IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration1 submitted its Report

dated November 30, 1972, with the "earnest recommendation" — on the basis of
the said Report and the proceedings had in Administrative Case No. 5262 of the
Court, and "consistently with the views and counsel received from its [the
Commission's] Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhelming nationwide
sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar" — that "this Honorable Court ordain
the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption
and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule."

The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the Court to order the
integration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving recognition as far as
possible and practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar associations.
On August 16, 1962, arguments in favor of as well as in opposition to the petition
were orally expounded before the Court. Written oppositions were admitted,3 and
all parties were thereafter granted leave to file written memoranda.4

Since then, the Court has closely observed and followed significant
developments relative to the matter of the integration of the Bar in this
jurisdiction.

In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there had grown a strong
nationwide sentiment in favor of Bar integration, the Court created the
Commission on Bar Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of
unifying the Philippine Bar.

In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled "An Act
Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds
Therefor." The measure was signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on
September 17, 1971 and took effect on the same day as Rep. Act 6397. This law
provides as follows:

SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the
Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of
the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to
raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.
 SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby
appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such
sums as may be necessary for the same purpose shall be included in
the annual appropriations for the Supreme Court.

SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

The Report of the Commission abounds with argument on the constitutionality of

Bar integration and contains all necessary factual data bearing on the advisability
(practicability and necessity) of Bar integration. Also embodied therein are the
views, opinions, sentiments, comments and observations of the rank and file of
the Philippine lawyer population relative to Bar integration, as well as a proposed
integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission and presented to them by that
body in a national Bar plebiscite. There is thus sufficient basis as well as ample
material upon which the Court may decide whether or not to integrate the
Philippine Bar at this time.

The following are the pertinent issues:

(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?

(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?

(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?

A resolution of these issues requires, at the outset, a statement of the meaning of

Bar integration. It will suffice, for this purpose, to adopt the concept given by the
Commission on Bar Integration on pages 3 to 5 of its Report, thus:

Integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the

entire lawyer population of the Philippines. This requires
membership and financial support (in reasonable amount) of every
attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the
retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

The term "Bar" refers to the collectivity of all persons whose names
appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Unified Bar)
perforce must include all lawyers.

Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity

with power to do so: the State. Bar integration, therefore, signifies
the setting up by Government authority of a national organization of
the legal profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an
officer of the court.
Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of
justice and the Rule of Law, integration fosters cohesion among
lawyers, and ensures, through their own organized action and
participation, the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession,
pursuant to the principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum
supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court.

The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:

(1) Assist in the administration of justice;

(2) Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of
integrity, learning, professional competence, public service and
conduct;

(3) Safeguard the professional interests of its members;

(4) Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and

brotherhood;

(5) Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law

reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar
to the Bench and to the public, and publish information relating
thereto;

(6) Encourage and foster legal education;

(7) Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive

and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon;
and

(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively.

Integration of the Bar will, among other things, make it possible for
the legal profession to:

(1) Render more effective assistance in maintaining the Rule of Law;

(2) Protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of tyrannical

judges and prosecuting officers;

(3) Discharge, fully and properly, its responsibility in the disciplining

and/or removal of incompetent and unworthy judges and
prosecuting officers;
 (4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself
except within its own forum, from the assaults that politics and self-
interest may level at it, and assist it to maintain its integrity,
impartiality and independence;

(5) Have an effective voice in the selection of judges and prosecuting

officers;

(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice of law, and break up any

monopoly of local practice maintained through influence or position;

(7) Establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased

lawyers;

(8) Provide placement services, and establish legal aid offices and
set up lawyer reference services throughout the country so that the
poor may not lack competent legal service;

(9) Distribute educational and informational materials that are

difficult to obtain in many of our provinces;

(10) Devise and maintain a program of continuing legal education for

practising attorneys in order to elevate the standards of the
profession throughout the country;

(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards, and promulgate minimum fees

schedules;

(12) Create law centers and establish law libraries for legal research;

(13) Conduct campaigns to educate the people on their legal rights

and obligations, on the importance of preventive legal advice, and on
the functions and duties of the Filipino lawyer; and

(14) Generate and maintain pervasive and meaningful country-wide

involvement of the lawyer population in the solution of the
multifarious problems that afflict the nation.

Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine
Bar in the exercise of its power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and
the admission to the practice of law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent
part of the Court's constitutional authority over the Bar. In providing that "the
Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine
Bar," Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor restricts the Court's
inherent power, but is a mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar
will promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise the standards of the
legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility more effectively."

Resolution of the second issue — whether the unification of the Bar would be
constitutional — hinges on the effects of Bar integration on the lawyer's
constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech, and on the
nature of the dues exacted from him.

The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent discussion made by the
Commission on Bar Integration pages 44 to 49 of its Report:

Constitutionality of Bar Integration

Judicial Pronouncements.

