Speech delivered by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno during the 16th National Convention of Lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 24, 2017 at Marriott Manila, Pasay City

THE RULE OF LAW AND THE LAW OF HOPE

Thank you very much compañeros and compañeras; please take your

seats, let’s all relax and enjoy this evening. May I first give my deepest

appreciation to the National President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

(IBP), Rosario “Rose” Setias-Reyes. Earlier, as I was walking inside the hall, I

was commending her for bravely facing all the challenges that face the IBP

when she assumed the presidency, and in view of my campaign of exacting

accountability from everyone. So thank you, Rose, you are such a brave

woman.

Atty. [Mae] Elaine [T.] Bathan [Governor for Eastern Visayas]; Atty.

Franklin [B.] Calpito [Governor for Northern Luzon]; Atty. Abdiel Dan [Elijah

S.] Fajardo [Vice Chairman & Governor for Western Visayas]; Atty. Jose [I.] De

La Rama [Jr., Governor for Central Luzon]; Atty. Romeo [B.] Igot [Governor for

Greater Manila]; Atty. [Bienvenido I.] “Bong” Somera [Jr., Governor for

Southern Luzon]; Atty. Emerson [B.] Aquende [Governor for Bicolandia], my

fellow member of the Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar

2

Matters; Atty. Caesar [S.] Europa [Governor for Eastern Mindanao]; Atty.

Domingo [T.] Redelosa IV [Governor for Western Mindanao]; officers,

members of the different chapter offices of the IBP, fellow workers in

government, the staff — the hardworking staff of the Integrated Bar, the

sponsoring organizations, and all the wonderful sponsors of what is turning

out to be a very successful convention, a warm round of applause to all of you

and thank you for inviting me.

Unless I am wrong that we are starting this speech on time, so this is in

keeping with our second campaign, another campaign, of making everything

that has to do with the justice system, be professional, including conventions

of lawyers, which before have been notoriously tardy in the programming. But

this time, I am very, very happy about the way this is turning out, so

congratulations again, Rose. I think you are going to have a fantastic

conference together with the fact that you are going to earn many many units

of MCLE (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) compliance. So I think that

is a good incentive to make this a sterling success.

Now my theme tonight is the Rule of Law and the Law of Hope. It is my

distinct pleasure to once again be with all of you during your 16th National

Convention of Lawyers. The theme of your Convention, Global and Regional

3

Integration of Legal Services: Challenging the Philippine Status Quo is both

timely and relevant considering that we find ourselves in an increasingly

globalized and borderless world where many exciting yet troubling things will

still be forthcoming.

To set the context for my call to a continuing national conversation later

in this speech, allow me first to describe how the Supreme Court is presently

relating to the IBP. You will note that prior to my assumption of leadership in

the Court, the IBP and the Court has only had two angles of a sustained and

continuing relationship — one, that of provider and recipient of subsidy to the

IBP’s legal aid work, and second, the IBP as the delegated investigating

authority of the Court in the latter’s exercise of disciplinary authority over

members of the Philippine Bar. Recently, the Court has expanded this

relationship. The IBP is now a member of the three important Sub-

Committees of the Court’s Committee on Continuing Legal Education and Bar

Matters: first, in the Sub-Committee on Admission to the Bar headed by Justice

Lucas Bersamin; second, in the Sub-Committee on Maintenance of

Membership in the Philippine Bar headed by Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe;

and third, in the Sub-Committee on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Oversight headed by Justice Mariano del Castillo. The expansion of the IBP’s

4

involvement in the various administrative work of the Supreme Court means

that the IBP will now have regular channels to influence the rules that will

define who the future members of the Bar will be, the rules on maintenance of

good standing in the Bar, including on payment of fees such as professional

fees and IBP fees, compliance with MCLE rules, and procedures and penalties

in connection with complaints against lawyers. The IBP’s ability to influence

the future of law practice in this country has been significantly heightened.

