On "re-electing" Erap

Sometimes, all it takes is looking twice.

The present debate on the Erap question has reached the halls of public opinion as the former President Joseph Estrada tried to test the waters over the Constitutional prohibition on reelection. Hence, to better understand the problem, it is important to analyze the Constitutional provision in it plainest and simplest language.

The 1987 Constitution has provided this provision regarding the case of electing a President:

"Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected."

This particular section provides for the manner of electing a President. At the onset, the provision states that "The President x x x shall be elected x x x." Hence, as in basic sentence construction, this provision is intended to a person who, under the law, has qualified, ran and eventually ELECTED as PRESIDENT. It did not distinguish whether it is the incumbent or the past President. In my personal opinion, the Constitution need not distinguish the same, as the provision was meant to apply to ANY person who was elected as President.

Therefore, the succeeding contentious statement "The President shall not be eligible for any reelection," should be easier to understand. The President who was elected under the circumstances of the previous provision shall not be eligible for ANY REELECTION. To completely appreciate the value of the word "any" it is important to view the deliberation of the 1986 Constitutional Commission when the proposals for the term of office of the President was debated upon.

According to the revered Father Joaquin Bernas, SJ, a noted constitutionalist, the word "any," which appeared twice in the provision, is a victory of the absolutists in the Commission who preferred that any person who was elected as President would no longer have the chance to be re-elected again, in any circumstances. As proof of such unanimous triumph is its repetition in the succeeding statement, though not intended for the elected President but to a person who has "x x x succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years x x x," when it provides that the said person "shall not be qualified to the same office any time." Therefore, the intention of the members of the Commission can be clearly gleaned, as a magnanimous affirmation of a single term President.

Thus, when the provision was drafted, the framers intended no less that we shall have but a person, elected by the sovereign people and vested with such mandate, serve a single term of six years. It is therefore a make or break scenario. When Erap was elected in 1998, on his shoulders was laden the people's trust. Sad to say, he was not able to finish such term, because those gathered at EDSA in 2001 ousted him from power, aside from the fact that he was deemed resigned by the Supreme Court in the cases of Estrada v. Arroyo and Estrada v. Disierto. He missed his shot at history and only history now can judge him.

But as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is clear. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distiguere debemos. When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.

And for Erap, all I can say is dura lex, sed lex.

Erap to run as President in 2010

"This is the last performance of my life."

Erap formally declared and swore, that he will run as President in the 2010 Election, under the party of PDP-Laban, Partido ng Masang Pilipino and United Opposition. He made this announcement in front of thousands of cheering supporters at Plaza Hernandez in Tondo, Manila.

He also announced that Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay shall be his running mate as Vice-President. He also announced his senatorial slate, which includes Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, Congressman Teddy Boy Locsin, Congressman Bongbong Marcos, General Danny Lim, Mr. Joey de Venecia, Mr. Koko Pimentel and two guest candidates, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and Congressman Ompong Plaza.

I shall make my legal comment later.

22 October 2009
Click to read my legal comment.

Semper fidelis

I am forever yours, faithfully...


Faithfully – Journey Music Code

Act of God Coverage in Philippine Insurance

"A society is not only defined by what it creates,
but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

With the onslaught of Ondoy and Pepeng, and with Ramil threatening the Philippines again, are your properties really protected?

This is the question worthy of contemplation, as billions of pesos worth of cars and houses that were damaged by the onslaught of Tropical Strom Ondoy, are in peril of being lost forever because their owners were not insured against "acts of God," despite having comprehensive insurance policies. What does this mean? In this article, I shall aim to discuss the said coverage vis-a-vis the Insurance Code (which I just finished studying) and other relevant laws of the land.

In legal parlance, the term "acts of God" should be understood in the light of Article 1174 of the Civil Code which states that: “Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.” In law school, we are taught that such events are classified either as force majeure or fortuitous events. The latter refers to acts of God such as typhoons, floods and earthquakes which are unforeseeable while the former pertains to acts of man like invasions, accidents and the like which though foreseen, are inevitable.

