Philippine's barangay justice system

For purposes of legal research of the visitors of this blog, digested below are the main recommendations contained in the “STUDY ON THE EFFICACY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM (KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY): FINAL REPORT” funded by the GERRY ROXAS FOUNDATION, released in March 2000, for the benefit of the Action Program for Judicial Reform of the Philippine Supreme Court, thus:

X x x.

7.0 Recommendations to Improve the BJS Implementaion

7.1 Training

Based on an assesment of training needs several training programs were recommended by the Lupon Chairman, Lupon Members, and Lupon Secretary

respondents:

(a) Procedures of settlement of barangay cases

(b) Mediation/Conciliation/Arbitration procedures

(c) KP Laws

(d) Administrative requirements of the KP Law

(e) Current updates of human right violation

(f) Classification of cases

(g) Procedure in organizing LT/Duties and Function of Lupon

Chairman/Member/Secretary.

Other training areas outside of KP system were also identified by the

implementors.

A number of respondents put high priority on Barangay Administration & Governance.

Additional training identified by the implementors based on their needs are:

(a) Operations and Management -

(b) Rental Law

(c) Public Administration

(d) Human Relations

(e) Children’s Rights

(f) Gender/Women’s Rights

(g) New Family Code

X x x.

7.2 Monitoring

Strengthening of the KP Monitoring System was also identified as a priority area

by implementors. Among the recommendations described to improve the monitoring system include: Funding support for KP Operations, designing a simplified form for reporting and strengthening of the KP Monitoring Unit.

7.3 Other Recommendations to Improve Overall Implementation of BJS

A major recommendation is to enhance advocacy activities on the KP and intensify information dissemination specially in the barangays. Another significant activity suggested by 22% of Barangay Chairman respondent is to require new law graduates to render assistance to the Barangay. Twenty (20) percent of Lupon Member respondents also recommend the provision of allowance to LT Members.

X x x.

PART III

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Metro Manila is a melting pot of the different cultures and traditions of the various

migrants that have poured into the area. Little wonder that the NCR research findings generally echo the findings elsewhere in the Philippines. Thus, in the areas where the BJS is functioning, the citizens look to it as their “court”, their avenue for their quest for justice in case of conflicts. This attests to the success, though not on a scale as envisioned, of the BJS to assist the judiciary in

declogging court dockets.

a. Need for more information. Significant is the need for information, by both the beneficiaries and the implementors, on the KP Law itself. The need notwithstanding, it is evident that barangay residents see the BJS as the venue for the settlement/resolution of conflicts, even before they even think of going to the formal judicial system for redress. The awareness that an avenue is available for conflict resolution stems not so much from knowledge of the law — both procedural and substantive, as from practical awareness of what is going in the barangay.

The historical root of the KP law finds itself alive today in the sense that the citizens feel part of a community, the barangay, that will help them settle conflicts

through its chief or barangay captain. The citizens are not only beneficiaries but also participants in the process of seeking justice, through the Lupon.

Although the essence of settlement on the barangay level does away with the

merits of the conflict, inevitably though, by the very nature of a conflict, the parties agree with a settlement only after they have been made aware and appraised of their rights and obligations as well as the breaches that led to the conflict. After all, justice, which to them is giving one what is due him, is anchored on the respect for one’s rights. This belief rationalizes the need for information of the both substantive and procedural law — to equip the barangay captains and the Lupon members on the basics of the law. In effect the barangay captain and/or the Lupon take on the complexion of a “parajudge”.

b. Lack of budgetary support

Mercenary as it sounds, considering that the heart of the BJS is the encouragement of citizen volunteerism, money plays a significant role in the determination of whether or not the BJS has succeeded or will succeed. Section

393 of the Local Government Code (1991) provides that Lupon members be compensated in accordance with a municipal or barangay ordinance Thus, while the barangay has the power and authority to provide financial support to the BJS, it does not.

c. The citizens support the BJS because it is accessible, conflicts are resolved/settled fast, and inexpensive.

Whatever support is given by the citizen is essentially moral. He avails himself of

the BJS; a tribute to the avowed purpose which the citizen trusts is fulfilled.