In all cases where the validity of Bar integration measures has been
put in issue, the Courts have upheld their constitutionality.

The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:

— Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice

of law.

— The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege,

moreover, clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties
not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to
the courts, and to the nation; and takes part in one of the most
important functions of the State, the administration of justice, as an
officer of the court.

— Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public

interest, it is far and just that the exercise of that privilege be
regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer's public
responsibilities.

— These public responsibilities can best be discharged through

collective action; but there can be no collective action without an
organized body; no organized body can operate effectively without
incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair and just that all attorneys be
required to contribute to the support of such organized body; and,
given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of doing so
is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all
lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.

1. Freedom of Association.
To compel a lawyer to be a member of an integrated Bar is not
violative of his constitutional freedom to associate (or the corollary
right not to associate).

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which

he is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he
passed the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to
provide an official national organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a
member.

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone.
He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The
body compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual
dues.

Otherwise stated, membership in the Unified Bar imposes only the

duty to pay dues in reasonable amount. The issue therefore, is a
question of compelled financial support of group activities, not
involuntary membership in any other aspect.

The greater part of Unified Bar activities serves the function of

elevating the educational and ethical standards of the Bar to the end
of improving the quality of the legal service available to the people.
The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest
in elevating the quality of professional services, may require that the
cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the
subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the lawyers.

Assuming that Bar integration does compel a lawyer to be a member

of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of
the police power of the State. The legal profession has long been
regarded as a proper subject of legislative regulation and control.
Moreover, the inherent power of the Supreme Court to regulate the
Bar includes the authority to integrate the Bar.

2. Regulatory Fee.

For the Court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not
mean that the Court levies a tax.

A membership fee in the Integrated Bar is an exaction for regulation,

while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the Court has inherent power
to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may
impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible
to push through an Integrated Bar program without means to defray
the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied powers
necessarily includes the power to impose such an exaction.

The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the Bar is that
the regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The
public interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs
the inconsequential inconvenience to a member that might result
from his required payment of annual dues.

3. Freedom of Speech.

A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on any

subject in any manner he wishes, even though such views be
opposed to positions taken by the Unified Bar.

For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote measures

to which said member is opposed, would not nullify or adversely
affect his freedom of speech.

Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to practice law

upon membership in the Integrated Bar, it is difficult to understand
why it should become unconstitutional for the Bar to use the
member's dues to fulfill the very purposes for which it was
established.

The objection would make every Governmental exaction the material

of a "free speech" issue. Even the income tax would be suspect. The
objection would carry us to lengths that have never been dreamed
of. The conscientious objector, if his liberties were to be thus
extended, might refuse to contribute taxes in furtherance of war or of
any other end condemned by his conscience as irreligious or
immoral. The right of private judgment has never yet been exalted
above the powers and the compulsion of the agencies of
Government.

4. Fair to All Lawyers.

Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising because

although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it
will give the members of the Bar a new system which they hitherto
have not had and through which, by proper work, they will receive
benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their public
responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have been able
to do in the past. Because the requirement to pay dues is a valid
exercise of regulatory power by the Court, because it will apply
 equally to all lawyers, young and old, at the time Bar integration
takes effect, and because it is a new regulation in exchange for new
benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not unfair.

To resolve the third and final issue — whether the Court should ordain the
integration of the Bar at this time — requires a careful overview of the
practicability and necessity as well as the advantages and disadvantages of Bar
integration.

In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the United States,
Bar integration has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved discipline among
the members of the Bar; (2) greater influence and ascendancy of the Bar; (3)
better and more meaningful participation of the individual lawyer in the activities
of the Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar facilities and services; (5) elimination of
unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance of costly membership campaigns; (7)
establishment of an official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession; and
(9) better and more effective discharge by the Bar of its obligations and
responsibilities to its members, to the courts, and to the public. No less than
these salutary consequences are envisioned and in fact expected from the
unification of the Philippine Bar.

Upon the other hand, it has been variously argued that in the event of integration,
Government authority will dominate the Bar; local Bar associations will be
weakened; cliquism will be the inevitable result; effective lobbying will not be
possible; the Bar will become an impersonal Bar; and politics will intrude into its
affairs.

It is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils prophesied by opponents of

Bar integration have failed to materialize in over fifty years of Bar integration
experience in England, Canada and the United States. In all the jurisdictions
where the Integrated Bar has been tried, none of the abuses or evils feared has
arisen; on the other hand, it has restored public confidence in the Bar, enlarged
professional consciousness, energized the Bar's responsibilities to the public,
and vastly improved the administration of justice.

