.
A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Section 2. National Grievance Investigators. The Board of Governors shall appoint from
among IBP members an Investigator or, when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of
three (3) investigators to investigate the complaint. All Investigators shall take an oath of office
in the form prescribed by the Board of Governors. A copy of the Investigator's appointment and
oath shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of relationship within the fourth degree of
consanguinity of affinity to any of the parties of their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias,
or his having acted as counsel to his acting as such Investigator. Where the Investigator does
not disqualify himself, a party may appeal to the IBP Board of Governors, which by majority
vote of the members present, there being a quorum, may order his disqualification.
Any Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due hearing, by the vote of at least six
(6) members of the IBP Board of Governors. The decision of the Board of Governors in all
cases of disqualification or removal shall be final.
Section 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. The National Grievance
Investigators shall investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar referred to
them by the IBP Board of Governors.
Section 4. Chapter assistance to complainant. The proper IBP Chapter may assist the
complainant(s) in the preparation and filing of his complaint(s).
Section 5. Service or dismissal. If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator
shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the
same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or
if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious,
the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of
the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which

72

may review the case motu propio or upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days
from notice of the dismissal of the complainant.
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute
the same, unless the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board
of Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or
suspension proceedings against the respondent. (Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court
Resolution dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter 356).
Section 6. Verification and service of answer. The answer shall be verified. The original and
five (5) legible copies of the answer shall be filed with the Investigator, with proof of service of
a copy thereof on the complainant or his counsel.
Section 7. Administrative counsel. The IBP Board of Governors shall appoint a suitable
member of the Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the complainant of the respondent during
the investigation in case of need for such assistance.
Section 8. Investigation. Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer,
the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He
shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given
full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself
and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceedex parte.
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of its
commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior
application.
Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the Investigator
shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The corresponding charge shall be filed by
the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor
to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter
conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for
hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated within
fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within
a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action
and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.
Section 9. Depositions. Depositions may be taken in accordance with the Rules of Court
with leave of the investigator(s).
Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any member of the Board of
Governors, the President of any Chapter, or any officer authorized by law to administer oaths.

73

Depositions may be taken outside the Philippines before diplomatic or consular representative
of the Philippine Government or before any person agreed upon by the parties or designated
by the Board of Governors.
Any suitable member of the Integrated Bar in the place where a deposition shall be taken may
be designated by the Investigator to assist the complainant or the respondent in taking a
deposition.
Section 10. Report of Investigator. Not later than thirty (30) days from the termination of the
investigation, the Investigator shall submit a report containing his findings of fact and
recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors, together with the stenographic notes and the
transcript thereof, and all the evidence presented during the investigation. The submission of
the report need not await the transcription of the stenographic notes, it being sufficient that the
report reproduce substantially from the Investigator's personal notes any relevant and pertinent
testimonies.
Section 11. Defects. No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the proceeding or the
Investigator's Report shall be considered as substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon
considering the whole record, finds that such defect has resulted or may result in a miscarriage
of justice, in which event the Board shall take such remedial action as the circumstances may
warrant, including invalidation of the entire proceedings.
Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.
a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of
Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his
report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly
and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be
promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the
Board following the submittal of the Investigator's Report.
b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the
whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final
action.
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by
it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it
shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case
shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested
party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's
resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise.
d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all parties through
their counsel. A copy of the same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.

74

B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Section 13. Supreme Court Investigation. In proceedings initiated motu propio by the
Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme
Court may refer the case for investigation to the Solicitor-General or to any officer of the
Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the
same manner provided in sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of
investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.
Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General of other Court-designated Investigator. Based
upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator
designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his
findings of fact and recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court.
C. COMMON PROVISIONS
Section 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. After receipt of respondent's answer
or lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu propio, or at the instance of the IBP
Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigator, may suspend an attorney
from the practice of his profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27,
during the pendency of the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.
Section 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court. The
Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the
causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.
Section 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court, further proceedings
in Supreme Court. Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court
shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a
full statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy
and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may revoke,
shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant.
Section 18. Confidentiality. Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.
However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other
cases.
Section 19. Expenses. All reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in relation to
disciplinary and disbarment proceedings are lawfull charges for which the parties may be
taxed as costs.
Section 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision. This Rule shall take effect June 1, 1988
and shall supersede the present Rule 139 entitled "DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF
ATTORNEYS". All cases pending investigation by the Office of the Solicitor General shall be
transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors for investigation and

75

disposition as provided in this Rule except those cases where the investigation has been
substantially completed.

THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES BY-LAWS

ARTICLE I
[Sections 1 to 17]
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Name. - The national organization of lawyers created on January 6 , 1973 under
Rule of Court 139-A (hereinafter designated as the Integration Rule) and constituted on May 4,
1973 into a body corporate by Presidential Decree No. 181 shall be known as the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines.
Section 2. Objectives and purposes. - The following are the general objectives of the
Integrated bar:
to elevate the standards of the legal profession,
to improve the administration of justice; and
to enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibilities more effectively.
The purposes of the Integrated Bar include, without being limited to, those specified in the per
curiam Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 9, 1973 ordaining the integration of the
Philippine Bar, to wit:
[1] Assist in the administration of justice;
[2] Foster and maintain, on the part of its members, high ideals of integrity, learning,
professional competence, public service and conduct;
[3] Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
[4] Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;

76

[5] Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading,
practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and
publish information relating thereto;
[6] Encourage and foster legal education; and
[7] Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law,
and make reports and recommendations thereon.
Section 3. Powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities. - The powers,
prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities of the Integrated Bar, its Chapters and other
agencies, its officers and committees, national and local, its commisions, and its members, are
as provided by law, the Integration Rule, Presidential Decree No. 181, these By-Laws and
pertinent rules and regulations.
Inter alia, The Integrated Bar shall have perpetual succession and shall have all legal powers
appertaining to a juridical person, particularly the power to sue and be sued; to contract and to
be contracted with; to hold real and personal property as may be necessary for corporate
purposes, to mortgage, lease, sell, transfer, convey and otherwise dispose of the same; to
solicit and receive public and private donations and contributions; to accept and receive real
and personal property by gift, devise or bequest; to levy and collect membership dues and
special assessments from its members; to adopt a seal and to alter the same at pleasure; to
have offices and conduct its affairs in the Greater Manila Area and elsewhere; to make and
adopt by-laws, rules and regulations not inconsistent with the laws of the Philippines or the
Rules of Court particulary the Integrated Rule; and generally to do all such acts and things as
may be necessary or proper to carry into effect and promote the objectives and purposes for
which it was organized.
All donations or contributions which may be made by private entities or persons to the
Integrated Bar shall be exempt from income and gift taxes, and the same shall further be
deductible in full and shall not be included for purposes of computing the maximum amount
deductible under Section 30, paragraph (h) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended.
All taxes, charges and fees that may be paid by the Integrated Bar or any of its Chapters to the
Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be refundable annually
to the former for the period extending up to December 31, 1978.
Section 4. Non-political bar. - The Intergrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activity
tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No
lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or
any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment
to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer or
employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter therof shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of
candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
Section 5. Positions honorary. - Except as may be specifically authorized or allowed by the
Supreme Court, no national or local officer, or committee or commisision member shall receive
any compensation, allowance or emolument from the funds of the Integrated Bar for any

77

service rendered therein, or be entitled to reimbursement for any expense incurred in the
discharge of his functions.
Section 6. National office. - The national office of the Integrated Bar shall be in the Greater
Manila Area.
Section 7. Seal and emblem. - The seal and emblem of the Integrated Bar, as adopted by the
Board of Governors, shall be kept in its national office.
Section 8. Notices and processes. - Services of all notices and processes intended for the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be made upon its Secretary or any other authorized
representative at its national office.
Except as otherwise provided in these By-Laws, any notice to be served upon a member of the
Integrated Bar shall be deemed given when deposited in the mail, postage fully prepaid, and
addressed to such member at his last known office or residence address appearing in the
records or membership roll of the national office or of the Chapter concerned.
Notice to the general membership may be given by mail, by publication in the Journal of the
Integrated Bar, or as otherwise directed by the Board of Governors
Section 9. Officer defined. - The term "officer" as used in these By-Laws shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to the following: President, Executive Vice President, Governors,
Secretary, Treasurer and other national officers of the Integrated Bar, officers and members of
the House of Delegates, Chapter officers and directors, commisioners, and members of all
national and local committees.
Only members in good standing may become officers and, unless otherwise provided in these
By-Laws, no person who is not a member of the Integrated Bar may become an officer.
Section 10. Term of office. - The term of office of all elective officers, national and local, shall
be two years. In no case may any member be elected to the same office for two consecutive
terms.
Section 11. Vacancies. - Except as otherwise provided in these By-Laws, whenever the term
of office or position, whether elective or appointive, is for a fixed period, the person chosen to
fill a vacancy therein shall serve only for the unexpired position of the term.
Section 12. Non-answerability of the Integrated Bar. - In the absence of a showing of malice,
fraud, bad faith, or negligence, the Integrated Bar, its national officers and Governors, the
officers and members of the House of Delegates, all the Chapters and the offices thereof,
commisioners, and all committees, national and local, and the members thereof, shall not be
answerable for any damage, incident to any complaint, charge, investigation, prosecution,
proceeding, trial, decision, resolution, recommendation, or action had, made, done or taken
under the authority of these By-Laws.
Section 13. Malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance. - Notwithstanding the provisions of the
next preceding section, the Board of Governors may motu proprio or upon the petition of any
person, inquire into any malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance committed by any
member of the Integrated Bar or of any of its Chapters, and, after due hearing, take whatever
action it may deem warranted. Such action may include his suspension or removal from any

