IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF

THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.

AM. No. 491October 6, 1989FACTS: In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International Convention Center, the newly-
elected officers were set to take their oath of office on July 4,1989 before the Supreme Court
en banc.
However, disturbed by the widespread reports received by somemembers of the Court from lawye
rs who had witnessed or participated in theproceedings and the adverse comments published
in the columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and overspending by
the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of president of the association, namely,
Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government
planes, and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which
were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities, the Supreme Court en
banc, exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the oath-
taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports. Media reports done by
Mr. Jurado, Mr. Mauricio and Mr. Locsin in
the newspapers opened the avenue for investigation on the anomalies in the IBPElections.

The following violations are,

Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for president, executive vice
-president, the officers or candidates for the House of Delegates and Board of Governors, Use
of PNB plane inthe campaign, Giving free transportation to out-of-
town delegates and alternates, Formation of tickets and single slates, Giving free hotel
accommodations, food, drinks, and entertainment to delegates, Campaigning by labor officials
for Atty. Violeta Drilon, Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any member (Sec. 14[e], IBP
By-Laws),Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more than one page of legal size
sheet of paper (Sec. 14[a], IBP By-Laws), Causing distribution of such statement to be done by
persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the election(Sec. 14[b], IBP By-
Laws) and Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a
candidate (Sec. 14[e], IBP By-Laws).

The prohibited acts are against the IBP By-Laws more specifically Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws
emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,

Sec. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections and Section 12[d] of the By-Laws prescribes
sanctions for violations of the above rules: Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission
of any of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14 [Prohibited Acts and Practices Relative
to Elections) of the By-laws of the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification of a
candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon
any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar.

Decision: The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the by-laws of
the IBP but lso the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their
obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to promote respect for law and
legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is
gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be millions of the law, engage in
unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their
observance.

The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted
from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one
way or another, certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public's
esteem.
The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions, denials and outright
prevarications that tainted the statements of the witnesses, including tome of the candidates, during
the initial hearing conducted by it before its fact-finding committee was created. The subsequent
investigation conducted by this Committee has revealed that those parties had been less than candid
with the Court and seem to have conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold vital
information from it to conceal the irregularities committed during the campaign.