Basically, the citizen goes to the BJS for conflict resolution because it is accessible, physical proximity is thus not to be underestimated. Compared to case resolution in the courts, which take a short year or a long twenty years, BJS

conflict resolution takes a maximum of one month. Just as important is the expense involved. Barangays charge a minimum of P20.00 (if at all) though they are authorized to legislate a higher amount, i.e. P50.00. Nonetheless, compared to what the courts charge, the amount is very small, thus affordable to those who

need more in law — the disadvantaged.

d. Need to review the KP Law

d.1. The Lupon and the Pangkat

In an informal interview, it was found that one of the more successful barangays, insofar as the implementation of the BJS was concerned, adopted procedures that suited their perceived needs that did not conform with the provisions of law. The Lupon, made up of 20 members, were divided into 6 groups of three each, with 2 members as “roving”. When a complaint is filed, the barangay captain “raffles” it any one of the six “divisions” of the Lupon, which then proceeds to settle/resolve the case. The “division”, apparently the Pangkat is not constituted with the participation of the disputants.

This barangay claims to have a high success rate. It is suggested that a case study be conducted on this barangay to determine the effectivity of the method used. The results would provide information and inputs to whether or not the KP law should be amended and if so, with regards what provisions.

e. The court dockets are declogged.

The findings confirm the reports submitted to the DILG regarding the number of cases that do not find their way to the courts.

The court dockets are declogged.

The findings confirm the reports submitted to the DILG regarding the number of cases that do not find their way to the courts.

X x x.

Creating new courts; independence of Judiciary

In the Philippines, the creation of new courts or branches of a court in a town, city or province requires an act of Congress. The Supreme Court has no power under the Constitution to create new courts or branches of a court in such local government units because such an act would involve an appropriation of public funds, which only Congress can do under its constitutional “power of the purse”.

I believe it is time to amend the Constitution to grant the Supreme Court such a basic administrative and budgetary power to make more effective the people’s right of free access to the courts and to give true meaning to the constitutional doctrine of “independence of the judiciary”.

At any rate, for whatever research-related purpose it may serve, I digested below the latest case of BAI SANDRA S. A. SEMA vs. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008, which involves the issue of creation of legislative districts. It declared as unconstitutional a law which granted to the Autonomous Regional of Muslim Mindanao the implied power to create legislative districts, which, according to the Supreme Court, only Congress can exercise under is “plenary legislative powers”. Thus:

BAI SANDRA S. A. SEMA vs. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 177597, July 16, 2008

X x x.

Whether the ARMM Regional Assembly

Can Create the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan

The creation of local government units is governed by Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.

Thus, the creation of any of the four local government units – province, city, municipality or barangay – must comply with three conditions. First, the creation of a local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the Local Government Code. Second, such creation must not conflict with any provision of the Constitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected.

There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authority in the Constitution for Congress to delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the power to create local government units. However, under its plenary legislative powers, Congress can delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create local government units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict arises with any provision of the Constitution. In fact, Congress has delegated to provincial boards, and city and municipal councils, the power to create barangays within their jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code, and the plebiscite requirement in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution. However, under the Local Government Code, “only x x x an Act of Congress” can create provinces, cities or municipalities.

Under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, Congress delegated to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays within the ARMM. Congress made the delegation under its plenary legislative powers because the power to create local government units is not one of the express legislative powers granted by the Constitution to regional legislative bodies. In the present case, the question arises whether the delegation to the ARMM Regional Assembly of the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays conflicts with any provision of the Constitution.

There is no provision in the Constitution that conflicts with the delegation to regional legislative bodies of the power to create municipalities and barangays, provided Section 10, Article X of the Constitution is followed. However, the creation of provinces and cities is another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution provides, “Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative” in the House of Representatives. Similarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides, “Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member x x x.”

Clearly, a province cannot be created without a legislative district because it will violate Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. For the same reason, a city with a population of 250,000 or more cannot also be created without a legislative district. Thus, the power to create a province, or a city with a population of 250,000 or more, requires also the power to create a legislative district. Even the creation of a city with a population of less than 250,000 involves the power to create a legislative district because once the city’s population reaches 250,000, the city automatically becomes entitled to one representative under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Thus, the power to create a province or city inherently involves the power to create a legislative district.

For Congress to delegate validly the power to create a province or city, it must also validly delegate at the same time the power to create a legislative district. The threshold issue then is, can Congress validly delegate to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create legislative districts for the House of Representatives? The answer is in the negative.

Legislative Districts are Created or Reapportioned

Only by an Act of Congress

Under the present Constitution, as well as in past Constitutions, the power to increase the allowable membership in the House of Representatives, and to reapportion legislative districts, is vested exclusively in Congress. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:

SECTION 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

x x x x

(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.

(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 5 (1), Article VI of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to increase, through a law, the allowable membership in the House of Representatives. Section 5 (4) empowers Congress to reapportion legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative districts necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of existing ones. Congress exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a law that regional or local legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of Congress can be created, only through a national law passed by Congress. In Montejo v. COMELEC, we held that the “power of redistricting x x x is traditionally regarded as part of the power (of Congress) to make laws,” and thus is vested exclusively in Congress.