How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar integration? The official
statistics compiled by the Commission on Bar integration show that in the
national poll recently conducted by the Commission in the matter of the
integration of the Philippine Bar, of a total of 15,090 lawyers from all over the
archipelago who have turned in their individual responses, 14,555 (or 96.45 per
cent) voted in favor of Bar integration, while only 378 (or 2.51 per cent) voted
against it, and 157 (or 1.04 per cent) are non-commital. In addition, a total of
eighty (80) local Bar association and lawyers' groups all over the Philippines have
submitted resolutions and other expressions of unqualified endorsement and/or
support for Bar integration, while not a single local Bar association or lawyers'
group has expressed opposed position thereto. Finally, of the 13,802 individual
lawyers who cast their plebiscite ballots on the proposed integration Court Rule
drafted by the Commission, 12,855 (or 93.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof, 662
(or 4.80 per cent) vote against it, and 285 (or 2.06 per cent) are non-committal.5
All these clearly indicate an overwhelming nationwide demand for Bar integration
at this time.

The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the
arguments adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the
mass of factual data contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on
Bar Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly
constitutional and legally unobjectionable," within the context of contemporary
conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative means to raise the
standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and
enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of

Article VIII of the Constitution, hereby ordains the integration of the Bar of the
Philippines in accordance with the attached COURT RULE, effective on January
16, 1973.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castillo, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,

Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Created by Supreme Court Resolution of October 5, 1970 "for the

purpose of ascertaining the advisability of the integration of the Bar
in this jurisdiction," the Commission is composed of Supreme Court
Associate Justice Fred Ruiz Castro (Chairman), Senator Jose J. Roy,
retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Conrado V. Sanchez,
Supreme Court Associate Justice (then Court of Appeals Presiding
Justice) Salvador V. Esguerra, U. P. Law Center Director Crisolito
Pascual, Ex-Senator Tecla San Andres Ziga, and San Beda Law Dean
and Constitutional Convention Delegate Feliciano Jover Ledesma
(Members).

2 Filed on July 11, 1962 (by a Committee composed of Jose W.

Diokno, Roman Ozaeta, Jose P. Carag, Eugenio Villanueva, Jr. and
Leo A. Panuncialman), the petition represented the unanimous
consensus of 53 Bar Associations (from all over the Philippines)
reached in convention at the Far Eastern University Auditorium in
Manila on June 23, 1962.

3 Written oppositions were submitted by Attys. Cesar Fajardo and

Vicente L. Arcega, the Camarines Norte Lawyers League, Atty.
 Fructuoso S. Villarin, the Camarines Sur Bar Association and the
Manila Bar Association.

4 The Petitioners and the Negros Occidental Bar Association

submitted memoranda in favor of Bar integration, while the Manila
Bar Association submitted a memoranda opposing Bar integration.

5 All figures are as of January 8, 1973.

N THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.

PER CURIAM:

In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(hereafter "IBP") held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International Convention
Center (or PICC), the following were elected by the House of Delegates
(composed of 120 chapter presidents or their alternates) and proclaimed as
officers:

NAME POSITION

Atty. Violeta Drilon President

Atty. Bella Tiro Executive Vice-President

Atty. Salvador Lao Chairman, House of Delegates

Atty. Renato F. Ronquillo Secretary, House of Delegates

Atty. Teodoro Quicoy Treasurer, House of Delegates

Atty. Oscar Badelles Sergeant at Arms, House of Delegates

Atty. Justiniano Cortes Governor & Vice-President for Northern Luzon

Atty. Ciriaco Atienza Governor & Vice-President for Central Luzon

Atty. Mario Jalandoni Governor & Vice-President for Metro Manila

Atty. Jose Aguilar Governor & Vice-President for Southern Luzon

Grapilon
Atty. Teodoro Almine Governor & Vice-President for Bicolandia

Atty. Porfirio Siyangco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern Visayas

Atty. Ricardo Teruel Governor & Vice-President for Western Visayas

Atty. Gladys Tiongco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern Mindanao

Atty. Simeon Governor & Vice-President for Western

Datumanong Mindanao

The newly-elected officers were set to take the their oath of office on July 4,1989,
before the Supreme Court en banc. However,disturbed by the widespread reports
received by some members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or
participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the
columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and
overspending by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of
president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce,
and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes, and the officious
intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were
done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities. The Supreme
Court en banc, exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar,
resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into
the veracity of the reports.

It should be stated at the outset that the election process itself (i.e. the voting and
the canvassing of votes on June 3, 1989) which was conducted by the "IBP
Comelec," headed by Justice Reynato Puno of the Court of Appeals, was
unanimously adjudged by the participants and observers to be above board. For
Justice Puno took it upon himself to device safeguards to prevent tampering
with, and marking of, the ballots.

What the Court viewed with considerable concern was the reported
electioneering and extravagance that characterized the campaign conducted by
the three candidates for president of the IBP.

