There are questionable and unwise exemptions stated in the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) rules of the Philippine Supreme Court (B.M. 850), which I wish to summarize here to trigger a debate on the issue and to improve the said rules.
Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) “to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law”.
Every three (3) years, lawyers shall complete at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee.
The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement (see my comments after each item):
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
* I have no question about the President, the Vice President, and the Cabinet Secretaries. They are busy and they occupy top level pubic offices. But why exempt ordinary undersecretaries? They are the workhorses of the Cabinet and the first officials who must have a perfect knowledge of the legal aspects of their respective departmental work.
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
* Why exempt legislators from the rules when the nature of their work requires them to be masters of the law, a state which they cannot achieve unless they study the law and the jurisprudence on an updated basis instead of just playing politics in the halls of Congress and delivering trite and motherhood privilege speeches?
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
* The PHILJA is doing a great job training the judicial officers and personnel of our country. However, it must be strict in enforcing the rule that no appointments shall be made and no promotions issued without first requiring the applicants to undergo the mandatory pre-judicature programs and other annual enrichment programs for the purpose.
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
* These persons, just like undersecretaries, should not be exempt from the rules.
Their work precisely requires them to be masters of the law. We cannot just assume that they are masters of the law on the basis solely of their paper appointments, unless their Department holds its own regular MCLE programs.
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
* All public officials, with the rank of undersecretary and below, including Assistant Solicitors General and all senior solicitors of the Office of the Solicitor General, must be compelled to comply with the rules, because of the legal expertise required of them as lawyers of the Government.
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
* What is so special about deputy and assistant corporate counsel of the government? Their work requires legal expertise. They must be compelled to comply with the rules. The problem with the Supreme Court is that it assumes too much in favor of expertise when there are no empirical evidence to prove such assumption.
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
* No comment.
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
* My opinion here is 50-50.
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
* This level of officialdom should be compelled to comply with the rules. They are not extraordinary gods who should be exempted from continuing legal education.
Imagine placing the fate of our administrative cases in the hands of quasi-judicial decision-makers who do not update their knowledge of the law!
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
* No comment.
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
* No comment.
(l) Governors and Mayors.
* Here, I take a strong position, What is so special about governors and mayors that should exempt them from the rules. They are the first-level enforcers of the law. Why not compel them to update their legal knowledge regularly? Knowing the ignorance of many lawyer-mayors and governors, it will serve our country better if we compel them to comply with the rules.
