Raising the bar

Over the weekend, Associate Justice and 2020/2021 Bar exams chair Marvic Leonen disqualified a number of Bar examinees after receiving reports that they had violated the Honor Code and ignored “clearly published” rules governing the much-awaited exams. The examinees “deliberately entered the local testing centers without disclosing that they had previously tested positive for COVID-19; smuggled mobile phones into the examination rooms, and accessed social media during lunch break inside the premises.”

In a Bar bulletin released Sunday, Leonen said: “I take my constant message of honor to the examinees seriously. I owe it not only to those who risked their lives just to make the 2020/2021 Bar Examinations happen despite all odds, but most especially to those [219] examinees who could have taken the Bar were it not for their positive COVID-19 test results.”

It may be a harsh decision but certainly the right call for would-be lawyers who, as future agents of the law, are expected to uphold it and prevent society’s descent into chaos. In fostering a healthy respect for the law, lawyers make people aware of their rights and how to claim them—but without impinging on the rights of others. Which was exactly what these future lawyers did in this instance when they acted as though they were above the law.

Leonen’s tough stance to instill honesty in a profession not exactly known for it is a rigid test of the examinees’ fitness for the job. Lawyering, after all, is not for the fainthearted and the spineless as honorable lawyers are often seen and expected to be engines for social change and justice. Defending the law to prevent upheaval often means courting trouble, as lawless elements prefer to be left unfettered to do as they please.

The playwright Shakespeare understood this only too well when he paid lawyers a subtle tribute in “Henry VI.” As Henry’s rival, the Yorkists, signified support for the demagogue Jack Cade, this pub regular triumphantly urged revolution to bring about violent change. To which another ragamuffin, Dick the Butcher, quipped, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers!”

Alas, some populist leaders in recent times have taken that quote literally. In the Philippines alone, according to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, at least 63 lawyers have been killed under this administration for doing their job, that of defending victims of human rights violations.

Perhaps encouraged by such brutal disregard of the role of lawyers in safeguarding public interest, some prominent lawyers have proven true the perception that they are nothing more than grasping mercenaries bent on promoting—for a hefty fee—the letter rather than the spirit of the law. No wonder then that in the United States, lawyers consistently rank low in public approval ratings, just a notch above politicians and used car salesmen.

Locally, two controversial lawyers seem bent on proving how well deserved those ratings are. Ferdinand Topacio, for no reason other than perhaps betray his own insecurities, publicly shamed actress Angel Locsin for gaining weight in a now-viral social media post. Reminded of her slipped disc ailment that had affected her weight, the rabid administration supporter gleefully retorted, “She’s still fat!” He was roundly chastised for this unprofessional and totally unprovoked conduct.

Then there’s Larry Gadon, a losing senatorial contender whose main achievement was initiating the successful impeachment proceedings against former chief justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno. A viral video of him spouting profanities and gutter language against a journalist who had questioned Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s dubious tax payments earned Gadon a preventive suspension from the practice of law, and a possible disbarment from the Supreme Court no less. He is also facing a slew of criminal charges from the much maligned journalist.

Despite such aberrations, the lofty regard with which this country holds lawyers remains intact. Nine of 16 Philippine presidents are or were lawyers, and so is a high percentage of members of Congress. After all, who better to craft and interpret the law than professionals who have spent years studying and deconstructing those legalese that’s bound to confuse ordinary mortals?

But can the disqualified Bar examinees still aspire to be part of this distinguished club?

Why not? As Leonen himself admonishes in his statement: “For now, reflect on what you have done, but know that you can still change your narrative. You will not end up as the examinee who lost your honor forever in your desperation to pass an examination. Learn from your mistake and earn your honor back.”

It is wise counsel that unfortunately applies as well to some of the country’s leaders, for whom honesty is optional. One mayor’s infamous quote, “Everybody lies,” is hardly the guidepost that these future lawyers should heed.

gsg