I. MEDIA ACCOUNT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

Emil Jurado, in his column "IBP Group Questions Drilon Election" (Manila
Standard, Sunday, June 17, 1989), Luis Mauricio, in two successive columns:
"The Invertebrated Bar" (Malaya, June 10, 1989) and "The Disintegrating Bar"
(Malaya, June 20, 1989), and Teodoro Locsin Jr. in an article, entitled "Pam-Pam"
(The Philippines Free Press, July 8,1989), and the editorial, entitled 'Wrong
Forum" of the Daily Globe (June 8, 1989), were unanimously critical of the "vote-
buying and pressure tactics" allegedly employed in the campaign by the three
principal candidates: Attys. Violeta C. Drilon, Nereo Paculdo and Ramon Nisce
who reportedly "poured heart, soul, money and influence to win over the 120 IBP
delegates."

Mr. Jurado mentioned the resentment of Atty. Drilon's rivals who felt at a
disadvantage because Atty. Drilon allegedly used PNB helicopters to visit far-
flung IBP chapters on the pretext of distributing Bigay Puso donations, and she
had the added advantage of having regional directors and labor arbiters of the
Department of Labor and Employment (who had been granted leaves of absence
by her husband, the Labor Secretary) campaigning for her. Jurado's informants
alleged that there was rampant vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma
Rho Fraternity (Secretary Drilon's fraternity), as well as by some lawyers of
ACCRA (Angara, Concepcion, Cruz, Regala and Abello Law Office) where Mrs.
Drilon is employed, and that government positions were promised to others by
the office of the Labor Secretary.

Mr. Mauricio in his column wrote about the same matters and, in addition,
mentioned "talk of personnel of the Department of Labor, especially conciliators
and employers, notably Chinese Filipinos, giving aid and comfort to her (Atty.
Drilon's) candidacy," the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where
they were reportedly "wined and dined continuously, womened and subjected to
endless haggling over the price of their votes x x x" which allegedly "ranged from
Pl5,000 to P20,000, and, on the day of the election, some twelve to twenty votes
which were believed crucial, appreciated to P50,000."

In his second column, Mr. Mauricio mentioned "how a top official of the judiciary
allegedly involved himself in IBP politics on election day by closeting himself
with campaigners as they plotted their election strategy in a room of the PICC
(the Philippine International Convention Center where the convention/election
were held) during a recess x x x."

Mr. Locsin in his column and editorial substantially re-echoed Mauricio's reports
with some embellishments.

II. THE COURT'S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE.

Responding to the critical reports, the Court, in its en banc resolution dated June
15, 1989, directed the outgoing and incoming members of the IBP Board of
Governors, the principal officers and Chairman of the House of Delegates to
appear before it on Tuesday, June 20, 1989, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., and there to
inform the Court on the veracity of the aforementioned reports and to
recommend, for the consideration of the Court, appropriate approaches to the
problem of confirming and strengthening adherence to the fundamental
principles of the IBP.

In that resolution the Court "call[ed] to mind that a basic postulate of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), heavily stressed at the time of its
organization and commencement of existence, is that the IBP shall be non-
political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the
choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates, and
of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter. The fundamental assumption
was that officers, delegates and governors would be chosen on the basis of
professional merit and willingness and ability to serve."

The resolution went on to say that the "Court is deeply disturbed to note that in
connection with the election of members of the Board of Governors and of the
House of Delegates, there is a widespread belief, based on reports carried by
media and transmitted as well by word of mouth, that there was extensive and
intensive campaigning by candidates for IBP positions as well as expenditure of
considerable sums of money by candidates, including vote-buying, direct or
indirect."

The venerable retired Supreme Court Justice and IBP President Emeritus, Jose
B.L. Reyes, attended the dialogue, upon invitation of the Court, to give counsel
and advice. The meeting between the Court en banc on the one hand, and the
outgoing and in coming IBP officers on the other, was an informal one.
Thereafter, the Court resolved to conduct a formal inquiry to determine whether
the prohibited acts and activities enumerated in the IBP By-Laws were committed
before and during the 1989 elections of IBP's national officers.

The Court en banc formed a committee and designated Senior Associate Justice
Andres R. Narvasa, as Chairman, and Associate Justices Teodoro R. Padilla,
Emilio A. Gancayco, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, as
members, to conduct the inquiry. The Clerk of Court, Atty. Daniel Martinez, acted
as the committee's Recording Secretary.

A total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified in response to

subpoenas issued by the Court to shed light on the conduct of the elections. The
managers of three five-star hotels the Philippine Plaza, the Hyatt, and the Holiday
Inn where the three protagonists (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) allegedly set up
their respective headquarters and where they billeted their supporters were
summoned. The officer of the Philippine National Bank and the Air Transport
Office were called to enlighten the Court on the charge that an IBP presidential
candidate and the members of her slate used PNB planes to ferry them to distant
places in their campaign to win the votes of delegates. The Philippine Airlines
officials were called to testify on the charge that some candidates gave free air
fares to delegates to the convention. Officials of the Labor Department were also
called to enable the Court to ascertain the truth of the reports that labor officials
openly campaigned or worked for the election of Atty. Drilon.