78

office in the Integrated Bar or of its Chapters held by such erring member, as well as
recommendation to the Supreme Court for his suspension from the practice of law or
disbarment.
Section 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. - The following acts and
practices relative to elections are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any
elective office in the Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or
manner, by himself or through another person.
(1) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign materials;
(2) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign materials other than a statement
of the biodata of the candidate on not more than one page of a legal size sheet of
paper; or causing the distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than
those authorized by the officer presiding at the elections;
(3) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasijudicial or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof;
(4) Formation of tickets, single slates , or combinations of candidates as well s the
advertising thereof;
(5) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withold his vote, or to vote
for or against a candidate, (1) payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any
member; (2) giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation or any article of value,
or any similar consideration to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing an
expenditure to be made, offered or promise to any person.
Section 15. Supreme Court observer. - The Supreme Court may designate an official observer
at any election of the Integrated Bar, whether national or local.
Section 16. Voluntary Bar Associations. - All voluntary Bar associations now existing or which
may hereafter be formed may co-exist with the Integrated Bar but shall not operate at crosspurposes therewith nor against any policy, act, resolution or decision thereof.
Section 17. Rules of Court suppletory. - Whenever applicable, the Rules of Court shall be
suppletory to these By-Laws.
ARTICLE II
[Sections 18 to 22]
MEMBERSHIP
Section 18. Membership. - The following persons are, automatically and without exception
members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines:
(a) All lawyers whose names were in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court as of
January 16, 1973; and
(b) All lawyers whose names were included or are entered therein after the said date.

79

Section 19. Registration. - Unless he has already previously registered, every member
heretofore admitted to the practice of law shall, not later than December 31, 1974, register in
the Integrated Bar as hereunder required, at the national office or at the office of his Chapter.
Every person admitted to the practice of law after these by-laws become effective shall register
in like manner not later than sixty days after such admission.
Registration shall be accomplished by signing and filing in duplicate the prescribed registration
form containing such information as may be required by the Board of Governors, including the
following:
(a) Full name, sex and civil status;
(b) Month, date, year and place of birth;
(c) Office address(es);
(d) Residence address(es);
(e) Occupation(s) or employment;
(f) Name of law school and year of graduation;
(g) Year of admission to the Bar; and
(h) Field(s) of specialization in law, if any.
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of every Chapter to promptly forward a copy of each
accomplished registration form to the national office.
Every change after registration in respect to any of the matters above specified shall be
reported within sixty days to the Chapter Secretary who shall in turn promptly report the
change to the national office. Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular
Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a member of the Chapter of the province, city, political
subdivision or area where his office or, in the absence thereof, his residence is located. In no
case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter.
Section 20. Members in good standing. - Every member who has paid all membership dues
and all authorized special assessments, plus surcharges owing thereon, and who is not under
suspension from the practice of law or from membership privileges, is a member in good
standing.
Section 21. Voluntary termination of membership; reinstatement. - A member may terminate
his membership by filing a verified notice to that effect with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar,
who shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court. Forthwith, he
shall cease to be a member and his name shall be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Reinstatement may be made in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board
of Governors and approved by the Court, provided that any written application for
reinstatement must be filed with the Board, which shall, within fifteen (15) days from receipt,
forward the same to the Court with its appropriate recommendation.

80

Section 22. Retirement; reinstatement. - Any member in good standing who shall have
attained the age of seventy-five years, or who shall have been forty years as lawyer shall, by
reason of physical disability or judicially adjudged mental incapacity, be unable to engage in
the practice of Law, may be retired from the Integrated Bar upon verified petition to the Board
of Governors. Retired members shall not practice law or be required to pay dues.
A retired member may be reinstated to active membership upon written application to and
approval by the Board.
The Board shall make periodic reports of retirement and reinstatement of members to the
Supreme Court.

ARTICLE III
[Sections 23 to 25]
DUES
Section 23. Membership dues. - On or before the 31st day of December, every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues for the ensuing fiscal year in the amount of FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS at the National Office or at the office of his Chapter, to take effect on
January 1, 1995. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668).
Membership dues shall be apportioned as follows: Chapter share - P200.00; General Fund P150.00; Welfare Fund - P40.00; Legal Aid - P20.00; Bar Discipline - P20.00; and IBP Journal
- P70.00. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668).
Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the Board of Governors may increase the annual
membership dues, or modify the apportionment thereof. (As amended on January 30, 1992).
THE IBP LIFE MEMBERSHIP PLAN
(As amended in accordance with and pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated August 20,
1999, increasing the life membership fee to P8,500.00 effective as of January 1, 1999)
A member of the IBP may apply for life membership therein by filing an application therefor
directly with the national office or through the appropriate chapter under the following terms:
(1) That the member shall be in good standing as provided for under Section 20, Article
II of these By-Laws at the time he files his application for life membership;
(2) That he pays to the national office his life membership fee in the sum of Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00); and
(3) That he abides by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines implementing the life membership plan. Upon payment of the life
membership fee of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), the member shall be enrolled in
the Roll of Life Members to be prepared by and kept in the Office of the Treasurer of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. He shall be issued a certificate of life membership
to be signed by the national president and attested by the National Secretary.