This textual commitment to Congress of the exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical. Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbent membership through the creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. Only Congress can enact such a law. It would be anomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a national legislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior legislative body, cannot change the membership of the superior legislative body.

The creation of the ARMM, and the grant of legislative powers to its Regional Assembly under its organic act, did not divest Congress of its exclusive authority to create legislative districts. This is clear from the Constitution and the ARMM Organic Act, as amended. Thus, Section 20, Article X of the Constitution provides:

SECTION 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:

(1) Administrative organization;

(2) Creation of sources of revenues;

(3) Ancestral domain and natural resources;

(4) Personal, family, and property relations;

(5) Regional urban and rural planning development;

(6) Economic, social, and tourism development;

(7) Educational policies;

(8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and

(9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.

Nothing in Section 20, Article X of the Constitution authorizes autonomous regions, expressly or impliedly, to create or reapportion legislative districts for Congress.

On the other hand, Section 3, Article IV of RA 9054 amending the ARMM Organic Act, provides, “The Regional Assembly may exercise legislative power x x x except on the following matters: x x x (k) National elections. x x x.” Since the ARMM Regional Assembly has no legislative power to enact laws relating to national elections, it cannot create a legislative district whose representative is elected in national elections. Whenever Congress enacts a law creating a legislative district, the first representative is always elected in the “next national elections” from the effectivity of the law.

Indeed, the office of a legislative district representative to Congress is a national office, and its occupant, a Member of the House of Representatives, is a national official. It would be incongruous for a regional legislative body like the ARMM Regional Assembly to create a national office when its legislative powers extend only to its regional territory. The office of a district representative is maintained by national funds and the salary of its occupant is paid out of national funds. It is a self-evident inherent limitation on the legislative powers of every local or regional legislative body that it can only create local or regional offices, respectively, and it can never create a national office.

To allow the ARMM Regional Assembly to create a national office is to allow its legislative powers to operate outside the ARMM’s territorial jurisdiction. This violates Section 20, Article X of the Constitution which expressly limits the coverage of the Regional Assembly’s legislative powers “[w]ithin its territorial jurisdiction x x x.”

The ARMM Regional Assembly itself, in creating Shariff Kabunsuan, recognized the exclusive nature of Congress’ power to create or reapportion legislative districts by abstaining from creating a legislative district for Shariff Kabunsuan. Section 5 of MMA Act 201 provides that:

Except as may be provided by national law, the existing legislative district, which includes Cotabato City as a part thereof, shall remain. (Emphasis supplied)

However, a province cannot legally be created without a legislative district because the Constitution mandates that “each province shall have at least one representative.” Thus, the creation of the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan without a legislative district is unconstitutional.

x x x.

First. The issue in Felwa, among others, was whether Republic Act No. 4695 (RA 4695), creating the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, and Kalinga-Apayao and providing for congressional representation in the old and new provinces, was unconstitutional for “creati[ng] congressional districts without the apportionment provided in the Constitution.” The Court answered in the negative, thus:

The Constitution ordains:

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than one hundred and twenty Members who shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, but each province shall have at least one Member. The Congress shall by law make an apportionment within three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise. Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House of Representatives shall have the same number of Members as that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified electors from the present Assembly districts. Each representative district shall comprise as far as practicable, contiguous and compact territory.”

Pursuant to this Section, a representative district may come into existence: (a) indirectly, through the creation of a province — for “each province shall have at least one member” in the House of Representatives; or (b) by direct creation of several representative districts within a province. The requirements concerning the apportionment of representative districts and the territory thereof refer only to the second method of creation of representative districts, and do not apply to those incidental to the creation of provinces, under the first method. This is deducible, not only from the general tenor of the provision above quoted, but, also, from the fact that the apportionment therein alluded to refers to that which is made by an Act of Congress. Indeed, when a province is created by statute, the corresponding representative district, comes into existence neither by authority of that statute — which cannot provide otherwise — nor by apportionment, but by operation of the Constitution, without a reapportionment.

There is no constitutional limitation as to the time when, territory of, or other conditions under which a province may be created, except, perhaps, if the consequence thereof were to exceed the maximum of 120 representative districts prescribed in the Constitution, which is not the effect of the legislation under consideration. As a matter of fact, provinces have been created or subdivided into other provinces, with the consequent creation of additional representative districts, without complying with the aforementioned requirements. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the Court sustained the constitutionality of RA 4695 because (1) it validly created legislative districts “indirectly” through a special law enacted by Congress creating a province and (2) the creation of the legislative districts will not result in breaching the maximum number of legislative districts provided under the 1935 Constitution. Felwa does not apply to the present case because in Felwa the new provinces were created by a national law enacted by Congress itself. Here, the new province was created merely by a regional law enacted by the ARMM Regional Assembly.