The newspaper columnists, Messrs. Luis Mauricio, Jesus Bigornia and Emil
Jurado were subpoenaed to determine the nature of their sources of information
relative to the IBP elections. Their stories were based, they said, on letters, phone
calls and personal interviews with persons who claimed to have knowledge of the
facts, but whom they, invoking the Press Freedom Law, refused to identify.

The Committee has since submitted its Report after receiving, and analyzing and
assessing evidence given by such persons as were perceived to have direct and
personal knowledge of the relevant facts; and the Court, after deliberating
thereon, has Resolved to accept and adopt the same.

III. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES UNDER IBP BY-LAWS.

Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political"

character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thus:

"SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. — The Integrated Bar is strictly non-

political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is
strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer
holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in
the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality
thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in
the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor,
officer or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee
of any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from
his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for
any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial,
quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any
political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. "'

Section 14 of the same By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts

relative to IBP elections:

SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. — The

following acts and practices relative to election are prohibited,
whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the
Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any
form or manner, by himself or through another person:

(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign

material;

(b) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign material other

than a statement of the biodata of a candidate on not more than one
page of a legal-size sheet of paper; or causing distribution of such
statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the
officer presiding at the elections;
 (c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an
elective, judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the
Government or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof;

(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of

candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof;

(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold

his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate, (1) payment of the
dues or other indebtedness of any member; (2) giving of food, drink,
entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar
consideration to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing an
expenditure to be made, offered or promised to any person."

Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the above
rules:

(d) Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of

any of the prohibited acts and practices defined in Section 14
prohibited Acts and Practices relative to elections) of the by-laws of
the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification of a
candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to
the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member pursuant to the
By-laws of the Integrated Bar.

At the formal investigation which was conducted by the investigating committee,

the following violations were established:

(1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for

president, executive vice-president, the officers of candidate the House of
Delegates and Board of Governors.

The three candidates for IBP President Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo began travelling
around the country to solicit the votes of delegates as early as April 1989. Upon
the invitation of IBP President, Leon Garcia, Jr. (t.s.n., July 13,1989, p. 4), they
attended the Bench and Bar dialogues held in Cotabato in April 1989 (t.s.n., June
29, 1989, p. 123), in Tagaytay City, Pampanga, and in Baguio City (during the
conference of chapter presidents of Northern Luzon (t.s.n., July 3,1989, p. 113;
t.s.n., July 10, p. 41; t.s.n., July 13, p. 47) where they announced their candidacies
and met the chapter presidents.

Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking the help of IBP
chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and securing their written endorsements.
He personally hand-carried nomination forms and requested the chapter
presidents and delegates to fill up and sign the forms to formalize their
commitment to his nomination for IBP President. He started campaigning and
distributing the nomination forms in March 1989 after the chapter elections which
determined the membership of the House of Delegates composed of the 120
chapter presidents (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp. 82-86). He obtained forty (40)
commitments. He submitted photocopies of his nomination forms which read:

"Nomination Form

I Join in Nominating

RAMON M. NISCE

as

National President of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines

______________ _______________

Chapter Signature"

Among those who signed the nomination forms were: Onofre P. Tejada, Candido
P. Balbin, Jr., Conizado V. Posadas, Quirico L. Quirico Ernesto S. Salun-at, Gloria
C. Agunos, Oscar B. Bernardo, Feliciano F. Wycoco, Amor L. Ibarra, Jose M.
Atienza, Jose N. Contreras, Romeo T. Mendoza, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Paulino G.
Clarin, Julius Z. Neil, Roem J. Arbolado Democrito M. Perez, Abelardo Fermin,
Diosdado B. Villarin, Jr., Daniel C. Macaraeg, Confesor R. Sansano Dionisio E.
Bala, Jr., Emesto A. Amores, Romeo V. Pefianco, Augurio C. Pamintuan, Atlee T.
Viray, Ceferino C. Cabanas, Jose S. Buban, Diosdado Z. Reloj, Jr., Cesar C. Viola,
Oscar C. Fernandez, Ricardo B. Teruel Rodrigo R. Flores, Sixto Marella, Jr.,
Arsenio C. Villalon, Renato F. Ronquillo, Antonio G. Nalapo Romualdo A. Din Jr.,
Jose P. Icaonapo Jr., and Manuel S. Person.

Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt Hotel based on the
commitments he had obtained (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp. 82-85). Unfortunately,
despite those formal commitments, he obtained only 14 votes in the election
(t.s.n., June 29, 1 989, p. 86). The reason, he said, is that. some of those who had
committed their votes to him were "manipulated, intimidated, pressured, or
remunerated" (t.s.n., June 29,1989, pp. 8695; Exhibit "M-4-Nisce," t.s.n., July 4,
1989, pp. 100-1 04).
(2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign.