Under the law, no person is liable for fortuitous events, because to do so would be to penalize a person for something natural, which he did not intend to happen, can not reasonably foresee, or that which he could not prevent. However, the law did provide certain exceptions to that rule, as when the law expressly provides liability in case of fortuitous events (like delay in the return of things subject of loan) or when the parties expressly stipulated in their agreement that either parties are liable for acts of God. The last exception would be especially important for this discussion, as the law provides liability when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk.

Insurance, as defined by the Insurance Code of the Philippines, is a contract of indemnity, whereby one party, for consideration, bounds to indemnify the other, for loss, damage or liability, arising from an unknown or contingent event. A contract of insurance, has dual essence - a contract against risks on the part of the insured and a contract assuming the risk on the part of the insurer. Hence, in plain and simple analysis, a fortuitous event which although would not generally cause liability, since an insurance company is in the business of insuring the public against risk, the nature of their obligation requires them to indemnify the insured even in cases of acts of God.

However, under the Insurance Code, an insurer may except certain risks from the policy. As revealed by the present dilemna facing many Filipinos, insurance companies have classified a comprehensive insurance coverage into two - regular and true. The former only assumes third party liability, while the latter includes those which are unforeseen like Acts of God. A confusion on the terminology resulted to disenfranchising the victims of natural calamities and the possibility of losing their properties forever, by failing to pay additional premium for a truly comprehensive insurance policy.

What now happens to the thousands of Filipinos seeking compensation for loss or damage caused by the Acts of God whose policy does not cover it?

The insured may go to his insurance company and kindly request for indemnification. Good will and human nature dictates that we aid those who were victims of natural calamities. If it does not work, go back to the date when you procured the policy. If the insurance company or its agent fails, neglects or withholds a FACT, which a PARTY knows and ought to communicate, they are liable for concealment (Section 26, Insurance Code). The concealment whether intentional or unintentional entitles the injured party to rescind a contract of insurance. Hence, the failure to differentiate a regular from a truly comprehensive insurance policy, would necessarily give rise to an arguable cause of action on material concealment.

In closing, natural calamities are a way of life. Despite our best preparations, we can only do so much. We must therefore, hope for the best, but must likewise prepare for the worst. It is the reason we procure for ourselves, certain back-up plans to insure us against what we never expected. So a word of advice, check what is excepted before you get you car insurance. Because the next time, God may not be so kind.

Civil Procedure - Finals

Reconstituted some of the questions in my Civil Procedure Finals under Atty. HMB. 17 October 2009.

1. What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?

2. Dante purchased a condominium unit from Mystica Corporation at P11 million. He paid 50% of the price on the condition that on or before 10 January 2009, the condominium shall be fit for occupancy. When Dante came to the Philippines on 15 January 2009, he found that the place has not even been started yet. He filed a case for specific performance and damages against Mystica Corporation before the Regional Trial Court, which rendered judgment in favor of Dante On Appeal, Mystica Corporation contend that the RTC had no jurisdiction because P.D. 957 has specifically vested the same with the HLURB.

(a) Rule on the contention of Dante.
(b) Suppose the appeal was denied, will a certiorari lie?
(c) [another question which I forgot]

3. When is LEAVE OF COURT necessary, and what are the effects if not obtained?

(a) Amendment
(b) Bill of Particulars
(c) Demurrer
(d) Intervention
(e) Deposition pending action

4. Q filed a case for collection of sum of money against "X', "Y" and "Z" for P250,000, P300,000 and P400,000 respectively, at RTC Quezon City. X is an incompetent living with his mother at San Fernando, La Union. Y is a partnership, whose partners have different offices at Makati City. And Z is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without license.

(a) Can there be joinder of parties?
(b) To whom can summonses be served on "X", "Y" and "Z"?
(c) When should they file their respective answers?

5. [forgot the bloody question]

6. KKK attached a parcel of land owned by XXX to answer for his debt. Upon favorable judgment, KKK moved to execute on the attached properties.