What Felwa teaches is that the creation of a legislative district by Congress does not emanate alone from Congress’ power to reapportion legislative districts, but also from Congress’ power to create provinces which cannot be created without a legislative district. Thus, when a province is created, a legislative district is created by operation of the Constitution because the Constitution provides that “each province shall have at least one representative” in the House of Representatives. This does not detract from the constitutional principle that the power to create legislative districts belongs exclusively to Congress. It merely prevents any other legislative body, except Congress, from creating provinces because for a legislative body to create a province such legislative body must have the power to create legislative districts. In short, only an act of Congress can trigger the creation of a legislative district by operation of the Constitution. Thus, only Congress has the power to create, or trigger the creation of, a legislative district.

Moreover, if as Sema claims MMA Act 201 apportioned a legislative district to Shariff Kabunsuan upon its creation, this will leave Cotabato City as the lone component of the first legislative district of Maguindanao. However, Cotabato City cannot constitute a legislative district by itself because as of the census taken in 2000, it had a population of only 163,849. To constitute Cotabato City alone as the surviving first legislative district of Maguindanao will violate Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution which requires that “[E]ach city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand x x x, shall have at least one representative.”

Second. Sema’s theory also undermines the composition and independence of the House of Representatives. Under Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, the ARMM Regional Assembly can create provinces and cities within the ARMM with or without regard to the criteria fixed in Section 461 of RA 7160, namely: minimum annual income of P20,000,000, and minimum contiguous territory of 2,000 square kilometers or minimum population of 250,000. The following scenarios thus become distinct possibilities:

(1) An inferior legislative body like the ARMM Regional Assembly can create 100 or more provinces and thus increase the membership of a superior legislative body, the House of Representatives, beyond the maximum limit of 250 fixed in the Constitution (unless a national law provides otherwise);

(2) The proportional representation in the House of Representatives based on one representative for at least every 250,000 residents will be negated because the ARMM Regional Assembly need not comply with the requirement in Section 461(a)(ii) of RA 7160 that every province created must have a population of at least 250,000; and

(3) Representatives from the ARMM provinces can become the majority in the House of Representatives through the ARMM Regional Assembly’s continuous creation of provinces or cities within the ARMM.

X x x.

Neither the framers of the 1987 Constitution in adopting the provisions in Article X on regional autonomy, nor Congress in enacting RA 9054, envisioned or intended these disastrous consequences that certainly would wreck the tri-branch system of government under our Constitution. Clearly, the power to create or reapportion legislative districts cannot be delegated by Congress but must be exercised by Congress itself. Even the ARMM Regional Assembly recognizes this.

The Constitution empowered Congress to create or reapportion legislative districts, not the regional assemblies. Section 3 of the Ordinance to the Constitution which states, “[A]ny province that may hereafter be created x x x shall be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member,” refers to a province created by Congress itself through a national law. The reason is that the creation of a province increases the actual membership of the House of Representatives, an increase that only Congress can decide. Incidentally, in the present 14^th Congress, there are 219 district representatives out of the maximum 250 seats in the House of Representatives. Since party-list members shall constitute 20 percent of total membership of the House, there should at least be 50 party-list seats available in every election in case 50 party-list candidates are proclaimed winners. This leaves only 200 seats for district representatives, much less than the 219 incumbent district representatives. Thus, there is a need now for Congress to increase by law the allowable membership of the House, even before Congress can create new provinces.

It is axiomatic that organic acts of autonomous regions cannot prevail over the Constitution. Section 20, Article X of the Constitution expressly provides that the legislative powers of regional assemblies are limited “[w]ithin its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of the Constitution and national laws, x x x.” The Preamble of the ARMM Organic Act (RA 9054) itself states that the ARMM Government is established “within the framework of the Constitution.” This follows Section 15, Article X of the Constitution which mandates that the ARMM “shall be created x x x within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.”

The present case involves the creation of a local government unit that necessarily involves also the creation of a legislative district. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of the creation of municipalities and barangays that does not comply with the criteria established in Section 461 of RA 7160, as mandated in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, because the creation of such municipalities and barangays does not involve the creation of legislative districts. We leave the resolution of this issue to an appropriate case.