Allow me to also inform you that there are information materials that

will update you on certain judicial reform programs that I will request the IBP

to distribute. These reforms, as I described to you in Cebu, envisions a future

that will allow lawyers to gain from efficiencies arising from the use of ICT

(Information and Communication Technology); streamlined procedures;

templated pleadings, orders and decisions where appropriate; lowered

research, messengerial, reproduction, transportation, and low office overhead

costs; transparent and fair information about lawyers’ standing in the Bar;

less human mediation in raffling and docket information asymmetry thus less

corruption; and hopefully, increased ability of lawyers to focus on the

activities that require lawyers’ higher levels of analysis. In sum, a more

productive and more meaningful future for lawyers.

5

To go back to your Convention’s theme, I notice that your sub-themes

have to do largely with aspects of globalization and commercial practice.

Allow me to focus your attention however, on what is happening to public

interest lawyers, including those outside and why we need to, in unity with

our fellow lawyers, continue to champion the Rule of Law, through principled

ethical lawyering for public causes.

It has been noted that public interest lawyers, especially defenders of

human rights have been under increasing attack. I was indeed surprised that

there is no precise number of public interest lawyers who have been killed in

connection with their work worldwide. One estimate, for example, claims that

the number of lawyers killed in Colombia since 1991 has reached more than

400.

From 1999 to 2014, it has been reported that 83 lawyers other than

prosecutors and judges in the Philippines have been violently killed. From

2015 to the present, three have also been reported to have been assassinated.

As a result of assassinations of lawyers and their clients, individual members

of the Bar and even an IBP chapter have made the step of publicly articulating

their fears to the extent that that IBP chapter indicated its desistance in

defending certain types of clients. Let me not detail for you the state of

6

insecurity of our judges and prosecutors as that will require another speech.

Allow me to just relay to you the concern of some experts on judiciaries that

reports from around the globe demonstrate that judiciaries are also under

increasing attack. From the Brexit decision, to the US (United States of

America) Supreme Court, in Pakistan, and some may add, in the Philippines as

well.

Now, with your theme, I think you understand that international norms

will be the standard for global legal practice. This implies that if Philippine

lawyers want to open their possibilities to practice their profession beyond

the country’s borders, they must understand that the norms of the profession

as it has developed internationally, including ethical norms, public interest

advocacy and defense norms, and Rule of Law norms, will be the milieu in

which discussions on legal practice will take place.

Former UN (United Nations) Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon had once

stated that the Rule of Law is the world’s best hope for building peaceful and

prosperous societies. This theme was taken up in 2012 when the General

Assembly took up Rule of Law vis-à-vis conflict situations, and in the ensuing

discussions recognized the work that had been built up in many areas of the

world as to form a consensus on the need for Rule of Law as the baseline for

7

development. Inevitably, the discussions highlighted the need for transparent

legal systems and the role of lawyers. Now, if hope, Rule of Law, and lawyers

have been increasingly included in discussions on development, then the

Philippine Bar must engage in this communal self-reflection.

I want us all therefore, to pause for a moment to ponder the meaning of

our life’s work as lawyers: In the midst of all that we are experiencing as a

country, what role do lawyers have in bringing hope to our people? This

question comes to mind as I reflect on the increasingly violent times that we

find ourselves in and the role that lawyers play — or need to play — in

promoting, maintaining and nurturing the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is the governance principle holding all persons,

institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself,

accountable to laws and rules that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced

and independently adjudicated upon, that are consistent with international

human rights norms and standards. The World Justice Project which publishes

a yearly Rule of Law Index defines the Rule of Law as a system in which the

following universal principles are upheld: (1) accountability of government

officials; (2) clear, stable, and just laws applied evenly and the protection of

fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property; (3)

8

accessible, fair, and efficient process of legislation; and (4) an independent,

competent, ethical system of delivery of justice that is well-resourced and

adequately funded.1

Additionally, I would propose the following operational components

where the judiciary and the legal profession are concerned:

a) courts that are accessible to ordinary citizens;

b) delivery of justice — consisting of fair resolution of disputes and the

consistent levying of punishment, where appropriate — in a timely

and effective manner, without any undue or unreasonable delay;

c) courts that are independent — that is, free from improper

government influence; and

d) the absence of corruption or the perception of corruption in the

adjudication of disputes and controversies;

e) the appointment of competent, ethical, and neutral judges; and

f) and this is most important to me, the presence of an independent and

ethical Bar.

