Right to free legal assistance
REQUEST OF THE PAO, A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC, 11 JULY 2023
The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), through its Chief, Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta,
requested the Supreme Court to delete Section 22, Canon III of the Proposed Code of
Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
In the Resolution,7 dated July 11, 2023, the Court resolved to deny the PAO's request that
Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA be deleted. It ruled that the CPRA was promulgated by
the Court in the exercise not only of its power to regulate the practice of law, but also of its
constitutional prerogative to promulgate rules concerning legal assistance to the
underprivileged.
Issue
Whether Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA is violative of the constitutional right to free legal
assistance
Ruling
No.
The Court resolved to deny the PAO's request that Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA be
deleted. It ruled that the CPRA was promulgated by the Court in the exercise not only of
its power to regulate the practice of law, but also of its constitutional prerogative to
promulgate rules concerning legal assistance to the underprivileged.
As the Court held in its July 11, 2023 Resolution:
Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA stripped to its core, merely states that the PAO
cannot indiscriminately invoke conflict of interest in cases where its services have
been engaged by one of the parties when its assistance is sought by another party.
Conflict of interest only sets in for the handling public attorney and his or her direct
supervisor.
....
To reiterate, the policy behind Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA is to promote the
poor's access to legal assistance by limiting the imputation of conflict of interest to
public attorneys who had actual participation in the case. While the Court
commiserates with the PAO, it cannot be blind to the plight of the indigents, who are
often left without legal representation due to the indiscriminate invocation of conflict
of interest by the PAO whose primary statutory mandate is to provide legal
assistance to the poor.
Noting that the PAO's principal mandate is to provide free legal assistance to
indigents, the Court rejected the PAO's contention that it should be treated like a
regular law firm. The Court also found no merit in the PAO's claim that Section 22, Canon
III singles out the poor and that it is "antithetical to adequate legal assistance" and poses a
"serious threat" to the right to speedy disposition of cases, emphasizing that the policy
behind the new rule is to promote the poor's access to legal assistance by limiting the
imputation of conflict of interest to public attorneys who had actual participation in the case.
The Court found the alleged inconsistencies pointed out by the PAO between the assailed
rule, on the one hand, and Republic Act No. 94068 and the 2021 PAO Revised Operations
Manual, on the other hand, to be more apparent than real.
Essay Answer:
Whether Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA is violative of the constitutional right to free legal
assistance
No, Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA is not violative of the constitutional right to free legal
assistance.
Noting that the PAO's principal mandate is to provide free legal assistance to
indigents, the PAO's contention is incorrect that it should be treated like a regular law
firm. There is no merit in the PAO's claim that Section 22, Canon III singles out the poor and
that it is "antithetical to adequate legal assistance" and poses a "serious threat" to the right
to speedy disposition of cases, because the policy behind the new rule is to promote the
poor's access to legal assistance by limiting the imputation of conflict of interest to public
attorneys who had actual participation in the case.