In summary, we rule that Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and cities, is void for being contrary to Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Only Congress can create provinces and cities because the creation of provinces and cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts, a power only Congress can exercise under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. The ARMM Regional Assembly cannot create a province without a legislative district because the Constitution mandates that every province shall have a legislative district. Moreover, the ARMM Regional Assembly cannot enact a law creating a national office like the office of a district representative of Congress because the legislative powers of the ARMM Regional Assembly operate only within its territorial jurisdiction as provided in Section 20, Article X of the Constitution. Thus, we rule that MMA Act 201, enacted by the ARMM Regional Assembly and creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, is void.

Resolution No. 7902 Complies with the Constitution

Consequently, we hold that COMELEC Resolution No. 7902, preserving the geographic and legislative district of the First District of Maguindanao with Cotabato City, is valid as it merely complies with Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 1 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution.

X x x.

Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.

LCM LAW, Las Pinas City, Philippines
lcmlaw@gmail.com

Las Pinas City lawyers

HISTORICAL PROFILE

OF THE LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION (LPBA), INC.

(Updated as of July 21, 2008)[1]

1. General Membership Profile

We now have 100 members. In March 2001 we started with about 35 members.

About 10 members are from the Rotary Club of Las Pinas City, some of whom are either incumbent or past presidents thereof, led by Atty. Antonio Manzano (incumbent chairman), Atty. Dick Funk (past president and past chairman), Atty. Johnny Vinculado, Atty. Daniel Lacuata, et. al.

The members with the highest number of recruits are Atty. Rolly Cayton (past vice chairman), Atty. Antonio Manzano, Atty. Marlin Velasco (past president), and Atty, Dick Funk.

The past chairman, Hon. Magdangal de Leon, is now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.

The same is true with the past secretary, Hon. Arcangelita Lontok, who was appointed to the Court of Appeals a few months after that of Hon. Magdangal de Leon. (She is the widow of Fiscal Pacifico Lontok, a founding member and past PRO).

Hon. Patria de Leon -- a founding member, a former solicitor, and wife of Hon. Magdangal de Leon -- was appointed RTC Judge of Muntinlupa City a few months after the appointment of Hon. Magdangal de Leon and Hon. Arcangelita Lontok.

Hon. Napoleon Monsod -- a founding director, former state prosecutor and past director -- is now the MTC Judge of Gen. Trias, Cavite.

Hon. Magdangal de Leon, Hon. Arcangelita Lontok, Hon. Patria de Leon, and Hon. Napoleon Monsod served as judicial advisers of the LPBA.

Asst. City Prosecutor Danny Uy is a founding member. Now assigned in Muntinlupa City, he served as a director and PRO of the association.

Assistant City Prosecutor Cynthia Luang joined as a member in October 2002 upon invitation of Hon. Magdangal de Leon. In February 2007, she was promoted as the Chief City Prosecutor of Las Pinas City.

Three members were RTC branch clerks of court, namely, Atty. Edgar Allan Morante (RTC Branch 275), Atty. Roberto Garcia (RTC Branch 254), and Atty. Evangeline Tiongson (formerly with RTC 253 Las Pinas City; now with RTC Muntinlupa City).

The past IBP national president Atty. Arthur D. Lim is a founding member and an adviser of LPBA. His daughter Atty. Victoria Lim, a young lawyer, is a member of LPBA. They are the lead lawyers of Sulpicio Lines.

The Corporate Secretary and Chief Legal Counsel of PAGCOR, Atty. Carlos Bautista (past IBP PPLM chapter president), and the past IBP Southern Luzon Governor, Atty. Angel Gonzalez (deceased), were founding members and served as advisers.

Two law-focused families are members, namely, the Lontok Family (Fiscal Pacifico Lontok and Atty. Arcangelita Lontok) composed of the Lontok couple, the Lontok sisters and a niece, and the Uy Family (Fiscal Danny Uy) composed of the father, a son and a daughter in law.

A director of the IBP Cavite Chapter, Atty. Pampilo Encarnacion, is a founding director, past vice president, and past treasurer of the LPBA. He is the incumbent vice chairman.

A director of the IBP Catanduanes Chapter, Atty. Marlin Velasco (past president of the Pilar Village Homeowners Association Inc.), is a founding director and past president of the LPBA.

A Comelec legal officer, Atty. Judy Lorenzo, is a founding member.

The former Chief Accountant and consultant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Asian Development Bank and other private banks, Atty. Purita Fajilan, is a founding member, past auditor of the LPBA and incumbent president. She is married to Atty. Jovencio Fajilan, CPA, a founding director, past treasurer, and past auditor.