1 The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index (2016), p. 9.

9

Incidentally, it may interest you to know that in the 2016 Rule of Law

Index of the World Justice Project, the Philippines dropped nine spots to 70th

even as the East Asia and Pacific region was the second-ranked region in Rule

of Law, behind Western Europe and North America. In this region, New

Zealand and Singapore are the top performers in the 2016 rankings, ranking

8th and 9th respectively out of 113 countries worldwide, while the biggest

mover was Vietnam, rising seven positions to 67th globally, higher than the

Philippines’ ranking.

Whichever way we understand the Rule of Law, it cannot be reconciled

with a system that allows for undue immunities from these processes and

outcomes due to considerations that are political or pecuniary or both. The

notion of a Rule of Law holds these truths to be self-evident—that no one is

immune from accountability simply because he or she is powerful or because

he or she is rich, or because he or she is both powerful and rich. The contrary

view to this is impunity and it is anathematic to the Rule of Law.2

Impunity represents a breakdown, in part or in whole, of governance. In

its most recognizable form, it is the impossibility of enforcing accountability,

2 Adapted from “The Culture Of Impunity And The Counter-Culture Of Hope,” Keynote

Remarks at the Journalism Asia Forum, November 23, 2014.

10

in whatever form, against offenders by reason of the unavailability or futility

of existing proceedings and processes, means and methods to effect an

effective and meaningful investigation, charge, arrest, trial, judgment,

sentence or service of sentence. Where an offender is unduly immunized from

accountability through external conditions such as policy, politics or

pecuniary interests, then impunity has set in and the Rule of Law is

diminished.3

Impunity sows seeds of hopelessness and if we are not careful, those

seeds will take root and bear fruit.

It is in this light that addressing impunity becomes our shared burden

— those of us in the judiciary and the legal profession. It is within this context

that I pose my question to all of us — in view of the creeping impunity that we

once again find ourselves in, how should we understand the role of lawyers in

promoting the Rule of Law and the law of hope?

Let me propose an answer to this by suggesting to all of us that we

should situate ourselves once again in the nobility of our profession and in the

3Id.

11

best, not the worst, that it has to offer our many publics — our clients, our

people, and our country.

We had been parodied enough in crude lawyer jokes and we

instinctively join in the laughter. However, it is time that we no longer see

those jokes as funny. When cracked, we should no longer find lawyer jokes

amusing. Especially, not when our fellow lawyers are being killed for their

beliefs and their work.

An environment of fear and violence is anathematic to the Rule of Law

and contributes to impunity. To preserve the Rule of Law, lawyers must steel

themselves, to a certain degree develop a level of indifference to the ambient

noise, and discharge their duties to the best of their abilities as their

conscience dictates. Good lawyers must swim against whatever tide meets

them.

When judges and lawyers hesitate to do the right thing for fear of being

derogated for the company they keep or when they respond to vilification,

threats and actual violence with surrender and capitulation, the Rule of Law is

shoved out and impunity steps in.

12

The reality of the violent times we find ourselves in should make us —

we, in the judiciary, and you, in the practicing Bar — all too aware of our role

in combating impunity and promoting the Rule of Law and the law of hope.

The courts are the refuge, often the final refuge, for those who seek to

hold offenders — public and private, highly-ranked or of common station,

accountable for their acts of violence. The long arm of the law often finds a

face in our courts, yet it has been my experience that the long arm of the law

often has a very short reach — before the courts can act, controversies must

be investigated, cases must be filed and prosecuted. You, as practicing lawyers

and members of the Bar, are part of the long arm of the law. Please do not

limit the reach of the law by inaction, or worse, active collaboration with those

who would seek to promote impunity and diminish the Rule of Law.

