Sec 11.
Free access to Courts bono work before admission to the bar ae exempted
New lawyers required to give free legal services
Christopher Lloyd Caliwan, Philippine News Agency
October 21, 2017
MANILA, Philippines Beginning with those who
pass this years bar exams in November, new
lawyers will be required to provide 120 hours of pro
bono legal services to poor litigants, in keeping with
the constitutional guarantee of free access to the
courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
The Community Legal Aid Service Rule issued by
the Supreme Court en banc, dated October 10,
notes that the legal profession is imbued with public
interest.
As such, lawyers are charged with the duty to give
meaning to the guarantee of access to adequate
legal assistance under Article III, Section 11 of the
1987 Constitution, it said. As a way to discharge
this constitutional duty, lawyers are obliged to render
pro bono services to those who otherwise would be
denied access to adequate legal services.
The high court said lawyers are obliged to ensure
peoples access to legal services in an efficient and
convenient manner compatible with the
independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
profession.
The Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines are tasked to oversee
compliance with the rule, which gives new lawyers a
year from signing the roll of attorneys to complete
the 120 hours of free legal services, in criminal, civil
and administrative cases. Public interest cases and
legal issues that affect the society are also accepted.
However, new lawyers who can present valid
reasons can ask the OBC for an extension of up to
two years to comply with the rule.
Aside from poor litigants, individuals and groups who
cannot be served by the Public Attorneys Office due
to conflict of interest are also entitled to pro
bono legal aid.
New lawyers already working in the executive and
legislative branches six months before passing the
bar and those who have already rendered pro
from the rule.
This rule is not intended to impair the private
practice or employment of covered lawyers. Barring
any conflict of interest or any other violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, covered
lawyers can engage in private practice and accept
paid clients or be employed in the government or in
the private sector within the 12-month period for
compliance, the high court said.
Sec 12. Rights of Person Under Custodial
Investigation
House-to-house 'Tokhang' may be
unconstitutional, says SC justice
Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Nov 28 2017 08:39 PM
A magistrate of the Supreme Court (SC) has found
issue with the house-to-house visitations conducted
by the police in their war on drugs, as oral
arguments on two consolidated petitions against the
campaign resumed Tuesday.
Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, in his
interpellation of Solicitor General Jose Calida,
pointed out that stage 3 of Project: Tokhang under
assailed Philippine National Police Command
Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 16-2016 may be a
violation of people's right to be secure in their
persons, houses, and effects.
Isnt that custodial investigation which triggers the
police to warn the suspect or person of interest that
before he even answers any question he has the
right to a lawyer?" he said.
"I submit to you, Mr. SolGen, when the police under
Project: Tokhang knock on the door, effectively they
have invited themselves into the home of the
suspect and that is a violation of the definition of
custodial investigation. If the police cannot invite you
to the station, the police cannot under the same
circumstances invite themselves into your home, he
added.
The magistrate explained that stage 3 of Project
Tokhang violates section 2 of Republic Act (RA) No.
7438, which defines the rights of persons arrested,
detained, or under custodial investigation, and the
duties of the concerned arresting, detaining, and
investigating officers.
You have effectively transferred the police station to
the house... especially if it is done in the evening,
wee hours of the morning. Im concerned about this
stage 3, and to my mind, thats a violation of the
rights of the suspect or if you call him the target' or
you call him the 'person of interest' of his right
against self-incrimination, Jardeleza said, adding
the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO),
specifically to halt stage 3, may be warranted.
Stage 3 of Project Tokhang is described as the
highlight of the project, "whereby a team is first
organized [t]he designated team leader is
mandated to ensure the presence of the Provincial,
City, Municipal or Barangay Drug Abuse Council and
barangay tanods to assist them and to serve as
witnesses in the conduct of the house-to-house
visitations.
"CMC No. 16-2016 further requires that this visitation
be done in a manner that shall not violate the rights
of the subject. Any person who is willing to undergo
voluntary rehabilitation shall be processed
accordingly, Calida told the high court during his
opening statement.
In response to Jardelezas observation, the top
government lawyer explained stage 3 is not only
limited to the presence of policemen, but also
mandates the presence of the above-mentioned
civilian officers.
This is not a mere police intervention, Calida
explained.
Sec 13. Right to Bail
Aquino posts bail ahead of arrest order
By: Nikko Dizon - Reporter / @NikkoDizonINQ
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 07:01 AM November 11, 2017
Former President Benigno Aquno III heads for the
Sandiganbayan to post bail. JOAN BONDOC
Former President Benigno Aquino III on Friday posted
a P40,000 bail for the usurpation of authority and graft
charges the Office of the Ombudsman had filed
against him in connection with the 2015 Mamasapano
debacle that resulted in the deaths of 44 police
commandos.
Aquino posted bail at the Sandiganbayan five hours
after the case was raffled off to the antigraft courts
Third Division.
I was briefed that if the information is filed, an arrest
warrant is automatically issued. We decided to
exercise my right to bail. We just prepared for it,
Aquino said in Filipino during a press conference in
his house on Times Street in Quezon City.
He has always said that he is ready to face charges
against him and he has always signified his
cooperation with the legal process, Aquinos
spokesperson, Abigail Valte, told the Inquirer.
The court took Aquinos fingerprints as part of the bail
requirements. The former President also submitted
six pictures in lieu of a mugshot.
Aquino posted a P40,000 bail in cashP30,000 for
