RULE 139-A (Integrated Bar of the Philippines [IBP]) of the Rules of Court of the Philippines in effect serves as the charter and the vision and mission statement of the mandatory Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The fundamental purposes of the Integrated Bar are “to elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively”, according to Sec. 2 of the Rule.
The Philippines is divided into nine (9) Regions of the Integrated Bar. It will be noted that the Greater Manila Region consists only of the Manila and Quezon City. The cities of Makati, Las Pinas, Pasay, Paranaque, Muntinlupa, Caloocan, Malabon, and Navotas (all of which are parts of Metro Manila) are placed under the Southern Luzon Region. Other cities of the province of Rizal (which is under Southern Luzon Region) which are now part of Metro Manila are still under Southern Luzon Region, such as, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Taguig, Pasig, and Pateros. Valenzuela City (a part of Metro Manila) is placed under the province of Bulacan (Central Luzon Region).
The IBP Board of Governors, with the approval of the Supreme Court, has the power to determine the restructuring of the IBP Regions to which a new province or a new city should belong, but so far it has not taken concrete steps to update the structural distribution of IBP chapters in the country, taking into account the new cities and provinces created by special laws these past decades.
The IBP “chaptering” scheme is on a per province basis, and every city is considered part of the province within which it is geographically situated. There are exceptions. In the case of Manila, each congressional district is equivalent to one chapter. But not so in the case of Quezon City, which has more than 20,000 lawyers. It is not divided into district chapters. There is only one chapter that serves the four cities in the southern part of Metro Manila, i.e., Pasay, Paranaque, Las Pinas, and Muntinlupa (where I served as a ranking officer for many years from 1995 to 2007). Cebu City, which also has hundreds of lawyers, is not divided into district chapters. The cities of Zamboanga and Basilan, in Mindanao, which also has hundreds of lawyers, are combined into one chapter only.
No wonder, hundreds (if not thousands) of lawyers nationwide are not properly served by the IBP chapters; and the perfunctory role of the members is routinely activated only during the IBP chapter elections every two years. Once in a while, some chapters hold law seminars and bench and bar dialogues, but the attendance of ordinary lawyers in these events is limited.
Honestly, speaking, if a satisfaction survey were to be conducted today, a great majority of lawyers (and local communities) would surely condemn the IBP national board and the IBP chapters for technical absenteeism, incompetence, and failure to deliver the needed services to the Bar, the Justice System, and the Community.
Lawyers who are members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines (and its competing fraternities from the same university) see to it that they control the internal politics of the IBP national board. The UP Sigma Rho Fraternity feels that it has the God-given right to monopolize the national power structure of the IBP since its birth in the 1970s.
Many of its members move from one chapter to another every two years to insure that their fraternity are able to maintain chapter leaders (voters in the regional elections) who will qualify as regional governors in order to ultimately control the political reins of the IBP national office, more particularly its presidency, executive vice presidency, Commission on Bar Discipline, and National Committee on Legal Aid (into which the Supreme Court pours in millions of pesos annually).
This “chapter shopping” is intentionally done in violation of the spirit of Sec. 4 of Rule 139-A simply to retain political control of the IBP national office. The said provision provides that “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” and that “in no case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter”.
Under Sec. 5 of the Rule, the IBP 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. Each Chapter has at least one Delegate. The House holds annual conventions in 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.”
My experience with the past meetings of the IBP House of Delegates (when I was still a ranking officer of the IBP chapter in the southern district of Metro Manila) was very bad. The IBP national leaders had converted the House into a debasing nocturnal social event, with a few routine law lectures which were not even intellectually stimulating. The IBP House of Delegates has miserably failed to fulfill its clear mandate to serve as a national forum for congressional-type deliberations and debates on the concerns of and proposals from ordinary rural and urban lawyers whose small voices must be heard by the IBP national leaders if they want to improve the Philippine Bar and the Philippine Justice System.
The IBP is headed at the national level by a President and an Executive Vice President who are chosen by the Governors immediately after the latter's election during the regional elections, “either from among themselves or from other members of the Integrated Bar”. Each of the regional members of the Board is the ex officio Vice President for the Region which he represents.
The Executive Vice President automatically becomes the President for the next succeeding full term. (Note: It is unfortunate that this rule does not apply to the local IBP chapter, thus, derailing the continuity of policies at the local chapter level).
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. (Note: This is the basis for the “chapter shopping” political tactic of the UP Sigma Rho Fraternity to maintain its political hold on the IBP national office, as discussed earlier).
Every IBP member may pay the mandatory dues annually or he may avail himself of the Lifetime Membership Plan, which I did in the 1990s.
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” (provided that the member has no outstanding accounts as of the time of his death). This Fund must be audited strictly. Unfortunately, the IBP national office and the IBP local chapters do not publish their annual financial statements.
Default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the IBP, 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. (Sec. 10).
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. Reinstatement may be made by the Court in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Court. (Sec. 11).
Sec. 12 of the Rule provides that 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”. However, “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”.
The IBP is, in theory, “strictly non-political” (Sec. 13). 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 IBP. Despite this rule, many politicians seek the psychological endorsement of IBP officials during election time to make a good impression among the voters; and many politicians seek IBP positions prior to an election as an additional impressive credential in their resumes. I acknowledge, though, that the IBP national board has tried its very best to maintain its neutrality except on national political issues that affect the rule of law and the justice system in the country.
Under Sec. 14 of the Rule, an IBP position is “honorary”. The rule is that, “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.”
I do not believe that this rule is being followed by the IBP national leaders to the letter. I know for a fact, based on my observations as former IBP chapter officer, that during the multifarious national conventions, seminars, and law events that the IBP holds nationwide and during national board meetings, the IBP directly or indirectly spends for the fares, rooms, meals, and other incidental expenses of the IBP national leaders and their cliques of law fraternity brothers and sisters form local chapters.
I am not sure how strict the Supreme Court and the Commission on Audit are in conducting annual audits and examinations, if any, of the funds that are remitted to the IBP national office by the SC, e.g., legal aid funds, special funds.
As to the local chapter funds, as far as I know, the SC and the COA do not audit such funds. There are many chapters with huge funds, running into a million pesos or more, such as my local chapter in the southern district of Metro Manila and the other rich cities in the country. The SC and the COA do not regularly audit these chapters, even by way of random spot audits of selected chapters per region. This inaction is and can be a source of graft and corruption.
The Board of Governors administers the funds of the IBP and has the power to make appropriations and disbursements therefrom. It is duty bound to cause the proper Books of Accounts to be kept and Financial Statements to be rendered. It must see to it that the “proper audit is made of all accounts of the IBP and all the Chapters thereof”. (Sec. 15).
The IBP Journal, which is mandated by Sec. 16 of the Rule, is not issued on time. It is delayed by six months to one year, sometimes even more. The chapters give them annually to the members when they pay their annual dues. They are not mailed directly to the members.
Under Sec. 17 of the Rule, “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.” The problem is that the IBP does not seem to morally and financially support the voluntary bar associations nationwide, especially its free legal aid projects, local bench and bar dialogues, and other activities, as is my experience in the case of the Las Pinas City Bar Association which I founded in March 2001.
The IBP does not consult the voluntary bar association on major policy and implementation issues and procedures. I have the feeling that the IBP national and local leaders distrusts the voluntary bar associations and their active, innovative and forthright leaders as their competitors, which is a baseless and stupid fear.