There are three law-centered couples who are founding members, namely, the Spouses Magdangal de Leon and Patria de Leon, the Spouses Pacifico Lontok (deceased) and Arcangelita Lontok, and the Spouses Jovencio and Purita Fajilan. Atty. Pete Diwa (founding member) recruited his wife Mrs. Liza Diwa (who helped run his law office) as a founding associate member.

The former register of deeds of Las Pinas City, Atty. Corazon Chavez, is a founding director of the LPBA.

The most senior member is Atty. Teodoro Bernardo, of FEU Law Class 1950. For health reasons, he is unable to attend our activities regularly.

Former city councilor Berlin de la Cruz is a founding member.

We have two engineer lawyers, namely, Atty. Jess Sirios (PEZA deputy administrator and past PRO) and Atty. Melvyn Lagasca (past president).

We have two vice presidents of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corp., namely, Atty. Rustico Cacal (retired) and Atty. Daniel Lacuata.

A founding member works with the Sandiganbayan, Atty. Pamela Uy (daughter in law of Fiscal Danny Uy).

We have five (5) CPA lawyers, namely, Atty. Myrna Mercader, Ph.D.(co-convenor/co-founder, past treasurer, past vice chairperson, and past chairperson of the LPBA and past treasurer and past auditor of the IBP PPLM Chapter); Atty. Jovencio Fajilan (past treasurer and past auditor); his wife Atty. Purita Fajilan (incumbent president); Atty. Luzviminda Zuniga (who works under CA Associate Justice A. Lontok); and Atty. Corazon Figuerres (incumbent treasurer and a retired Central Bank officer).

A former chief legal counsel of the DPWH is a founding member, Atty. Oscar Abundo.

A former chief legal counsel of the PCSO is a founding member, Atty. Romy Liggayu.

A former customs collector of Cebu City is a founding director, Atty. Rod Barriga(deceased).

A former NBI special prosecutor served as the founding chairman, Atty. Mar Reyes (now inactive in the association).

The first law student who joined the LPBA as a non-voting associate member was Atty. Felix Sayago (incumbent assistant treasurer and past secretary). He is a former management executive of the Cultural Center of the Philippines.

The latest law student who joined the association as an associate member was Mrs. Machelle Laserna-Adricula (daughter of Atty. Manuel Laserna).

We encourage the law students of the College of Law of the Univ. of Perpetual Help Rizal located in our city to join as associate members. It is the only law school in our city.

About 25% of the membership is made up of female lawyers.

About 20% of the members are past or current professors of law or professors of business in various law schools and business schools.

Model for Other Voluntary Bar Associations

Founded on March 21, 2001 (organizational meeting at the Nature Cafe, Mary Immaculate Parish Church, Moonwalk Village, Las Pinas City), the LPBA was officially registered with the SEC as a non-stock, non-profit corporate law NGO in 2002, after a year of interim operation. Copies of its incorporation papers had been provided the Supreme Court, the IBP national office, the IBP PPLM Chapter, and the city government, for the record.

The LPBA convenors, Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr. and Atty. Myrna Mercader, had served the IBP PPLM Chapter from 1995 to 2007 in various capacities. Atty. Laserna served as the vice president of the chapter from 2005 to 2007 while Atty. Mercader served as its auditor for the said term.

The LPBA, thru its board and concerned committees, actively initiated the annual bench and bar dialogues and MCLE seminars in Las Pinas City from 2001 to 2007 in cooperation with the Executive Judges, the City Representative, the City Mayor, the Association of Barangay Chairmen, the City Chief of Police, the City Jail Warden, the City Social Services and Development Officer, and the City Post Master.

The LPBA is an accredited MCLE service provider since 2001.

It had served as the official model for the creation of the PARANAQUE CITY BAR ASSOCIATON and the MUNTINLUPA CITY BAR ASSOCIATION. Atty. Laserna and Atty. Mercader helped organized the two associations in 2006 following the incorporation papers and the vision of the LPBA.

2. Linkages with the Local Judiciary and the Supreme Court and Philippine Judicial Academy

In April 2001 and 2005, Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. administered the oaths of office of the directors and officers of the LPBA at his office. In July 2008 the incumbent Chief Justice Reynato Puno administered the oaths of office of the incumbent Board. In 2006, SC Senior Assoc. Justice Leonardo Quisumbing administered the oaths of office of the Board (term of past chairman Atty. Dick Funk). CA Assoc. Justice Magdangal de Leon and MTC Judge Nap Monsod also had the occasion in the past to administer the oaths of office of the past Boards.

The past and present Chief Justices of the Supreme Court were regularly provided with copies of the monthly digests of the resolutions and actions of the LPBA board for his information (cc: Executive Judges, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Representative, IBP local and national offices).

