I received more messages on what amounts to be a complaint against the leadership of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which I am confident will be of interest to members of this august lawyers’ body. I feel concerned considering that I was once governor of the IBP Greater Manila Region and ex-officio vice president.

I was also president of other Bar associations such as the Philippine Bar Association and the National Bar Association, as well as the All Asia Bar-Philippine branch, based in Japan, and the World Movement of Jurists, based in Montreal, Canada. But more important, what is happening in the IBP, which remains unresolved by the Supreme Court as of this writing, 10 months after the IBP elections held last February, truly besmirches the image of the organized Bar and its motto: “No master but law, no guide but conscience, no aim but justice.”

In our August 10, 2009, column in this paper, we reprinted the first of the “Concerned Lawyers” letters detailing the events that led to the  “disqualification” of IBP president Feliciano Bautista by the Rogelio Vinluan faction, which, in turn, voted Vinluan as the new IBP national president, who  had also violated existing IBP rules. That first letter said in part: “…the EVP Vinluan Board acted in excess of authority and with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the April 17, 2009, Resolution No. XVIII-2009 as ultra vires.” It is a travesty of the guiding rules of this august body of lawyers that its own top officers would intentionally ignore these same rules in order to attain their selfish objectives. This error created two contending factions within the IBP which has achieved nothing useful for the organization and could only lead to its disintegration.

I quote the two letters for the information of everyone, especially the lawyers of this country.

1). From “Concerned Lawyers” to the concerned lawyers of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Congress of the Philippines, etc. Re: 2009 election of the IBP Governors and the Executive Vice President. Issue for resolution: Rule 5, Section 31, IBP rules.

“A committee was created to investigate and recommend to the Supreme Court en banc. The committee finished its investigation and made its recommendation after the two  sides were given the opportunity to be heard.

“Why is the Supreme Court delaying the resolution of this IBP case? Almost four  months have already elapsed and the IBP has no National President yet, as well as Governor for the Greater Manila Region, etc.

“If the Supreme Court made a bold and definite stand in the Ruben T. Reyes case, why not in this IBP case considering that every Philippine lawyer is involved, that includes the Supreme Court justices, the  Court of Appeals justices, lawmakers, private lawyers, government lawyers, etc.

“Why does the Supreme Court allow itself to be tarnished with principally two of its members perceived to be deeply interested and involved in this IBP case?

“The IBP should have a credible leadership—not violators of the rule of law and the Constitution.

“The public will be fully apprised of this situation.”

2). From the “Concerned Lawyers of the IBP.”

“Citizen [Rogelio] Vinluan does not deserve to be national president of the IBP. How can every lawyer look upon an IBP president who created in himself disrespect to the legal profession? How can an IBP lawyer follow the rules if the very head of the IBP is the No. 1 violator thus, indisputably setting a bad and unlawful example?

“Citizen Vinluan, with his cohorts, are violators of IBP bylaws and rules, the Code of Professional Responsibility, the lawyer’s oath, and the Rule of Law as enshrined in the Constitution.

“If the IBP issue/issues are not resolved with dispatch by concerned higher authorities, then, some organizations are bent on resolving this/ these issue/issues in a manner that suits their objective for the good of the motherland.”

In the first letter, the “concerned lawyers” pleaded with the Supreme Court to intervene in the case to put its own house in order, saying that, “The integrity of the IBP as a sentinel of the rule of law is put to test, as well as the authority of the Supreme Court that is tasked to oversee the operations of the IBP. The Supreme Court is now called upon to interpret the clear provisions of the bylaws of the IBP in accordance with the facts and evidence already submitted to the special committee…. Delay in the resolution of this problem of the IBP is a serious reflection on the Supreme Court—the last bulwark of the rule of law.”