(a) In case the property is insufficient, what can XXX do?
(b) [forgot the bloody question]
(c) What are the other remedies of XXX?

7. Distinguish quo warranto under Rule 66 and under the Omnibus Election Code.

8. Defendant filed a motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to the evidence but was denied. The defendant nevertheless filed a demurrer which was granted. On appeal, the demurrer was dismissed by the appellate court and remanded the case to the court a quo for further proceedings. Defendant presented evidence. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, which became final and executory. The plaintiff moved for new trial on the ground of mistake and excusable negligence. Rule on the contention of the plaintiff.

9. A foreclosed the property of B. The court issued the Order of Confirmation, which B questioned in his motion for reconsideration. C, the second mortgagee, sought to redeem the property. The court granted the same based on equity of redemption. Is the court correct?

10. Plaintiff filed a case of unlawful detainer against the defendants. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. However, the appeal was perfected and a supersedeas bond was posted. On appeal, the plaintiff sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in possession of the property. Defendants opposed on the grounds that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to issue injunctive reliefs.

(a) Does the appellate court have the power to issue injunctive reliefs?
(b) Suppose the judgment was in favor of the defendant, would your answer be the same?
(c) Suppose the defendant refuses to vacate the property, can he be held liable for contempt?

11. Distinguish direct from indirect contempt.

Insurance - Finals

Reconstituted questions of Atty. MRD's final examinations.

1. Arlene owns a 2,000 square meter land which she subdivided. On one half portion, she built a building and insured the same against fire, with the prohibition against the storage of flammable liquid inside the building or within 20 meters from it. Arlene mortgaged the building and the adjacent land to Bianca, where the latter constructed a gasoline station. Because of Arlene's failure to pay the installments, Bianca foreclosed the property. It was sold at public auction with Bianca as highest bidder. A certificate of sale was issued.

(a) Suppose the property was burned, can Arlene claim from the insurance?
(b) Suppose Arlene assigned the policy to Bianca in the Real Estate Mortgage, can Bianca claim?
(c) Suppose Bianca consolidated title in her name on the property after a year and secured a separate fire insurance. There was a condition in the policy which states that 6 months after getting the policy, Bianca would construct a firewall. 3 months into the policy, a fire broke out and damaged the property. It was later learned that it was caused by faulty wiring. Can Bianca claim?
(d) Suppose the policy is "open", what is the measure of indemnity of the policy?


2. Carlo owns a P2 million vessel, chartered by Dante for consideration of P1 million, to carry the cargoes of Edwin, Fidel and Gardo worth P1 million each. Dante expects to earned P3 million from the transactions.

(a) What can Carlo insure? State the extent of the insurable interests.
(b) What can Dante insure? State the extent of the insurable interests.
(c) Suppose Edwin insured his cargo for P1 million. Due to bad weather, it became necessary to jettison some of Edwin's cargo to save the ship and cargo. Edwin lost P500,000 worth of cargo. Who are liable for the cargo and how much can Edwin claim?
(d) Fidel insured his cargo for P800,000. He lost P200,000 worth of cargo. How much is the insurer liable to pay?
(e) Gardo insured his cargo for P1 million. He lost P500,000 worth of cargo due to fire which came from the kitchen, because the door was negligently left open. Is the insurer liable?


3. What are implied warranties in marine insurance?
4. What are deviations in marine insurance?
5. State the rule of payment in case of over insurance by double insurance.
6. What are the instances when premiums may be returned?

Credit Transactions - Finals

Reconstituted questions of Finals under Atty. MEV, 8 October 2009.