Many of our people, including some among our ranks, have been

desensitized or rendered numb by violence. Desensitization is the first step

towards hopelessness, and an uncritical embrace of the status quo. Our role as

lawyers is not to simply embrace uncritically the status quo. Our role, as

lawyers is to provide a voice for those rendered voiceless; to bring causes that

would otherwise not be heard; to provide hope in the midst of impunity.

13

Concretely, what can lawyers do to combat impunity, uphold the Rule of

Law, and promote the law of hope? I would propose four very practicable

things.

First, let us all take our Oath to heart and grow in character.

All of us have, at different times, taken the Lawyer’s Oath. For most, it

was probably the first and only time that the Oath was personally

pronounced. For many, the words of the Oath have long been forgotten. For

some, and I hope this is an exceedingly small number, they may have long

been broken. The Lawyer’s Oath is no ordinary canonical incantation nor is it

a routinary legal requirement. The Oath, far from being a sterile form of

words, gives us the roadmap to action as lawyers and defines us as a

profession. In a very real sense, it is a definition of who we are and to what we

have been called.

There is a story about a lawyer who chose not to take an oath of loyalty

to the king that would compromise the very core of what he believed in but, in

choosing to do so, he placed himself at great personal peril. When confronted

about this refusal by his distraught daughter who offers him what, to her,

seems a reasonable compromise — take the oath, save yourself, and simply

14

break your oath — the lawyer responds with a surprising rebuke: his word is

his bond. When the daughter persists with the reasonable reply that “no one

would know,” the lawyer retorts, “I would know.”

The situation I have described is portrayed in a film about a great

lawyer and a good judge; the film is “A Man for All Seasons” and the man

described is St. Thomas More. It is a film that shows us what character is and

what it can do. It embodies what the late Justice Florentino Feliciano has

described as a “good judge” — where character is not only internalized but

also manifested.

Three simple words — “I would know.” Those words demonstrate an

internalization of character and an external manifestation of that character.

Character is what we are when no one is watching. It is holding on to

one’s principles even when doing so isn’t convenient, isn’t fashionable or isn’t

comfortable. It is refusing to compromise even when one is told that “no one

would know” because “I would know.” It is standing up for what is right, even

when no one else is standing up for it. It is making each word in our Oath

mean everything even when everyone else is doing the opposite.

15

By way of a reminder and maybe as a form of re-commitment on our

part during this 16th National Convention, may I request all of us to stand in

place, please, raise your hand and recite these words again with whole

sincerity:

I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance

to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey

its laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities

therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I

will not wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or

unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for

money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the

best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the

courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary

obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help

me God.

Thank you. Please take your seats.

16

Allow me to continue, thank you very much that was very very

meaningful to me. Remember that congealed in the words of this Oath are the

values of fidelity, commitment, integrity, and courage: fidelity to the flag of the

Republic, to its Constitution, laws, and duly constituted authorities;

commitment to the law and the values it seeks to uphold; integrity to practice

law in an ethical manner, encompassing also self-restraint in not performing

acts proscribed and the active witness of carrying out affirmatively the acts

required; and finally, courage for all of us to be able to carry out all these

faithfully and well.

Taking our Oath seriously is the first step in understanding our role as

lawyers in ensuring that the Rule of Law is maintained and impunity

prevented. It tells us that, in the face of misinformation and confusion, we

have a duty to always be candid and truthful not only to the courts but also to

our clients and also to the public. It tells us that, in the face of clear and patent

injustices, we have an affirmative duty to not turn a blind eye but to do what

we can to help. It tells us that, in the midst of impunity and a rising tide of

hopelessness about the Rule of Law, we are called to bring hope to our people.

Second, sign up to help.

17

There are so many ways to help. If you find yourself in a position to help

those who seek to bring suit to protect their rights, then by all means do so.

