We hope everyone can convince the IBP to fight for its abolition.

The law is not only a violation of one’s freedom from involuntary servitude, but in practical ways, will affect other freedoms too.

I have the right to travel whenever and wherever and for how long I please, I have the right to practice, not to practice and to practice again, I have the right to go out of my house, work and make money but I also have the right to seclude myself within the four corners of my home and serve my parents and family and then work again, I have the right to be rich, to be poor and to be rich again, but with this law, the profession has become an iron chain around my neck suffocating me to work all year round to help the poor when I myself have the right to live in poverty without anybody asking me to explain.

The law will affect each one’s decisions in life since there would be a YEARLY compliance. Unlike the ibp dues wherein a lawyer may delegate anybody to pay the yearly dues in his behalf, or for more convenience, he pay a lifetime membership so that he would not be bothered to go every year to the ibp office, BM 2012 requires a lawyer’s personal presence or involvement by filing a sworn compliance each and every year. Burdensome…

5. Free legal services will encourage litigation. It will clog the dockets more.

6. Under BM 2012, 1 pleading is equivalent to 1 hour credit. This is simply unrealistic.

7. The profession will more likely lose its dignity when the services of a lawyer are now for free. The legal profession is being regarded as one of the prestigious professions in the country because of the value of the work that a lawyer does. As a consequence he is being paid higher than a regular worker. Free legal services will undermine the work of a lawyer. Kung ang NFA rice nga binabayaran ng mahihirap, aba at tayong mga abogado, libre n?

8. BM 2012 is very difficult to comply. Another law to violate…

9. Under BM 2012, the contributions/penalties will accrue to the ibp funds. Another door for corruption. Ako ang nagtanim, nag-ani at nagluto, iba ang kumain.

10. Under BM 2012, failure to indicate in a pleading the compliance number will cause the dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleading. Very very essential in litigation is the filing of pleadings,thus, to expunge a pleading for this cause is deprivation of the lawyers privilege to practice law without due process of law since a judge could easily strike a pleading with impunity because of this law. And this, the judge could do even before the proceeding with the ibp against the lawyer is concluded. Then, what if the pleading that I intend to file is for the pauper litigant? He he… Strike it as you please!

etc. etc.

Setting aside all the impracticalities of this law, what really bothers me is that it affects my freedom. The thought of being forced to do what i do not like to do is something very big for me. No offense to the poor. I have much more valuable things to offer you than free legal services…

Well, I am not saying that those who are excluded should pay more. They should not be forced to contribute at all in fact. Whether the force is to contribute money or labor, the law is still unconstitutional.

4. Under BM 2012, a lawyer who fails to comply with the law will be summoned to explain why he was not able to comply. In short, each and every year for the rest of my life that I fail to comply with the law, either by my failure to pay the contribution or render 60 hrs of service, the IBP would bother me to explain and give reasons for non-compliance. If that is the case, the IBP would be like my annual diary! What if my reasons for non-compliance are so much personal that I would not like to tell anybody? What if my reason, is simply that I do not have a budget to comply because I stayed home for the whole year or that my practice was limited? Should I reveal that? That I don not have money? Is that not humiliating and a violation of

The law itself is void, obvious naman. So do not worry companeros, this law cannot stand and will certainly be destroyed in totality. The SC will understand. Soon, the SC will be bombarded with petitions against the implementation of this law.

Here are some of the objections against this law that I can think of.

1. To compel lawyers to render 60 hours of service, whether paid or not, for whatever noble purpose, by threat of punishment is clearly a violation of an individual’s freedom from involuntary servitude.

2. To compel only lawyers, excluding all other professionals, to help the poor is a violation of equal protection clause. I am not sure of this, but is there any other profession that is being required to render free services?

