The Philippine Bar Association, the oldest and most prestigious voluntary lawyers’ group headed by Beda Fajardo, met last March 26. As the guest speaker, I had three messages, summarized as follows (see full speech at cjpanganiban.com):
First, I look for competent and ethical lawyers who are responsible, dependable and morally upright, and who courageously uphold truth and justice above everything else. These simple values will keep our people’s faith in our profession and in the rule of law.
Some shyster-lawyers defend the indefensible by delaying cases in the hope that the witnesses would forget the facts, or get tired, or die; or that presiding judges would retire or get promoted, thereby passing the cases to new magistrates who had no opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand; or that the victims would give up the fight.
On the other hand, prosecution lawyers at times skew cases by blatant bribery and by subtler methods, like the filing of defective information (or charge sheets), omission of vital evidence and frequent absences during trials.
While the accused may find solace in their eventual acquittal, they still have to undergo humiliation at being arrested, and to incur expenses, anxiety, and loss of time. Filing baseless charges, whether for money or malice, is not only unethical. It is also brazenly criminal.
Second, let us safeguard liberty and nurture prosperity. We inherited our constitutional framework from the Americans who enshrined the liberating cries of the French Revolution and the English Magna Carta in their Constitution. Their revolutionary ideals are captured in Patrick Henry’s hypnotic oration, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
And so it is with our people. We fought Spanish and American colonization, and our own leaders’ bad governance. That is why our basic laws guarantee the political aspirations of our people. In singing hosannas to protect human rights, our courts liberally copy American jurisprudence. How I wish the same vigor and vitality to uphold our political rights would also be used to promote our economic rights.
Our 1987 Constitution was promulgated when the prevailing economic mantra was “Filipino First.” Our laws restricted the entry of foreign goods and services, and promoted Filipino enterprises and products even if at times they were inferior in quality and price.
At that time, the government operated basic industries. The result was a disaster: Not only was the government grossly inefficient; it also lost heavily. The National Power Corp. alone lost almost a trillion pesos and yet failed to produce enough electricity, resulting in rotating blackouts in the early 1990s.
Soon after our new Constitution was ratified in 1987, the world changed and abandoned protectionist economic theories. Liberalization, globalization, deregulation and privatization bloomed when the World Trade Organization (WTO) was born on Jan. 1, 1995.
The Philippine adherence to the WTO was challenged in Tañada vs. Angara (May 2, 1997), on the ground that the WTO Treaty allegedly violated economic nationalism. This novel case was assigned to me in 1995 when I joined the Supreme Court.
In upholding the WTO Treaty, my unanimously-concurred ponencia argued: “While the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity, and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy.”
May I stress that in embracing globalization, our country pursued its national interest. We recognized the stark reality that the world has become a global village where no country can progress in isolation. Even socialist countries like Russia and China joined the WTO. Only hermit states like North Korea have not entered the WTO. To prosper, we must learn to compete globally.
Third, let us help globalize the legal profession so Filipino lawyers can practice in foreign countries to help our 10 million overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and assist Philippine enterprises operate in foreign markets. Our OFWs brought in over $26 billion last year.
San Miguel Corp. and Philippine Airlines have long been world-class brands. But after globalization dawned in the 1990s, more Philippine companies expanded overseas, like SM Investments, Robinsons Land, Metrobank, LT Group and Liwayway Marketing (makers of Oishi) in China, Ayala in Vietnam and Burma (Myanmar), Petron in Malaysia, Meralco in Singapore and Nigeria, Metro Pacific in Indonesia and Thailand, Energy Development Corp. in Chile and Ecuador, and Jollibee, Cebu Pacific Air and ICTSI, all over the world.
These conglomerates need Filipino lawyers to practice in these foreign lands to ensure that their businesses conform to our laws, in the same manner that multinationals operating here want their foreign lawyers to check whether their operations here conform to the laws of their countries.
However, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court limits admission to the bar to Filipino citizens. I believe this should be amended to allow foreign lawyers to practice here, not about Philippine law but about foreign law, provided Filipino lawyers are given reciprocal privileges to practice in their home states.
* * *
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com