See - BusinessWorld | Immigration, visas and pointless red tape
"x x x .
In the landmark case of Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava, the director of the then Philippine Patent Office required duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar to take a separate examination covering patent law and jurisprudence, as well as the relevant rules of procedure, in order to practice before the office. The Philippine Lawyer’s Association filed a petition for prohibition and injunction against the director and argued that any person who has passed the bar examinations, licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines, and who is in good standing is already qualified to practice law before the Philippine Patent Office.
In interpreting what constitutes the practice of law, the Supreme Court explained how the practice of law goes beyond the conduct of cases or litigation in regular courts and expanded the archaic definition to include any work done which involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.
The Supreme Court further stressed that it has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.
Hence, any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law anywhere and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, within the Philippines.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Philippine Lawyer’s Association and struck down the separate authorization requirement of the Philippine Patent Office.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court again characterized what constitutes “practice of law” in Cayetano v. Monsod. Following the teachings of legal luminaries from foreign jurisdictions, among others, the Supreme Court held that the practice of law covers any activity, in and out of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
In particular, the Supreme Court explained that to engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession; to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
Based on all these, one can easily conclude that a lawyer’s appearance before the Bureau of Immigration does not need further accreditation, since such an appearance already constitutes the practice of law.
First, although the transactions with the Bureau of Immigration are generally limited to administrative and procedural matters, all the policies, orders and decisions of the immigration commissioner and his authorized representatives still have to be rendered in accordance with the Philippine Immigration Act and other related laws.
Second, the practice before the Bureau of Immigration necessarily requires the interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles.
Third, the immigration commissioner and his officers exercise quasi-judicial functions.
Clearly, the members of the Philippine Bar, with their legal knowledge and training, should be allowed to practice before the bureau without any other qualification.
The bureau should be commended for its efforts in ensuring that only highly qualified and trustworthy representatives will be allowed to engage in immigration matters. Still, in light of the categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court on this matter, the bureau should revisit its accreditation policy for law offices and lawyers.
As explained in a long line of cases by the Supreme Court, the practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is an extraordinary privilege bestowed only on those who are intellectually, academically and morally qualified.
Therefore, the exercise of this privilege already presupposes possession of utmost integrity, legal acumen, educational achievement, and likewise public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court.
Certainly, membership in the Philippine Bar should be sufficient “accreditation” for any lawyer to appear before the bureau.
Marco Gregorio L. Lainez is an associate of the Immigration Department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).
mglainez@accralaw.com
x x x."