81

The life membership fee of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) shall be deposited in a reputable
banking institution chosen by the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as a
perpetual trust fund which shall earn interest at the best possible rate per annum.
Only the annual income of the life membership trust fund shall be available for expenditure of
the IBP and shall be applied as follows:
(1) To the payment of the life member's annual dues as provided in Section 23, Article
III of these By-Laws;
(2) Fifty percent of the balance of the income, if any, shall be automatically
appropriated for the operational expenses of the Committee on Bar Discipline,
including the salaries of the national investigators or commissioners and the staff of the
Committee;
(3) The other fifty percent of the balance, if any, shall be deposited as part of the life
membership trust fund.
Any life member, whose membership in the IBP terminates by retirement or for any other
cause, shall cease to be a life member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. (As amended
pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated October 27, 1992).
All lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings, motions and papers signed and filed by them in any
court in the Philippines - and in the case of government lawyers, in all official documents
issued by them - the number and date of their official receipt indicating payment of their annual
membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current year, or in the case of
life members, their life membership roll number. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668).
Section 24. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Except for the fiscal year 1974- 1975, any
member who has not paid his membership dues for any given fiscal year on or before the last
day (June 30) of the immediately preceding fiscal year shall be considered as dues-delinquent
members. For the fiscal year 1974-1975 any member who has not paid the annual dues on or
before November 30, 1974 shall be considered a dues-delinquent. If the delinquency
continues until the following December 31, the Board of Governors shall by Resolution
forthwith suspend all his membership privileges other than the practice of law. A copy of such
Resolution shall be sent by registered mail to the member and to the secretary of the Chapter
concerned. The Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or causes of the delinquency and
take whatever action it shall deem appropriate, including a recommendation to the Supreme
Court for the suspension of the delinquent member from the practice of law.
Should the delinquency further continue until the following June 29, the Board shall promptly
inquire into the cause or causes of the continued delinquency and take whatever action it shall
deem appropriate, including a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the removal of the
delinquent member's name from the Roll of Attorneys. Notice of the action taken shall be sent
by registered mail to the member and to the Secretary of the Chapter concerned. Whenever a
delinquent member makes full payment of the membership dues owing, plus a sum equivalent
to ten (10) percent thereof, such fact shall, without delay, be reported to the Board, which shall
take such action as may be warranted. A member whose name is removed from the Roll of
Attorneys pursuant to the provision of this Section may apply for reinstatement under the
provisions of the second paragraph of Section 21 (Voluntary termination of n membership;
reinstatement).

82

Section 25. Remission or lifting of sanctions. - The Board of Governors may, for justifiable
reasons, remit or lift sanctions already imposed and authorize the retroactive reinstatement of
the member concerned. However, sanctions imposed or approved by the Supreme Court may
be remitted or lifted only by the Court.

ARTICLE IV.
[Sections 26 to 29]
CHAPTERS
Section 26. Chapters. - A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized in every province
existing on the date of the effectivity of the Integration Rule. Except as herein below provided,
every city shall be considered part of the province within which it was geographically situated
prior to its creation as a city.
A separate Chapter shall be organized in each of the following political subdivisions or areas:
(a) The sub-province of Aurora;
(b) Each congressional district of the City of Manila existing on the date of the
effectivity of the Integration Rule;
(c) Quezon City;
(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;
(e) Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del Monte;
(f) Cebu City; and
(g) Zamboanga City, Basilan Cites and Basilan province.
The Board of Governors shall reorganize the various Chapters of cities and provinces, by
division or merger, to the end that, as far as practicable, no chapter shall have more than one
thousand nor less than five hundred members beginning the fiscal year 1977-1978.
The Board shall study the feasibility of organizing Chapters in new provinces.
Section 27. Coordination of Chapter activities. - The Board shall coordinate and supervise the
activities of all the Chapters for purposes of promoting maximum lawyer participation in
Integrated Bar affairs, and effective administration and operation of the organization.
Section 28. Chapter local government. - Each Chapter shall have its own government.

