The history of the mandatory Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) started in 1973 when the Philippine Supreme Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, ordained the integration of the Bar of the Philippines, effective on January 16, 1973. (See: IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, En Banc, January 9, 1973).
Prior to that, the Philippine Congress had passed R.A. No. 6397, entitled "An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor", which took effect on September 17, 1971 and took effect on the same day as Rep. Act 6397. It provided that within two years from its approval, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit “in order to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively”.
Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. It was envisioned “to foster cohesion among lawyers and ensure the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession”.
The Court declared that the guiding principle of the integration of the Bar was “the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court”.
The objectives of an integrated Bar were:
(1) Assist in the administration of justice;
(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity, learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;
(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information relating thereto;
(6) Encourage and foster legal education;
(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon; and
(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively.
It was hoped that the integration of the Bar would make it possible for the legal profession to:
(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of Law;
(2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of tyrannical judges and prosecuting officers;
(3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the disciplining and/or removal of incompetent and unworthy judges and prosecuting officers;
(4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself except within its own forum, from the assaults that politics and self-interest may level at it, and assist it to maintain its integrity, impartiality and independence;
(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and prosecuting officers;
(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break up any monopoly of local practice maintained through influence or position;
(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased lawyers;
(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid offices and set up lawyer reference services throughout the country so that the poor may not lack competent legal service;
(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that are difficult to obtain in many of our provinces;
(10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal education for practising attorneys in order to elevate the standards of the profession throughout the country;
(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate minimum fees schedules;
(12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal research;
(13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal rights and obligations, on the importance of preventive legal advice, and on the functions and duties of the Filipino lawyer; and
(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful country-wide involvement of the lawyer population in the solution of the multifarious problems that afflict the nation.
The Court held that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, "to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law."
Further, the Court stressed the following principles:
1. Courts have the inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.
2. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover, clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation; and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State, the administration of justice, as an officer of the court.
3. Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is fair and just that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
4. These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective action; but there can be no collective action without an organized body; no organized body can operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.
According to the Court, to compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is “not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate (or the corollary right not to associate).”
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar “when he passed the Bar examinations”. The Court added, “All that integration actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member”.
Trying to pacify the minds of oppositionists to an integrated bar, the Court held that Bar integration “does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone”. He is free “to attend or not attend the meetings” of his Integrated Bar Chapter or “vote or refuse to vote” in its elections as he chooses. “The body compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues”, the Court clarified.
Unfortunately, the Court made a risky statement, thus: “Membership in the Unified Bar imposes only the duty to pay dues in reasonable amount”, i.e., “a compelled financial support of group activities, not involuntary membership in any other aspect”.
It stated further that such compulsion was “justified as an exercise of the police power of the State”.
It stressed that “the inherent power of the Supreme Court to regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate the Bar”, the Court added.
It qualified that the annual membership dues are not a tax, the Court stated. A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an “exaction for regulation”, while the purpose of a tax is “revenue”.
The Court also stressed, thus: “A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on any subject in any manner he wishes, even though such views be opposed to positions taken by the Unified Bar”.
Citing the experience of England, Canada, and the United States, the Court dismissed the fears of many at the time that in the event of integration, “Government authority will dominate the Bar”; that “local Bar associations will be weakened”; that “cliquism will be the inevitable result”; that “effective lobbying will not be possible”; that “the Bar will become an impersonal Bar”; and “politics will intrude into its affairs.”
The Court stated that in a national poll its commission on bar integration had conducted, of a total of 15,090 lawyers from all over the archipelago who have turned in their individual responses, 96.45% voted in favor of Bar integration, while only 2.51% voted against it, and 1.04% were non-commital.
The Court further stated that a total of 80 local Bar associations all over the Philippines had submitted resolutions of unqualified endorsement and/or support for Bar integration. It added that of the 13,802 individual lawyers who cast their plebiscite ballots on the proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission, 93.14% voted in favor thereof, 4.80% vote against it, and 2.06% were non-committal. All
(Note: I will comment in my future blogs on how effective [or useless] has the IBP been since its birth in 1973 in fulfilling its above-stated mandates).
