LAWYERS love big words and difficult phrases. Whenever lawyers speak in lectures, this tendency makes them appear pompous, detached, or just plain boring. Now, imagine fellow lawyers listening to them for seven hours a day on five consecutive days — one of the requirements for the Philippine legal profession is the mandatory continuing legal education or MCLE. Painful.
Last month though, the University of the Philippines Law Center, specifically its Institute for the Administration of Justice, proved the opposite. Lawyers became attentive and responsive. Speakers and attendees alike became learners and advocates.
Instead of the usual lectures simply categorized by subject, the UPLC-IAJ, headed by Prof. Danny Uy, created a one-week MCLE program that would be relevant to the times. “Like a Bridge Over Troubling Waters: Corruption and Access to Justice” was its response to the flood control scandal.
Following this theme, the UPLC-IAJ selected speakers who could provide meaningful insights. Justice Maria Filomena Singh (Supreme Court) and former Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang (Sandiganbayan) from the Judiciary. Prosecutor General Richard Fadullon (Department of Justice) from the Executive. Representative Chel Diokno and former Representative Neri Colmenares from the Legislative Branch. Former Chairperson Grace Pulido-Tan (Commission on Audit or COA) and Deputy Special Prosecutor Omar Sagadal, former Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera, and Assistant Ombudsman for Legal Affairs Asryman Rafanan (Office of the Ombudsman) coming from the constitutional bodies.
The Court of Appeals, Anti-Money Laundering Council, Philippine Competition Commission, and Office of the City Prosecutor of Malolos were likewise represented.
What’s even more interesting was the addition of non-lawyers such as former COA Commissioner Heidi Mendoza, journalist Rowena Paraan (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism) and economist Dr. Joel Mangahas along with legal practitioners in the fields of freedom of information, data science, construction arbitration, and public-private partnership. A whole-of-universe approach.
The Philippines has enacted many laws intended to promote good governance and enforce accountability. No less than the Constitution declares that “(p)ublic office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.” This is why Justice Cabotaje-Tang emphasized the moral framework for those entering government and the mechanism of checks and balance. But, as she and many others observed, the “brazen pillage of public funds” continue and “in such ludicrous amounts.”
The most common avenues for graft and corruption happen in the budget process (of Congress and the Department of Budget and Management), procurement of goods and supplies (bids and awards committees, heads of procuring entities, contractor accreditation bodies, regulatory agencies), and contract implementation (government banks, government auditors, implementing agencies). Corrupt officials and employees who are involved in these crimes should be held civilly and criminally accountable, and that means suing them in the Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial Court. Before filing any court case, however, the state must first build its case.
Case-building requires institutional support. If the prosecutorial, investigative, and law enforcement teams are neither skilled nor capacitated, whatever honesty resides in their bones would not matter one bit. If whistleblowing is discouraged, if access to public information even by journalists is prohibitive due to costs, if monitoring of suspicious transactions is not faithfully performed, then we are sure to see more dismissals of cases and concealment of illegally obtained assets.
What about access to justice? “Saying what needs to be said, doing what needs to be done.” Justice Singh admitted that the public finds court processes and litigation costs too burdensome, that one out of four individuals reported personal experiences where the clerk of court, court staff, and sheriff abused authority or acted with dishonesty.
Meanwhile, our laws and regulations allow slippages and inconsistencies. Bank secrecy, hearsay, evidentiary presumptions, criminal penalties for graft. There are loopholes that favor the crook. And crooks have been taking advantage of the weak system. Presidential pardon, humanitarian reasons for allowing bail, acquittal and non-forfeiture, the requirement for a “master plunderer” in a crime that is “secret,” we’ve heard it all.
Nonetheless, according to PCIJ, not all accountability efforts should be judged against successful prosecution. Accountability could extend beyond penalty. That includes exposure, explanation, return of public trust, and institutionalization of reforms.
Reforming the state’s accountability framework — deterrence, prevention, and education — would need a compatible national consciousness. Journalist Paraan said, “Journalism is episodic; civil society ensures continuity.” Thus, the state needs a citizenry that engages on matters of good governance, practices transparency, rejects dishonesty and their own complicity. No “under the table,” for a start. No voting of politicians just because we happen to know them.
This goes for lawyers, too. I like what Dr. Mangahas said before he held a class recitation among the lawyers who were on Zoom. “Lawyers shape economic outcomes.” Indeed, we craft contracts, dictate compliance, and affect incentives. We guide public and private leaders. We ourselves are leaders, not just advocates.
And lawyers are lifelong learners. Setting aside the required hours for continuing legal education, lawyers would benefit deeply from this thematic approach of the UPLC-IAJ. Purposeful learning, plus precious (billable) hours not wasted to droning speeches. Hopefully — perhaps with the support of the Supreme Court as the “guardian’s guardian” — other MCLE providers would follow suit./PN