83

Section 29. Uniform by-laws. - Every Chapter shall strictly observe the following by-laws, but
the Board of Officers of any Chapter may submit for consideration and action by the Board of
Governors such additional provisions as may be demanded by local conditions.
ARTICLE V.
[Sections 30 to 36]
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Section 30. Composition of the House. - The Integrated Bar shall have a House of Delegates
composed of not more than one hundred and twenty members apportioned among all the
Chapters. On or before December 31, 1974, and every two years thereafter, the Board of
Governors shall make a reappointment of Delegates among all the Chapters as nearly as may
be according to the number of their respective members, but each Chapter shall have at least
one Delegate.
Section 31. Membership. - The membership of the House of Delegates shall consist of all the
Chapter Presidents and in the case of Chapters entitled to more than one Delegate each, the
Vice Presidents of the Chapters and such additional Delegates as the Chapters are entitled to.
Unless the Vice President is already a Delegate, he shall be an alternate Delegate. Additional
Delegates and alternates shall in proper cases be elected by the Board of Officers of the
Chapter. Members of the Board of Governors who are not Delegates shall be members ex
oficio of the House, without the right to vote.
Section 32. Term of office. - The term of office of additional and alternate Delegates shall be
coterminous with that of Chapter Delegates.
Section 33. Annual convention. (a) Unless for special reasons, another date is set by the Board of Governors, the
House shall hold an annual convention during the month of April of each year, at the
call of the Board, at such time and place as the Board shall determine. Each Region
shall be entitled to host one annual or special convention every nine years. The
convention program shall be prepared by the Board. No convention of the House of
Delegates nor of the general membership shall be held prior to any election in an
election year. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).
(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and
Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the House of
Delegates. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491)
(c) At or prior to the annual convention, there shall be published an address by the
President on the state of the Integrated Bar, a report of the proceedings, reports of
officers and committees, and recommendations submitted in connection with these
reports.
(d) Any matter not included in the published convention program may be considered,
debated or acted upon by the House, upon written petition signed by at least twenty
Delegates.

84

(e) During the deliberations, no person shall speak for more than five minutes or more
than twice on the same matter, unless otherwise authorized by the Chairman.
(f) The House shall be a deliberative body of the Integrated Bar, and its resolutions
shall bind the Integrated Bar when concurred in by the Board of Governors.
(g) At all deliberations of the House, whether in annual or special convention, the
Robert's Rules of Order shall govern.
Section 34. Special convention. - Special conventions of the House may be called by the
Board of Governors motu proprio, or upon written petition therefor filed with the Secretary of
the Integrated Bar signed by not less than thirty Delegates. The Board shall set the date, time
and place for each special convention. Notice shall be given to all Delegates at least thirty
days before the convention, stating the purpose and the urgency thereof as well as the
business to be transacted thereat.
Section 35. Quorum. - The Delegates present at any session of a convention shall constitute a
quorum to do business.
Section 36. Duties of Delegates. - The Delegates shall attend every convention of the House,
promote the work of the convention, and make reports of the proceedings thereof to their
respective Chapters.
ARTICLE VI
[Sections 37 to 46]
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Section 37. Composition of the Board. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be
governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions
as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1)
Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates from that
region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in the
Region. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).
Section 38. Term of office. - The Governors shall hold office for a term of two years from July 1
immediately following their election to June 30 of their second year in office and until their
successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified.
Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. - At least one (1) month before the
national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region,
the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region. (As
amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).
Section 40. Election contests. - Any nominee desiring to contest an election shall, within two
days after the announcement of the results of the elections, file with the President of the
Integrated Bar a written protest setting forth the grounds therefor. Upon receipt of such
petition, the President shall forthwith call a special meeting of the outgoing Board of Governors
to consider and hear the protest, with due notice to the contending parties. The decision of the
Board shall be announced not later than the following May 31, and shall be final and
conclusive.

85

Section 41. Functions of the Board. - The Board of Governors shall have general charge of
the affairs and activities of the Integrated Bar. It shall have authority, inter alia, to:
(a) Fix the date, time and place of every convention of the House of Delegates, subject
to the provisions of Sections 33 (Annual convention) and 34 (Special conventions);
(b) Make appropriations and authorize disbursements from the funds of the Integrated
Bar, subject to the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Integration Rule and Section 5
(Positions honorary) of these By-Laws;
(c) Engage the services of employees, define their duties and fix their compensation;
(d) Receive, consider and act on reports and recommendations submitted by the
House of Delegates or its committees;
(e) Provide for the publication of the Journal of the Integrated Bar;
(f) Administer the Welfare Fund in accordance with such rules and regulations as it
may promulgate;
(g) Fill vacancies, however arising in the positions of officers of the Integrated Bar,
subject to the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Integration Rule, and Section 11 (Vacancies),
Section 44 (Removal of members), Section 47 (National officers), Section 48 (Other
officers), and Section 49 (Terms of office) of these By-Laws;
(h) Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, promulgate Canons of Professional
Responsibility for all members of the Integrated Bar;
(i) Promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment and maintenance of lawyer
referral services throughout the Philippines;
(j) Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, impose special assessments for
specific national purposes, and impose, or recommend in proper cases to the Court the
imposition of, sanctions for non-payment or delinquency in the payment thereof;
(k) Prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out
the objectives and purposes of the Integrated Bar as well as the provisions of the
Integration Rule and Presidential Decree No. 181; and
(l) Perform such other functions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of the
Integrated Bar.
Section 42. Meetings. - The Board shall meet regularly once a month, on such date and such
time and place as it shall designate. Special meetings may be called by the President, and
shall be called by him upon the written request of five members of the Board.
Section 43. Quorum. - Five members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to transact
business. However, the Board may take action, without a meeting, by resolution signed by at
least five Governors provided that every member of the Board shall have been previously
apprised of the contents of the resolution.