1. Distinguish Insolvency from Bankruptcy. What is permitted of the debtor under the Insolvency Law?
2. Distinguish Special preferred credits from Ordinary preferred credits. What is the rule of preference for specific movable property?
3. Bayan Co. had a mortgage credit from Pilipinas Co. in the amount of P500,000, secured by a 1st chattel mortgage on a property. Bayani Co. also has a credit in the amount of P1,000,000 secured by a 2nd chattel mortgage on the same property. Bayan Co. partially paid P300,000 of his credit with Pilipinas Co. Thereafter, Bayani Agbayani acquired the credit from Pilipinas Co. and increased the credit to P50,000. Who has preference on the mortgaged property, the 2nd mortgagee or the transferee?
4. Aida executed a "Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage" with Adel. In the agreement, for and in consideration of assuming the mortgage and paying the indebtedness of Aida with Asia Trust, Adel shall enjoy possession and enjoyment of the property. Discuss the nature of the contract between Adel and Aida.
5. Discuss the right of redemption in the following circumstances: (a) period the right can be exercised; (b) effect when the right is not exercised; (c) effect when the right is exercised; (d) sale of the property to a third party; and (e) sale is not registered and without the consent of the mortgagee.
6. BONUS: Enumerate the four (4) exceptions to the rule of the divisibility of pledge.
   

Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers

BM No. 2012

PROPOSED RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE FOR PRACTICING LAWYERS

RESOLUTION

Acting on the Memorandum dated January 27, 2009 of Justice Renato C. Corona re: Comment of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on our Suggested Revisions to the Proposed Rule of Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.

This Resolution shall take effect on July 1, 2009 following publication of the said Rule and its implementing regulations in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

February 10, 2009.

———————–

RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE

SECTION 1. Title. - This Rule shall be known as “The Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service.”

SECTION 2. Purpose. – This Rule seeks to enhance the duty of lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the courts as officers thereof by helping improve access to justice by the less privileged members of society and expedite the resolution of cases involving them. Mandatory free legal service by members of the bar and their active support thereof will aid the efficient and effective administration of justice especially in cases involving indigent and pauper litigants.

SECTION 3. Scope. – This Rule shall govern the mandatory requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in all cases (whether, civil, criminal or administrative) involving indigent and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It shall also govern the duty of other members of the legal profession to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Rule:

(a) Practicing lawyers are members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies, including but not limited to the National Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Department of Labor and Employment Regional Offices, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and National Commission for Indigenous Peoples. The term “practicing lawyers” shall exclude:

(i) Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice;
(ii) Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;
(iii) Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and peoples’ organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by the nature of their work already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants and
(iv) Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including those who are employed in the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies.

(b) Indigent and pauper litigants are those defined under Rule 141, Section 19 of the Rules of Court and Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga (G.R. No. 150135, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 81);

(c) Legal aid cases are those actions, disputes, and controversies that are criminal, civil and administrative in nature in whatever stage wherein indigent and pauper litigants need legal representation;

(d) Free legal aid services refer to appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions. It shall also cover assistance by a practicing lawyer to indigent or poor litigants in court-annexed mediation and in other modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Services rendered when a practicing lawyer is appointed counsel de
oficio shall also be considered as free legal aid services and credited as compliance under this Rule;

(e) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official national organization of lawyers in the country;

(f) National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) is the committee of the IBP which is specifically tasked with handling legal aid cases;

(g) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) is the committee of the IBP which is specifically tasked with disciplining members of the Bar;

(h) IBP Chapters are those chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines located in the different geographical areas of the country as defined in Rule 139-A and

(i) Clerk of Court is the Clerk of Court of the court where the practicing lawyer rendered free legal aid services. In the case of quasi-judicial bodies, it refers to an officer holding an equivalent or similar position. The term shall also include an officer holding a similar position in agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or a responsible officer of an accredited PO or NGO, or an accredited mediator who conducted the court-annexed mediation proceeding.

SECTION 5. Requirements. –

(a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread within a period of twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five (5) hours of free legal aid services each month. However, where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to render legal aid service for more than five (5) hours in one month, the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the succeeding periods.

For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with the Clerk of Court for cases where he may render free legal aid service. He may also coordinate with the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter to inquire about cases where he may render free legal aid service. In this connection, the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter shall regularly and actively coordinate with the Clerk of Court.