the graft case and P10,000 for the usurpation of
authority charge.
He arrived at the Sandiganbayan at 4 p.m. just hours
after the case landed in the Third Division, chaired by
Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, whom the
former President appointed to head the antigraft court
in October 2013.
First appointee
With Tang in the division are Associate Justices
Bernelito Fernandez and Sarah Jane Fernandez.
Bernelito Fernandez, a former Quezon City Regional
Trial Court judge, is President Dutertes first
appointee to the Sandiganbayan. He is son of a
Marcos-era Tanodbayan justice.
Sarah Jane Fernandez was one of the last court
appointees of Aquino. She was an assistant solicitor
general before the former President appointed her to
the Sandiganbayan in May 2016.
The former President was accompanied to the
Sandiganbayan by his sisters Ballsy, Pinky and Viel;
brother-in-law, Manolo Abellada; nephew Miguel
Abellada; cousin Sen. Bam Aquino; political allies,
including Sen. Frank Drilon, Rep. Bolet Banal, former
Cabinet members Edwin Lacierda, Jun Abaya,
Proceso Alcala, and Mel Sarmiento; and his personal
staff.
Ombudsman prosecutors charged Aquino with
usurpation of authority for allowing the involvement of
suspended Philippine National Police Director
General Alan Purisima in the planning and execution
of Oplan Exodus, the police operation to get
Malaysian terrorist Zulkifli bin Hir, alias Marwan.
The graft information stated that Aquino unlawfully
persuaded, induced or influenced Purisima to violate
the PNP chain of command and the Ombudsmans
preventive suspension order.
Asked if she would inhibit herself from Aquinos trial,
Tang said that being an appointee of the former
President was not a legal ground for inhibition.
The court will never shirk from its responsibility to
dispense justice. There are legal grounds for inhibition
and having been appointed by the accused is not one
of the legal grounds for inhibition, she said.
Tang said the records of Aquinos case would now be
transmitted to the Third Division which would
determine the existence or absence (of probable
cause).
Sec 14 Rights of the Accused
Sereno decries violation of rights
(The Philippine Star) | Updated November 23, 2017 -
12:00am
MANILA, Philippines The camp of Chief Justice
Maria Lourdes Sereno yesterday slammed the
House of Representatives justice committee for
violating her constitutional rights when it disallowed
her lawyers to cross-examine the complainant
Lorenzo Gadon and his witnesses in the
impeachment complaint against her.
In a statement, lawyers of the Supreme Court (SC)
chief claimed that the decision of the House panel
violated her constitutional right to counsel and due
process of law.
The committee decision to prohibit the lawyers of
the Chief Justice from (participating in) the hearing is
tantamount to barring CJ Sereno herself and belies
their claim of an open and democratic process that
honors the right to a fair trial, they said.
It is apparent that the pursuit of truth has been put
aside in favor of biased political interest, Serenos
lawyers said.
Lawyer Josa Deinla, one of the spokespersons for
Sereno, argued that while the House has the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment it can conduct the impeachment
process only in accordance with the standards
imposed in other provisions in the Constitution,
including the fundamental rights of the respondent.
This is a sad day for justice in this country that the
Chief Justice, who has fought steadfastly to uphold
the Constitution and the rights of the citizens, has
now been denied her own constitutional rights,
Deinla said.
Deinla cited Rule 115 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, which provides for the rights of the
accused, including the right to counsel and cross-
examination.
Under the Constitution, the right to be heard and be
defended by counsel in all stages of a criminal
proceeding is a very basic right of an individual,
which not even the honorable committee, indeed
Congress, can take away from a respondent in an
impeachment proceeding, she said.
Despite the setback, Serenos lawyers said the Chief
Justice remained optimistic that she would have her
day in court and that they would instead focus on the
trial in the Senate.
The Chief Justice is eager to defend herself
consistent with her rights and looks forward to her
trial before the Senate, where she is hopeful her
rights will be fully respected, she said.
Deinla said the majority of the committee
disregarded Serenos fundamental rights as a
respondent in an impeachment proceeding.
Serenos camp also cited the disclosure of Gadon in
the hearing yesterday that his source of information
for an SC Internal Memorandum is no other than
Associate Justice Teresita de Castro, who allegedly
relayed the information to Manila Times reporter
Jomar Canlas.
If indeed true, this reveals that Justice De Castro
clearly violated the Internal Rules of the SC. The
Internal Rules of the SC prominently safeguards the
confidentiality of its sessions and internal
documents, Deinla said.
Specifically, the SC sessions are executive in
character, with only members of the SC present. The
SC deliberations are confidential and shall not be
disclosed to outside parties, except if authorized by
the SC, she said.
De Castro, in a brief statement issued by the SC
public information office, denied Gadons claim.
I have never released to Canlas any information,
report or document regarding the work of the Court,
she said.

Sec 15. Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Duterte suspends privilege of writ of habeas

corpus in Mindanao
By VJ Bacungan, CNN Philippines
Updated 13:32 PM PHT Thu, May 25, 2017

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, May 24)

President Rodrigo Duterte said on May 24 that he is
allowing warrantless arrests for those connected to
the rebellion in Mindanao.

This comes a day after he declared martial law there

following clashes between government forces and
the Maute group in Marawi City.

The fighting has resulted in six dead and caused

hundreds of residents to flee to nearby cities.

"By virtue of the powers vested in me by the

Constitution and by law, I had to declare martial law
in the Mindanao group of islands for a period not
exceeding 60 days effective as of May 23, 2017," he
said in a prepared speech after arriving from his
official visit to Russia.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is likewise

suspended in the aforesaid area for the duration of
martial law," he added.

Duterte also said he may extend the coverage of the

suspension of privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus to include the Visayas.