86

Section 44. Removal of members. - If the Board of Governors should determine after proper
inquiry that any of its members, elective or otherwise, has for any reason become unable to
perform his duties, the Board, by resolution of the majority of the remaining members, may
declare his position vacant, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. Any member of the
Board, elective or otherwise, may be removed for cause, including three consecutive absences
from Board meetings without justifiable excuse, by resolution adopted by two-thirds of the
remaining members of the Board, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. In case of any
vacancy in the office of Governor for whatever cause, the delegates from the region shall, by
majority vote, elect a successor from among the members of the Chapter to which the
resigned governor is a member to serve as governor for the unexpired portion of the term. (As
amended pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated March 2. 1993).
Section 45. Executive Committee. - There shall be an Executive Committee of not less than
three Governors, the powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of which shall be as
prescribed by the Board. The President shall be the chairman thereof.
Section 46. Urgent matters. - Should the Executive Committee consider it desirable and
imperative that any matter be decided urgently by the Board, and it is not practicable or
expedient for the Board to convene, the Executive Committee may, for the purpose, direct a
poll of all the members of the Board on that matter, to be taken by correspondence, telegram,
radiogram, cablegram, or any other expeditous means, and the effect of such a poll shall be
the same as if the votes therein were cast at a regular meeting of the Board.
ARTICLE VII
[Sections 47 to 51]
NATIONAL OFFICERS
Section 47. National Officers. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President
and Executive Vice President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9)
regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex
officio Vice President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and
Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Board. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).
The Executive Vice President shall automatically become President for the next succeeding
term. The Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions.
Section 48. Other officers. - Other officers and employees as the Board may require shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the Board. Such officers and employees need
not be members of the Integrated Bar.
Section 49. Terms of office. - The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office
for a term of two years from July 1 following their election until June 30 of their second year in
office and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified. In the event the
President is absent or unable to act, his functions and duties shall be performed by the
Executive Vice President, and in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the
President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting President for the unexpired
portion of the term. In the event of the death, resignation, removal or disability of both the
President and the Executive Vice President, the Board of Governors shall elect an Acting
President to hold office for the unexpired portion of the term or during the period of disability.
Unless otherwise provided in these By-Laws , all other officers and employees appointed by

87

the President with the consent of the Board shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for
such term as the Board may fix.
Section 50. Duties of officers. - (a) President: The President shall be the chief executive of the
Integrated Bar, and shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Governors.
From assumption of office and for the duration of his termed the President shall
dissociate himself from any and all activities that may, in one way or another, restrict or
hamper the effective exercise of his powers and performance of his functions and
duties.
(b) Executive Vice President: The Executive Vice President shall exercise the powers
and perform the functions and duties of the President during the absence or inability of
the latter to act, and shall perform such other functions and duties as are assigned to
him by the President and the Board of Governors.
(c) Governors: In addition to his duties as a member of the Board of Governors, each
elective Governor shall act as representative of his Region in the Board. He shall
promote, coordinate and correlate activities of the Chapters within his Region.
(d) Secretary: The Secretary shall attend all meetings of the Board of Governors, and
keep a record of all the proceedings thereof; prepare and maintain a register of all
members of the Integrated Bar; notify national officers as well as members of national
committees of their election or appointments; cause to be prepared the necessary
official ballots for the election of Governors; and perform such other duties as are
assigned to him by these By-Laws, by the President and by the Board of Governors.
(e) Treasurer: The Treasurer shall collect, receive, recorder and disburse ad funds of
the Integrated Bar; however, no disbursement shall be made except over his signature,
countersigned by the President or, in the absence or inability of the President, by the
Executive Vice President, or in the absence or inability of both, by a member of the
Executive Committee designated by the President. He shall render reports of receipts
and disbursements as required by the Board of Governors; promptly remit to the
Chapters concerned their proportionate shares in the dues and assessments paid by
members directly to the national office under Section 23 (Membership dues); assist in
the preparation of the annual budget; and perform such other duties as are assigned to
him by these By-Laws, by the President and by the Board of Governors. He shall
furnish a surety bond at the expense of the Integrated Bar, in such amount as may be
required by the Board.
Section 51. Delegation of duties. - The functions and duties of the Secretary and the treasurer
may, in their absence or inability, be performed by assistants or employees of the Integrated
Bar designated by the President.
ARTICLE VIII
[Sections 52 to 67]
NATIONAL COMMITTEES
Section 52. National Committees. - The Board of Governors shall establish and maintain
standing national committees. Until otherwise changed, modified or redefined by the Board,