The records of the Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C-1-Crudo and Exhibit C-2-
Crudo) show that Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. of the Department of
Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) borrowed a plane from the Philippine
National Bank for his Bicol CORD (Cabinet Officers for Regional Development)
Assistant, Undersecretary Antonio Tria. The plane manifest (Exh. C-2-Crudo)
listed Atty. Violeta Drilon, Arturo Tusi (Tiu), Assistant Secretary for Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) Tony Tria, Atty. Gladys Tiongco, and Amy Wong.
Except for Tony Tria, the rest of the passengers were IBP candidates.

Atty. Drilon admitted that she "hitched" a ride on a PNB plane. She said that she
was informed by Atty. Tiu about the availability of a PNB plane (t.s.n., July 3,1989,
pp. 116-118).

Atty. Tiu, who ran for the position of IBP executive vice-president in the Drilon
ticket, testified that sometime in May 1989 he failed to obtain booking from the
Philippine Airlines for the projected trip of his group to Bicol. He went to the
DENR allegedly to follow up some papers for a client. While at the DENR, he
learned that Assistant Secretary Tria was going on an official business in Bicol
for Secretary Fulgencio Factoran and that he would be taking a PNB plane. As
Assistant Secretary Tria is his fraternity brother, he asked if he, together with the
Drilon group, could hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol. His request was granted.
Their purpose in going to Bicol was to assess their chances in the IBP elections.
The Drilon company talked with the IBP chapter presidents in Daet, Naga, and
Legaspi, and asked for their support (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 549).

Assistant Secretary Antonio S. Tria confirmed the use of a PNB plane by Atty.
Drilon and her group. He recalled that on May 23,1989, DENR Secretary Factoran
instructed him to go to Bicol to monitor certain regional development projects
there and to survey the effect of the typhoon that hit the region in the middle of
May. On the same day, Atty. Tiu, a fraternity brother (meaning that Tiu belongs to
the Sigma Rho fraternity) went to the DENR office and requested the Secretary
(Factoran) if he (Tiu) could be allowed to hitch a ride on the plane. Assistant
Secretary Tria, together with the Drilon group which included Attorneys Drilon,
Grapilon, Amy Wong, Gladys Tiongco, and Tiu, took off at the Domestic Airport
bound for Naga, Daet and Legaspi. In Legaspi the Drilon group had lunch with
Atty. Vicente Real, Jr., an IBP chapter president (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 54-69).

(3) Formation of tickets and single slates.

The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and Drilon, admitted having formed their
own slates for the election of IBP national officers on June 3, 1989.

Atty. Paculdo's slate consisted of — himself for President; Bella D. Tiro, for
Executive Vice-President; and for Governors: Justiniano P. Cortez (Northern
Luzon), Oscar C. Fernandez (Central Luzon), Mario C.V. Jalandoni (Greater
Manila), Petronilo A. de la Cruz (Southern Luzon), Teodorico C. Almine, Jr.
(Bicolandia), Ricardo B. Teruel (Western Visayas), Porfirio P. Siyangco (Eastern
Visayas), Jesus S. Anonat (Western Mindanao), Guerrero A. Adaza, Jr. (Eastern
Mindanao) (Exhibit M-Nisce).

The Drilon ticket consisted of. Violeta C. Drilon for President, Arturo Tiu for
Executive Vice President, Salvador Lao for Chairman of the House of Delegates,
and, for Governors: Basil Rupisan (Northern 'Luzon), Acong Atienza (Central
Luzon), Amy Wong (Metro Manila), Jose Grapilon (Southern Tagalog), Teodoro
Almine (Bicolandia), Baldomero Estenzo (Eastern Visayas), Joelito Barrera
(Western Visayas), Gladys Tiongco (Eastern Mindanao), Simeon Datumanong
(Western Mindanao) (Exhibit M-1-Nisce).

Atty. Ramon N. Nisce's line-up listed himself and Confessor B. Sansano Benjamin
B. Bernardino, Antonio L. Nalapo Renato F. Ronquillo, Gloria C. Agunos, Mario
Valderrama, Candido P. Balbin Jr., Oscar C. Fernandez, Cesar G. Viola, Leo C.
Medialdea, Jr., Vicente P. Tordilla, Jr., Jose S. Buban, Joel A. Llosa, Jesus T.
Albacite and Oscar V. Badelles.

(4) Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and alternates.

Atty. Nisce admitted having bought plane tickets for some delegates to the
convention. He mentioned Oscar Badelles to whom he gave four round-trip
tickets (worth about P10,000) from Iligan City to Manila and back. Badelles was a
voting delegate. Nisce, however, failed to get a written commitment from him
because Atty. Medialdea assured him (Nisce) "sigurado na 'yan, h'wag mo nang
papirmahin." Badelles won as sergeant-at-arms, not in Nisce's ticket, but in that
of Drilon.