The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the requirement within ten (10) days of the last month of each quarter of the year.

(b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and obtain a certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting to the number of hours spent rendering free legal aid services in a case. The certificate shall contain the following information:

(i) The case or cases where the legal aid service was rendered, the party or parties in the said case(s) for whom the service was rendered, the docket number of the said case(s) and the date(s) the service was
rendered.

(ii) The number of hours actually spent attending a hearing or conducting trial on a particular case in the court or quasi-judicial body.

(iii) The number of hours actually spent attending mediation, conciliation or any other mode of ADR on
a particular case.

(iv) A motion (except a motion for extension of time to file a pleading or for postponement of hearing or
conference) or pleading filed on a particular case shall be considered as one (1) hour of service.

The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in triplicate, one (1) copy to be retained by the practicing lawyer, one (1) copy to be retained by the Clerk of Court and one (1) copy to be attached to the lawyer’s compliance report.

(c) Said compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter within the court’s jurisdiction. The Legal Aid Chairperson shall then be tasked with immediately verifying the contents of the certificate with the issuing Clerk of Court by comparing the copy of the certificate attached to the compliance report with the copy retained by the Clerk of Court.

(d) The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a compliance certificate to the concerned lawyer. The IBP Chapter shall also submit the compliance reports to the IBP’s NCLA for recording and documentation. The submission shall be made within forty-five (45) days after the mandatory submission of compliance reports by the practicing lawyers.

(e) Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and date of issue of their certificate of compliance for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

(f) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(i) and (ii), shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they are employed with the government or incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice or lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court. The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the payment of an annual contribution of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000). Said contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.

(g) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(iii) shall secure a certification from the director of the legal clinic or of the concerned NGO or PO to the effect that, during that year, they have served as supervising lawyers in a legal clinic or actively
participated in the NGO’s or PO’s free legal aid activities. The certification shall be submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office.

(h) Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(iv) shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they are neither practicing lawyers nor covered by Section (4)(a)(i) to (iii). The form shall be sworn to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the payment of an annual contribution of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) by
way of support for the efforts of practicing lawyers who render mandatory free legal aid services. Said contribution shall accrue to a special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.

(i) Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the lawyer to a penalty of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) for that year which amount shall also accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.

SECTION 6. NCLA. –

(a) The NCLA shall coordinate with the various legal aid committees of the IBP local chapters for the proper handling and accounting of legal aid cases which practicing lawyers can represent.

(b) The NCLA shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of the Legal Aid Office with respect to the coordination with Clerks of Court on legal aid cases and the collation of certificates submitted by practicing lawyers.

(c) The NCLA shall act as the national repository of records in compliance with this Rule.

(d) The NCLA shall prepare the following forms: certificate to be issued by the Clerk of Court and forms mentioned in Section 5(e) and (g).

(e) The NCLA shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the contributions and penalties that will be paid by lawyers pursuant to this Rule to effectively carry out the provisions of this Rule. For this purpose, it shall annually submit an accounting to the IBP Board of Governors. The accounting shall be included by the IBP in its report to the Supreme Court in connection with its request for the release of the subsidy for its legal aid program.

SECTION 7. Penalties. –

(a) At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer who fails to meet the minimum prescribed 60 hours of legal aid service each year shall be required by the IBP, through the NCLA, to explain why he was unable to render the minimum prescribed number of hours. If no explanation has been given or if the NCLA finds the explanation unsatisfactory, the NCLA shall make a report and recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors that the erring lawyer be declared a member of the IBP who is not in good standing. Upon approval of the NCLA’s recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors shall declare the erring lawyer as a member not in good standing. Notice thereof shall be furnished the erring lawyer and the IBP Chapter which submitted the lawyer’s compliance report or the IBP Chapter where the lawyer is registered, in case he did not submit a compliance report. The notice to the lawyer shall include a directive to pay Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) penalty which shall accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program of the IBP.