88

the respective names, powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities of the
standing committees shall be as set forth in this Article. The Board shall have authority to
create additional standing committees and special committees and to define their respective
powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities. Every committee shall submit an
annual report to the President, but the Board may, at any time, require any committee to
submit a special report.
Section 53. Membership of committees. - Each national committee shall consist of such
number of members as may be fixed by the Board of Governors. They shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the Board, and shall serve for a term of two years, and until
their respective successors shall have been duly appointed and qualified. The chairman of
each committee shall be designated by the President. Three consecutive absences of any
member from committee meetings without justifiable excuse shall be a ground for the
President to appoint his replacement.
Section 54. Committee on Chapter Affairs. - This committee shall make studies of, and submit
reports and recommendations on, the establishment, organization and operation of all
Chapters, the apportionment and reapportionment of the seats in the House of Delegates, and
the means and methods of encouraging and coordinating Chapter activities and of promoting
maximum involvement and participation of the members of the Integrated Bar in the activities
thereof and of their respective Chapters.
Section 55. Committee on Legal Aid. - This committee shall promote the establishment and
efficient maintenance of Chapter legal aid organizations suited to provide free legal service;
direct and supervise all Chapter legal aid organizations; maintain maximum levels of
coordination and cooperation with other organizations having similar objectives; receive and
solicit aid and assistance from any available and suitable source or sources, provided that the
independent character of the legal aid is not impaired; and, in general, do or cause to be done
all things necessary and proper for the promotion of legal aid activities, projects and
objectives.
Section 56. Committee on Administration of Justice. - This committee shall study the
organization and operation of the judicial system and recommend appropriate changes in
practice and procedure to improve the efficiency thereof, and, in that connection, shall examine
all proposed changes in the system. It shall collate information and submit appropriate
recommendations on judicial appointments, judicial tenure and compensation, and retirement
pensions.
Section 57. Committee on Legal Education and Bar Admissions. - This committee shall make
continuing studies of, and submit recommendations on, the curriculum and teaching methods
in law schools, as well as standards and methods in determining the qualifications of
applicants for admission to the Bar and, whenever requested, shall assist in the investigation
of the qualifications of persons seeking admission to the Bar. It shall formulate and promote or
co-sponsor with other groups of institutions, programs designed to afford members of the
Integrated Bar suitable opportunities for acquiring, here and abroad, additional professional
knowledge, training and skill.
Section 58. Committee on Professional Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment. - This
committee shall formulate the Canons of Professional Responsibility for adoption by the Board
of Governors and approval by the Supreme Court, and submit recommendations on methods
for the effective enforcement thereof as well as on appropriate amendments thereto. It shall
have authority to express advisory opinions, upon written request of any member, on any

89

matter affecting his own professional conduct. In no case shall the opinion of the committee
disclose the name of any party. The committee may call upon any Chapter officer or Chapter
committee member to exchange information as to problems arising under the Canons of
Professional Responsibility, and to examine grievance procedures. It shall make
recommendations to the Board of Governors for reforms and improvements in the said
procedures.
Section 59. Committee on Research Services. - This committee shall plan the research
services of the Integrated Bar in substantive and adjective laws and, together with other
institutions, promote legal research and law reform and development. It shall select areas of
the law in need of general study, revision or codification; formulate plans and prepare budgets
for specific research projects; assess the availability of qualified personnel to perform research
work; and submit recommendations thereon. It shall periodically render progress reports on
authorized research projects, and provide necessary supervision for the successful completion
of each project.
Section 60. Committee on Legislation. - This committee shall study all proposed changes in
the Constitution and in statutes and laws of general interests or general application and submit
reports thereon and, upon the approval of the Board of Governors, shall represent the
Integrated Bar in supporting or opposing such proposals.
Section 61. Committee on Public Services. - This committee shall prepare and submit plans
for advancing public acceptance of the objectives and purposes of the Integrated Bar, and
shall execute such plans as are approved by the Board of Governors. These plans shall
include arrangements for disseminating information of interest to the public in relation to the
functions of the departments of government, the judicial system and the Bar; and to that end,
the committee may operate an information bureau and utilize the facilities of the media of
public communication.
Section 62. Committee on Inter-Professional and Business Relations. - This committee shall
maintain liaison between the legal profession and other professions as well as business
groups in order to acquaint the latter on the nature and proper scope of the practice of law.
Section 63. Committee on Books and Publications. - This committee shall make studies of,
and submit recommendations on matters and materials for publication, and ways and means
of assisting in the efficient publications of legal literature at reasonable costs, and of
discouraging unnecessary publications or duplications thereof.
Section 64. Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law. - This committee shall keep the
Integrated Bar informed with respect to the practice of law by unauthorized persons and
entities, as well as the participation therein of members of the Bar, and recommend ways and
means for the elimination and prevention of unauthorized practice of law.
Section 65. Committee on Law Reporting. - This committee shall examine and appraise
methods of reporting and disseminating legislation, presidential decrees, court decisions, the
Rules of Court, and decisions of administrative tribunals and agencies, with particular
emphasis on the correction of deficiencies; conduct a continuing study and evaluation of
corresponding trends and reforms in other jurisdictions; and submit appropriate
recommendations thereon.