Badelles admitted that Nisce sent him three airplane tickets, but he Badelles said
that he did not use them, because if he did, he would be committed to Nisce, and
he Badelles did not want to be committed (t.s.n., July 4,1989, pp. 77-79, 95-96).

Nisce also sent a plane ticket to Atty. Atilano, who was his candidate, and another
ticket to Mrs. Linda Lim of Zamboanga. Records of the Philippine Airlines showed
that Atty. Nisce paid for the plane tickets of Vicente Real, Jr. (Exh. D-1-Calica),
Romeo Fortes (Exh. D-1-Calica), Cesar Batica (Exh. D-2-Calica), Jose Buban of
Leyte (Exh. D-2-Calica), Delsanto Resuello (Exh. D-3- Calica), and Ceferino
Cabanas (Exh. D-3-Calica).

In spite of his efforts and expense, only one of Nisce's candidates won: Renato
Ronquillo of Manila 4, as Secretary of the House of Delegates (t.s.n. July 3, p.
161).

(5) Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, entertainment to delegates.

(a) ATTY. NEREO PACULDO

Atty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms and three suites at the
Holiday Inn, which served as his headquarters. The 24 rooms were to be occupied
by his staff (mostly ladies) and the IBP delegates. The three suites were to be
occupied by himself, the officers of the Capitol Bar Association, and Atty. Mario
Jalandoni. He paid P150,000 for the hotel bills of his delegates at the Holiday Inn,
where a room cost P990 per day with breakfast.

Those listed as guests of Atty. Paculdo at the Holiday Inn were: Emesto C. Perez,
Tolomeo Ligutan Judge Alfonso Combong, Ricardo Caliwag, Antonio Bisnar,
Benedicto Balajadia, Jesus Castro, Restituto Villanueva, Serapio Cribe Juanita
Subia, Teodorico J. Almine, Rudy Gumban, Roem Arbolado, Ricardo Teruel,
Shirley Moises, Ramon Roco, Alberto Trinidad, Teodoro Quicoy Manito Lucero,
Fred Cledera Vicente Tordilla, Julian Ocampo, Francisco Felizmenio Marvel
Clavecilla, Amador Capiral, Eufronio Maristela, Porfirio Siyangco, William Llanes,
Jr., Marciano Neri, Guerrero Adaza, Diosdado Peralta, Luis C. Formilleza, Jr.,
Democrito Perez, Bruno Flores, Dennis Rendon, Judge Ceferino Chan, Mario
Jalandoni, Kenneth Siruelo Bella Tiro, Antonio Santos, Tiburcio Edano James
Tan, Cesilo A. Adaza, Francisco Roxas, Angelita Gacutan, Jesse Pimentel, Judge
Jaime Hamoy, Jesus Anonat, Carlos Egay, Judge Carlito Eisma, Judge Jesus
Carbon, Joven Zach, and Benjamin Padon.

Noel de Guzman, Holiday Inn's credit manager, testified that Atty. Paculdo
booked 52 (not 24) rooms, including the presidential suite, which was used as the
Secretariat. The group bookings were made by Atty. Gloria Paculdo, the wife of
Nereo Paculdo (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 63-68). The total sum of P227,114.89 was
paid to Holiday Inn for the use of the rooms.

(b) ATTY. VIOLETA C. DRILON

The delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon were billeted at the Philippine Plaza
Hotel where her campaign manager, Atty. Renato Callanta, booked 40 rooms, 5 of
which were suites. According to Ms. Villanueva, Philippine Plaza banquet and
conventions manager, the contract that Atty. Callanta signed with the Philippine
Plaza was made in the name of the "IBP c/o Atty. Callanta."

Mrs. Lourdes Juco, a sales manager of the Philippine Plaza, recalled that it was
Mr. Mariano Benedicto who first came to book rooms for the IBP delegates. She
suggested that he obtain a group (or discounted) rate. He gave her the name of
Atty. Callanta who would make the arrangements with her. Mr. Benedicto turned
out to be the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE).

The total sum of P316,411.53 was paid by Atty. Callanta for the rooms, food, and
beverages consumed by the Drilon group, with an unpaid balance of P302,197.30.
Per Attorney Daniel Martinez's last telephone conversation with Ms. Villanueva,
Atty. Callanta still has an outstanding account of P232,782.65 at Philippine Plaza.