The LPBA maintains close ties with the courts and judges of the city, led by the past and present RTC Executive Judges, who served as judicial advisers of the association.

The LPBA had worked closely with past RTC Exec. Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda on the planning and implementation of his proposed 180-Day EXPRESS COURT SYSTEM in the city since last year, and Atty. Laserna, Atty. Mercader, Atty. Lontok, Fiscal Lontok, Atty. Cayton and Atty. Funk had attended various meetings with the judges of the city and/or the officials of the Philippine Judicial Academy, led by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Ameurfina Herrera, on the said project (now being experimented among the courts of Pasay City).

Atty. Manuel Laserna and Atty. Dick Funk attended the 2007 national summit on extrajudicial killings launched by the Supreme Court upon invitation of the Chief Justice Reynato Puno, which was recognition of the importance placed upon the association by the highest tribunal.

3. Free Legal Aid Project

The past pilot phase of the joint LPBA-Rotary Club Weekly Free Legal Aid and Consultation Project is being implemented by the committee on free legal aid headed by Atty. Antonio Manzano, who is also a leader of the Rotary Club of the city. He provided free legal advice to indigent resident of our city.

Atty. Melvyn Lagasca (past president) and Atty. Marlin Velasco (past president) had served as heads of the committee on free legal aid, which provided free litigation assistance to indigent litigants in criminal cases. The Board designated interim volunteer trial lawyers for each branch of the RTC and the MTC during the past term of Atty. Lagasca and Atty. Velasco in the said committee. (There is a need to continue the said project on a per sala basis, now and in the future).

During the term of Atty. Manuel Laserna as vice president of the IBP chapter2005-2007), the chapter allotted an item for one free legal aid lawyer for our city, but for lack of interested applicants willing to make sacrifices in terms of minimal compensation, the said position did not materialize. Although the local chapter had allotted a small amount per quarter to reimburse the minor expenses of our volunteer legal aid lawyers, the same was not availed of because the law offices of our volunteer lawyers shouldered such expenses as an act of charity and compassion. (

From time to time the IBP chapter referred free legal aid cases to the LPBA committee on free legal aid for local assistance then headed by Atty. Lagasca and Atty. Velasco.

4. Other Legal Advocacies

The committee on legal research and publications, headed by Atty. Rod Barriga (deceased), had previously piloted the publication of the LPBA Law Digests. It is a project that we hope to continue, given enough funds and staff to implement the same.

The LPBA submits position papers to Congress in connection with pending bills related to the rule of law, legal education, litigation, justice system, human rights and other legal issues.

It had manifested its readiness to the City Council to attend its sessions or hearings on local legislation that affect the rule of law, justice system, human rights and other legal issues affecting the city. It has likewise offered to the City Council and the Mayor its willingness to serve in the Local Development Council as mandated by the Local Government Code. So far, no response has been given by the local officials on the said matter.

The association had recommended to the City Council and the Mayor to study the possibility of codifying all major city ordinances with penal, tax and other significant legal implications to the local populace and to explore the idea of expanding the city-funded Aguilar College into the Las Pinas City University with its own College of Law. So far, the local officials have not made any response thereto.

Atty. Manuel Laserna has made a public stand for the government to study the idea of privatizing the management of all national and local jails in the country as is being done in developed countries and for the Chief Justice to study the idea of withdrawing as a member of the Judicial, Executive and Legislative Advisory Council (JELAC) on the ground of ethics, political propriety, and conflict of interest.

In behalf of the association, Atty. Laserna has written law articles on various law topics in the student organ of the College of Law of the Univ. of Perpetual Help Rizal and in the nationally circulated Lawyers Review.

This year, upon request of RTC 200 Judge Bonifacio Maceda, Atty. Manuel Laserna, Atty. Myrna Mercader and Atty. Purita Fajilan are extending free legal advice to the National Association of Electric Consumers for Reform (Nasecore), headed by its president Mr. Pete Ilagan, who has initiated various legal actions against the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) for the protection of the electric consumers under existing laws and rules being administrated by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).

5. Website

The LPBA maintains a message board at http://groups.msn.com/laspinascitybarassociation. It contains law news and other latest law materials for the benefit of the members and the general public. It encourages active exchanges of legal information and commentaries among local and foreign lawyers. All members are encouraged to visit and join it and to post their materials and messages on its eBoard.

6. MCLE

The LPBA was the 23^rd MCLE service provider that was duly accredited nationwide by the Supreme Committee on MCLE in 2001.

It has sponsored MCLE seminars, workshops, lectures, and dialogues or panel discussion from 2001 to 2006.