90

Section 66. Public statements. - No committee or member thereof shall publicly express any
opinion or conclusion respecting the assigned functions or work of the committee without
previous authorization from the Board of Governors or the Executive Committee.
Section 67. Finances of committees. - Every committee shall file with the Secretary of the
Integrated Bar a detailed statement setting forth necessary data on the funds required in
connection with its work for consideration and action by the Board of Governors. No committee
shall incur any obligation payable by the Integrated Bar without the Board's prior approval.

ARTICLE IX
[Sections 68 to 75]
FISCAL CONTROL
Section 68. Fiscal year. - The Integrated Bar shall operate on a fiscal year beginning on
January 1 and ending on December 31 of each year. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No.
668).
Section 69. Budget committee. - The President, with the approval of the Board of Governors,
shall appoint a budget committee consisting of not less than three or more than five
Governors, with the Executive Vice President as chairman, whose responsibility shall be the
preparation of the annual budget.
Section 70. Preparation and approval of the budget. - The preparation, consideration,
approval and publication of the budget shall be in accordance with rules and regulations
prescribed by the Board.
Section 71. Automatic re-enactment. - If by the end of any fiscal year, the Board shall have
failed to pass the budget for the ensuing fiscal year, the budget for the preceding fiscal year
shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until a new budget is adopted
by the Board.
Section 72. Amendment to the budget. - The Board may, from time to time, amend the budget
in order to provide funds for necessary expenditures: Provided, however, that the total of the
increases made in the items of the budget, including new items created by such amendments,
shall not exceed ten percent of the total estimated income of the Integrated Bar for the current
fiscal year. If the proposed amendments shall cause the total of the increases and the new
items to exceed such limitation, the same procedure required for the adoption of the original
budget shall be followed.
Section 73. Disbursements. - No disbursement shall be made except in accordance with the
budget.
Section 74. Unexpended balances. - All unexpended balances of appropriations shall revert at
the end of every fiscal year to the funds from which they were appropriated.
Section 75. Accounting and audit. - The Board shall cause books of accounts to be kept and
maintained in accordance with sound accounting practices. An annual external audit of all
funds, accounts, receipts and disbursements of the Integrated Bar shall be made without delay

91

after the end of every fiscal year. A summary of such audit shall be published in the following
September issue of the Journal of the Integrated Bar.

ARTICLE X
[Section 76]
JOURNAL
Section 76. Journal of the Integrated Bar. - The Board of Governors shall cause to be
published a quarterly Journal, and to this end shall be assisted by a board of editorial
consultants, the members of which shall be appointed by the President, with the consent of the
Board. The editorial consultants shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board.
Every member of the Integrated Bar is entitled to receive a free copy of every issue of the
Journal.
ARTICLE XI
[Section 77]
AMENDMENTS
Section 77. Amendments. - These By-Laws may be amended, modified or repealed by the
Supreme Court motu proprio or upon the recommendation of the Board of Governors.
ARTICLE XII
[Section 78]
EFFECTIVITY
Section 78. Effectivity. - These By-Laws shall take effect on November 1, 1974.

92

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Printed Materials:

Suarez, Rolando, Introduction to Law (4th Edition), Rex Bookstore, 1977 C.M.
Recto Ave., Manila, 2003.

Nolledo, Jose N. and Nolledo, Mercedita S., The 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines (Revised Edition), National Bookstore, Manila, 2004.

Agpalo, Ruben E., Legal and Judicial Ethics, Rex Bookstore (7th Edition), Inc.,
1977 C.M. Recto Ave., Manila, 2002.

Online References:

Integrated Bar of the Philippines website

http://ibp.ph/ibp_about.html
http://www.ibp.ph/ibp_structure.html
http://www.ibp.ph/ibp%20website/html/ByLaws.html

Supreme Court of the Philippines website

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/aug2000/141284.htm

Lawphil website
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1973/jan1973/ibp_1973.html
http://www.lawphil.net/courts/ibp/ibp_bylaws.html

93

Chan Robles virtual library website

http://www.chanrobles.com/rulesofcourtrule139-a.htm
http://www.chanrobles.com/rulesofcourtrule139-b.htm#.VO2DZfmUfU0

Google search engine

www.google.com

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Bar_of_the_Philippines

News Article
http://www.tempo.com.ph/2012/03/03/new-lawyers-to-pay-p4300/

94