Just be mindful though of the admonition in the Oath as to groundless suits

and our intolerance to those.

If you find yourself in a position to help people understand how the law

or the courts work, then by all means do so. In a world where “alternative

facts” and “hyperbole” are fast blurring the lines between truth and lies, a

lawyer who can help the courts, clients, and the public sift truth from lies,

performs a valuable service.

If you find yourself in a position to right a wrong, please do so. If you

find yourself in a position where you need to decide between a status quo that

is convenient and standing up for principle, our oath requires that we take the

principled stand. If you find yourself in a position to give voice to those who

find themselves voiceless, speak out.

It is in so doing that we recall the nobility of our profession; that we

vindicate the original purpose of the legal profession—as the last obstacle

against lawlessness and the bringer of hope.

18

If you are not in any position to do any of these, you can still help by

living out the Oath we all have taken. Become a good lawyer, where “good” is

not measured just by proficiency or efficiency but by character and integrity.

More importantly, hopefully, we can become not only good lawyers —

magaling na abogado — but also good persons, mabubuting tao. Becoming a

good lawyer means that your name will not be added to the dockets of

lawyers that the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline will forward to the

Supreme Court for administrative sanction. In so doing, you would help the

Court out tremendously and, in the process, also strengthen the legal

profession.

Third, go against the grain; do not take the path of least resistance.

Your theme for this Convention speaks of challenging the status quo.

That is a great challenge to all us who work within one of the most

conservative and tradition-bound professions that there is.

Challenging the status quo means being unafraid to go against the grain,

to take the path least trod, and to break new trails. Challenging the status quo

means that we must occasionally confront traditions that may have taken root

through inertia and, if necessary, create new traditions.

19

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, and Robert F. Kennedy loved to

paraphrase, "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things

that never were and say, why not?” Challenging the status quo means being

unafraid to ask the occasional “why” but also the all-important “why not?” Be

the lawyers who choose to do something noble, something good, something

righteous, something different

Fourth, continue this conversation we just started tonight. I had already

outlined to you the additional channels by which you, through the IBP, can be

heard in the various Sub-Committees of the Court’s Committee on Continuing

Legal Education and Bar Matters. Allow me to add that other committees in

the Court, especially those that are studying revisions and crafting of

procedural rules, inevitably end up drafting experts from among your ranks to

help improve those rules and the overall administration of justice. Our judicial

reform programs also routinely include the IBP in consultations, whether it is

the work of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council, electronic courts,

automated hearings, Justice Zones, the overall automation plan, and others.

There is also the Philippine Judicial Academy to which you have made

tremendous contributions. Please continue to help improve the

administration of justice.

20

To end, let me emphasize that we are not fighting against a person or

against an establishment; rather, we are fighting against a culture, a way of

thinking, of seeing, and thus of acting or not acting. It is a culture that is

ingrained and deeply rooted. It is a culture that started when people started to

look the other way; a culture that thrived when people stopped caring; a

culture that prevailed when people stopped hoping. The only way to fight

against a culture is to be a counter-culture — to stand up for truth and right

even when others choose to keep silent or to spread lies; to encourage action

when others are apathetic; to dare to hope even when others have given up.

Allow me to share with you a personal tool that has helped me through

many struggles, including against apathy and self-centered pragmatism. It

helps me to remember the important things, in fact the only things, that count

for eternity. It is a tool that helps me live out the lawyers’ oath. It is a tool from

the words of St. Paul, a refocusing of the mind to look at the horizon of hope,

and the posterity that is before us. He says: “Finally, brothers and sisters,

whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure,

whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if

anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.4”

4 Philippians 4:8.

21

The IBP must stand up, for what is true, what is honorable, what is right,

what is pure, what is of good repute, what is excellent and worthy of praise.

This is the transcendent essence of the lawyers’ oath. As judges and lawyers,

this is our common cause, our shared burden, our one hope.

Thank you and good evening to all.