It had invited speakers from the local judiciary, the law academe, and from among its members.

Every board meeting, the board is provided with copies of the latest Supreme Court circulars, digests of recent Supreme Court decisions, and other recent law materials, for notation and discussion.

As a rule every other month, a law lecture is held by the association for the benefit of its members. It invites respected lecturers on the assigned law topics. It encourages its own members, many of whom are law professors, civil leaders, and business persons to serve as lecturers. Some of its members who have delivered such lectures were Atty. Manuel Laserna, Atty. Myrna Mercader, former chairman Atty. Dick Funk, former Pros. Hilda Clave, and former vice chairman Atty. Rolly Cayton.

Some local judges had likewise delivered law lectures to the members in the past, e.g. retired Exec. Judge Manuel Fernandez, RTC 255 Judge Raul Villanueva (incumbent president of the Las Pinas City Judges Association, vice president of the Philippine Judges Association, and a nominee to the Court of Appeals and the Judicial Excellence Award), RTC 199 Judge Joselito Vibandor (nominee to the Judicial Excellence Award and who recently opened the city jail library as his personal project), RTC 254 Judge Gloria Aglugub, and RTC 275 Judge Bonifacio Maceda (past Exec. Judge and past nominee to the Judicial Excellence Award).

Other local judges participated in the previous bench and bar dialogues of our city, which also served as MCLE seminars, e.g., RTC 200 Judge Leopoldo Baraquia (incumbent Exec. Judge and nominee to the Judicial Excellence Award), RTC 198 Judge Erlinda Alvaro (a nominee to the Judicial Excellence Award), MTC 79 Pres. Judge Marjorie Nolasco (who actively visits the city jail on a regular basis to conduct dialogues with the detention prisoners and declog the jail), and RTC 255 Judge Raul Villanueva.

Supreme Court Assoc. Justice Presbitero Velasco (former Court Administrator) visited the association and delivered a lecture during the 2005 bench and bar dialogue and MCLEgarden of Sen. Manuel Villar and Rep. Cynthia Villar at BF Resort Village, Las Pinas City. held at the

7. Free Legal Advice to Members

and Professional Networking Among Members

The LPBA provides collective pro bono legal advice to members who face pending cases in court or in other tribunals.

Where necessary, it issues public statements on points of law and procedure regarding pending cases against its members and other public issues affecting law and justice.

It also encourages continuing in-house professional networking and exchanges among the members to improve their respective law practice.

8. Socials

The LPBA sponsors Christmas parties and other socials for special occasions since 2001. It invites judges, prosecutors and representatives from the pillars of the local justice system to attend the same.

10. IBP Reforms

The LPBA has initiated a mass signature campaign in March 2007 to persuade the Supreme Court and the IBP National Board to introduce institutional reforms and amendments to Rule 139-A (“IBP”) and the IBP By-Laws, particularly with respect to the reorganization of local chapters in Metro Manila and Southern Luzon Region and the strengthening of the IBP House of Delegates as the voice of the lawyers. It is covered by Bar Matter 1696 which is still pending in the Supreme Court.

Atty. Manuel Laserna, in his capacity as a former delegate to the 2006 House of Delegates of the IBP, has suggested to the IBP national office various reforms in the programs and activities of the House to make it a more effective deliberative body representing the voice of the Filipino lawyers nationwide.

9. The Future

The LPBA created local history when it was formed in March 2001. It was the first time that the city had formally organized its local Bar.

We aspire to become an independent IBP city chapter.

The Supreme Court and the IBP appreciate the role of voluntary bar associations to help them in the delivery of its support services to lawyers and the general public.

Voluntary bar associations are partners of the local judiciary and of the other pillars of the local justice system in upholding the rule of law and in dispensing justice to the people.

They should be seen by local government officials as partners (not as adversaries) in local development and community empowerment.

Even as we strive to unify ourselves as a strong and professional voluntary local Bar association, we must aspire to self-police ourselves and to mutually assist each other to improve our professional knowledge and skills and elevate our ethical standards as independent-minded, courageous, competent and honest advocates of the law, truth, freedom and justice.

The people look up to us as their advisers, guides, models, and inspirations.

Let us not fail them.

Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA), Inc.

c/o Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices

Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Star Ave.

Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City

Tel/Fax 8742539, 8725443, 9064309

URL - http://groups.msn.com/laspinascitybarassociation

Email - lcmlaw@gmail.com

---

[1] Prepared by Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr., Convenor/Founder, Founding President, and Past Chairman of the LPBA. Assisted by Atty. Myrna C. Mercader, Co-Convenor/Co-Founder, Past President, and Past Chairperson.