(b) The “not in good standing” declaration shall be effective for a period of three (3) months from the receipt of the erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP Board of Governors. During the said period, the
lawyer cannot appear in court or any quasi-judicial body as counsel. Provided, however, that the “not in good standing” status shall subsist even after the lapse of the three-month period until and unless the penalty shall have been paid.

(c) Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this Rule for at least three (3) consecutive years shall be the subject of disciplinary proceedings to be instituted motu proprio by the CBD. The said
proceedings shall afford the erring lawyer due process in accordance with the rules of the CBD and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. If found administratively liable, the penalty of suspension in the practice of law for one (1) year shall be imposed upon him.

(d) Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form required to be submitted under this Rule or any contents thereof shall be administratively charged with falsification and dishonesty and shall
be subject to disciplinary action by the CBD. This is without prejudice to the filing of criminal charges against the lawyer.

(e) The falsification of a certificate or any contents thereof by any Clerk of Court or by any Chairperson of the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP local chapter where the case is pending or by the Director of a
legal clinic or responsible officer of an NGO or PO shall be a ground for an administrative case against the said Clerk of Court or Chairperson. This is without prejudice to the filing of the criminal
and administrative charges against the malfeasor.

SECTION 8. Credit for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). – A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of hours in a year for the three year-period covered by a compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following: two (2) credit units for legal ethics, two (2) credit units for trial and pretrial skills, two (2) credit units for alternative dispute resolution, four (4) credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy, four (4) credit units for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and six (6) credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by
the MCLE Committee under Section 2(g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.

A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of hours in a year for at least two consecutive years within the three year-period covered by a compliance period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following: one (1) credit unit for legal ethics, one (1) credit unit for trial and pretrial skills, one (1) credit unit for alternative dispute resolution, two (2) credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy, two (2) credit units for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence and three (3) credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under Section 2(g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.

SECTION 9. Implementing Rules. – The IBP, through the NCLA, is hereby given authority to recommend implementing regulations in determining who are “practicing lawyers,” what constitute “legal aid cases” and what administrative procedures and financial safeguards which may be necessary and proper in the implementation of this rule may be prescribed. It shall coordinate with the various legal chapters in the crafting of the proposed implementing regulations and, upon approval by the IBP Board of Governors, the said implementing regulations shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final approval.

SECTION 10. Effectivity. – This Rule and its implementing rules shall take effect on July 1, 2009 after they have been published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

After 3 Bar Ops, am I ready to take the Bar?

Am I ready to take the Bar?

That would sum up the questions that a would be lawyer would ask himself as he is nearing the completion of his law studies. Have I studied all the laws that covers the Bar subjects? Have I read the landmark jurisprudence of a particular provision? Have I mastered the basic doctrines of my profession? Is my handwriting legible? Do I sound legally logical enough to merit a mark in the examiners' mind?

Three years ago, I experienced my first Bar Operations. I was just fresh out of college, and I am still adjusting to the rudiments of law school life. As an inductee of TAU KAPPA PHI, we are bound by sacred duty to support the Bar Ops. As I recall, we have 23 barristers in 2007, most of whom I do not know back then. We made rounds at the offices of alumni brods for solicitations to pay for the hotel accommodation of the baristas. We rushed through the hotel floors in the late of night to provide their food and coffee requests. We scurried along the roads of Manila to go to various hotels for last minute tips and find an open photocopy center to reproduce them. We sold t-shirts and jackets to augment the finances of the fraternity, not to mention the personal cost it entailed us, for the food and the drinks at the bar site. At the site, we were serving food and drinks to the alumni brods. I even brought my own lighter and bottle opener to properly serve them. And all through this time, we are either drinking alcohol or are already drunk, with no sleep. That was the taste of my first bar ops, though I never fully understood its deeper meaning.