3. Under BM 2012, lawyers who are not covered by the law are required to pay a contribution of 2K/4K. That is simply unfair. A practicing lawyer would be required to work for 60 hours while those who are not covered will only pay 2k/4k. Is 60 hours of professional service of a lawyer equivalent to 4k? Not to mention the cash that a

In actuality, the rule merely targets litigation lawyers. Pleadings not bearing the compliance with this rule will be considered sham pleadings. What about other types of lawyers who just stay in their office providing advice on corporate or tax or intellectual property matters and who earn even more than litigation lawyers, they will not be required to render legal aid service. What they have to do is just pay P4,000.00.

Even assuming that the imposition of free legal service has a valid cause, 60 hours is too much. If you are required to render service of at least 5 hours a month, you may end up attending 5 hearings in a month. Attending a hearing for this hypocritical cause precludes you from attending other cases. So 5 hearings may translate to 5 days. That is already 25% of one’s court activities. This is on the assumption that a lawyer has cases to attend everyday. In my case, I only attend about 15 hours of court and quasi-judicial appearances in a year. Now, would it be practical for me to serve out the required 60 hours just to be able to attend to the occasional requirements of my client?

Also, if a lawyer has confined his practice to SEC and Patent Office cases, that presumably has no pauper litigants, will the Court still compel them to render the free legal service in courts and quasi-judicial bodies, even if the lawyer has already lost touch on court litigation process on account of his specialized practice?

Litigation is a hard work, you do not just go to court without appraising yourself of the issues of the case. You have to prepare for court appearances. There are lawyers who can prepare fast and there are those whose preparations are lengthy. Will not the court also consider time spent for preparation?

Moreover, what if after rendering 60 hours of involuntary servitude, will you just abandon the pauper litigant to mend for himself or endorse the case to a PAO lawyer? To do so would be a contravention of one’s professional ethics. So now, when does one’s servitude end?

These matters, among others, should first be clearly taken into consideration before making the present imposition. The IBP that is supposed to be the premier organization of lawyers should be more circumspect in their recommendations. Please be more considerate and rational in the future.

I don’t even spend that much time in court! and 60 pleadings? one pleading equivalent to an hour?!!! they gotta be kidding.

The lawyers would be compelled to take cases and do hopshod work just to comply with the circular. Good legal service would be sacrificed.

What is the matter with these people?

It is certain that a lot of lawyers would rather find “ways and means” than to actually comply with this circular.

The circular is just so twisted if you ask me.

Question: What percentage of bar passers actually venture as law practitioners?

This rule will dwindle further the number of practitioners?

Does the SC want lawyers to be ambulance chasers? Does the SC want to further clog the dockets in court because practicing lawyers need that Docket numbers to comply with this Rule?

As defined, ‘Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions.’

Now how about government lawyers, PAO and prosecutors, who are not exempted from this Rule? It seems that they have been serving indigent litigants, BUT this Rule is over and above of what they do. Does this mean that when they would render free legal service in compliance with this Rule they would have to file a leave of absence without pay, otherwise it wouldn’t be free since they are actually being paid by the government? And in case they would be allowed to serve indigent litigants on government time to comply with this Rule, isn’t this an unconstitutional classification because private lawyers spend their time withour pay just to comply with this Rule?

How about government and private in-house counsels, considered by this Rule as practicing lawyers, who work 8 to 5, Monday to Friday. When will they render this free legal service? Would they have to work on a Saturday or Sunday to render this service, but would further take away time from their families? And when they appear in court in compliance with this Rule, will they, too, file for a leave of absence without pay to compl with the ‘so-called’ FREE legal service?

If I am Lawyer who by law are not allowed to appear in court, why should I be penalized by filing an annual P2,000 contribution?

If I work in a Barrio or some far-flung region away from the Courts, should I venture into the City just to comply with this Free Legal Service, but will cost me board and lodging expenses?

Common, what is the SC really up to? Is this FAIR?

Would somebody please explain to me the wisdom of this Rule by addressing the questions stated above?

The IBP National Convention is coming up this March. Lawyers make a stand on this issue!