It was however a different story last year. I personally know four of the 26 barristers who took the 2008 Bar Exams. Although I am not the one taking the exams, I somehow feel what they feel. When they are hungry, I feel their hunger. When they are tired, I share their tiredness. When they want something to drink, I feel like drinking with them. When they are jittery, I feel tensed just the same. When they storm the heavens for answers, I feel the need to pray as well. Thus, I finally understood why we are there. We bore upon ourselves, by a solemn bounden oath to do whatever it takes, to veer them away from all the unnecessary distractions while they are taking the Bar. Participating at the Bar Ops transformed from one of duty, to one of service. What initially started as a pledge became a commitment to aid the barista in his quest to achieve the penultimate goal, an ATTY. at the beginning of one's name.

It is therefore with a clear perspective of what to expect and in no small measure, that at the beginning of the 2009 Bar Exams with 31 barristers up our sleeves, we start the drill again. With 10 inductees and all resident brods, we recited the pledge anew - SUSUPORTAHAN KO ANG BAR OPS! This year, we indeed faced a lot of difficulties. But with strong alumni support, we managed to end the Bar Operations for our barristers with a bang. A professor of mine once said, passing the Bar is the exception, flunking it is the rule. What we now do is to await the results come March 2010 and pray that our barristers proves to be the exception to the rule.

With all my palabras, the question still remains - am I ready for the Bar? I shall know it better, with two more Bar Ops (2010 and 2011) before I take it in 2012. But whilst I wait, I shall help the next set of barristers who I am 100% certain, I have personally met and been acquainted with. And all the while, I study hard and prepare for the toughest professional examination in our country. And to the present and future brods, it is my fervent hope, that they shall help me as well in my bar quest. The rest, I leave to God!

Mabuhay ang 2009 TAU KAPPAN Barristers!

Disaster Un-Preparedness of the Philippines

With the onslaught of Tropical Storm "Ondoy" (International Name: Ketsana) last Saturday, the Philippines was again placed on the world map. The Metropolitan Manila and its suburbs was caught by surprise, as the supposedly baby storm proved too much for our inadequate preparation, with a deluge of flood water. Millions were struck in traffic, as hundreds of thousands were directly affected by the floods causing some to climb on roofs and high places to escape nature's wrath. Many people that day lost their homes, their properties and for some, even their lives.

However, the most manifest incident that day was the complete absence of the government in all of our miseries. True, everyone was affected and even the Palace was inundated by flood. We have outstretched our limits for calamities this year and the limited government resources hamper rescue operations, but the country has been battered by calamities, every single year. Have we not yet mastered the art of disaster preparedness?

The government should be grateful of the spirit of voluntarism that reigns in the heart of Filipinos. On that fateful day, Filipinos rose beyond self and exhibited signs of great heroism. Everyone took his place, enemies became friends, strangers became companions, all helped each other. Private efforts for rescue and relief have sprung like a wildflower, children offering their piggy banks, students rushing towards relief centers to volunteer, workers taking some time off to help their friends and relatives. Until now, private efforts still leads the charge to aid those who was extremely affected by disaster.

But are we to contend with private "Bayanihan?" If private cooperation is all that we need during times of crisis, why the hell do we need a government for? Recent news that a 1977 study has already been made identifying flood prone areas and suggesting infrastructure measures to prevent what we exactly experienced last Saturday is disheartening. What happened could have been prevented had we followed that report and made the necessary precautions. We could have channeled much needed funds for the purchase of more radars so that PAG-ASA could accurately predict weather forecasts, rather than spend it on a million dollar dinner plate. We should have allocated more government funds to dredged the river and made flood controls than to increase Congressional pork barrel. We should have bought more rubber boats and 6x6 trucks than purchase a new Presidential chopper.

We could have done more things, but we did not.

It is said that "experience is a great teacher." If that is the case, why is it that a disaster prone country such as the Philippines, is always caught flat-footed during events of natural and man-made calamities? Had experience not taught as much? Or are we poor learners?

Come Saturday, so PAG-ASA say, another storm is on its way. Are we to hope for everything to be better? Or is our hope in government, the same as PAG-ASA is in the weather?