Atty. Callanta admitted that he signed the contract for 40 rooms at the Philippine
Plaza. He made a downpayment of P123,000. His "working sheet' showed that the
following persons contributed for that down payment:

(a) Nilo Pena (Quasha Law Office) P 25,000

(b) Antonio Carpio 20,000

(c) Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law Office) 10,000

(d) Jay Castro 10,000

(e) Danny Deen 20,000

(f) Angangco Tan (Angara Law Office) 10,000

(g) Alfonso Reyno 20,000

(h) Cosme Rossel 15,300

(t.s.n. July 4, 1 989, pp. 3-4)

Atty. Callanta explained that the above listed persons have been contributing
money every time the IBP embarks on a project. This time, they contributed so
that their partners or associates could attend the legal aid seminar and the IBP
convention too.

Atty. Drilon alleged that she did not know that Atty. Callanta had billeted her
delegates at the Philippine Plaza. She allegedly did not also know in whose name
the room she occupied was registered. But she did ask for a room where she
could rest during the convention. She admitted, however, that she paid for her
hotel room and meals to Atty. Callanta, through Atty. Loanzon (t.s.n. July 3,1989).

The following were listed as having occupied the rooms reserved by Atty.
Callanta at the Philippine Plaza: Violeta Drilon, Victoria A. Verciles, Victoria C.
Loanzon, Leopoldo A. Consulto Ador Lao, Victoria Borra, Aimee Wong, Callanta,
Pena, Tiu, Gallardo, Acong Atienza, D. Bernardo, Amores, Silao Caingat, Manuel
Yuson, Simeon Datumanong, Manuel Pecson, Sixto Marella, Joselito Barrera,
Radon Macalalag, Oscar Badelles, Antonio Acyatan, Ildefonso C. Puerto, Nestor
Atienza, Gil Batula Array Corot, Dimakuta Corot Romeo Fortes Irving Petilla,
Teodoro Palma, Gil Palma, Danilo Deen, Delsanto, Resuello, Araneta, Vicente
Real, Sylvio Casuncad Espina, Guerrero, Julius Neri, Linda Lim, Ben Lim, C.
Batica, Luis Formilleza, Felix Macalag Mariano Benedicto, Atilano, Araneta,
Renato Callanta.
Atty. Nilo Pena admitted that the Quasha Law Office of which he is a senior
partner, gave P25,000 to Callanta for rooms at the Philippine Plaza so that some
members of his law firm could campaign for the Drilon group (t.s.n. July 5,1989,
pp. 7678) during the legal aid seminar and the IBP convention. Most of the
members of his law firm are fraternity brothers of Secretary Drilon (meaning,
members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity). He admitted being sympathetic to the
candidacy of Atty. Drilon and the members of her slate, two of whom Jose
Grapilon and Simeon Datumanong — are Sigma Rhoans. They consider Atty.
Drilon as a "sigma rho sister," her husband being a sigma rhoan.

Atty. Antonio Carpio, also a Sigma Rhoan, reserved a room for the members of
his own firm who attended the legal aid seminar and the convention. He made the
reservation through Atty. Callanta to whom he paid P20,000 (t.s.n. July 6,1989, pp.
30-34).

Atty. Carpio assisted Atty. Drilon in her campaign during the convention, by
soliciting the votes of delegates he knew, like Atty. Albacite his former teacher
(but the latter was already committed to Nisce), and Atty. Romy Fortes, a
classmate of his in the U.P. College of Law (t. t.s.n. July 6, 1989, pp. 22, 29, 39).

(c) ATTY. RAMON NISCE.

Atty. Nisce, through his brother-in-law, Ricardo Paras, entered into a contract
with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of 29 rooms plus one (1) seventh-floor room. He
made a downpayment of P20,000 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 58) on April 20, 1989,
and P37,632.45 on May 10, or a total of P57,632.45.

Ms. Cecile Flores, Ms. Milagros Ocampo, and Mr. Ramon Jacinto, the sales
department manager, credit manager, and reservation manager, respectively of
the Hyatt, testified that Atty. Nisce's bill amounted to P216,127.74 (t.s.n. June 28,
1989, pp. 57-58; Exhibits E-Flores, F-Jacinto G-Ocampo).

As earlier mentioned, Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms for those who
committed themselves to his candidacy.

The hotel guests of Atty. Nisce were: Gloria Agunos Dennis Habanel B. Batula,
John E. Asuncion, Reynaldo Cortes, Lourdes Santos, Elmer Datuin, Romualdo
Din, Antonio Nalapo, Israel Damasco, Candido Balbin, Serrano Balot, Ibarra, Joel
Llosa, Eltanal, Ruperto, Asuncion, Q. Pilotin Reymundo P. Guzman, Zoilo
Aguinaldo, Clarin, R. Ronquillo, Dominador Carillo, Filomeno Balinas, Ernesto
Sabulan, Yusop Pangadapun, A. Viray, Icampo, Abelardo Fermin, C. Quiaoit,
Augurio Pamintuan, Daniel Macaraeg, Onofre Tejada.

(6) Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta Drilon

In violation of the prohibition against "campaigning for or against a candidate
while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the
Government' (Sec. 14[c], Art. I, IBP By-Laws), Mariano E. Benedicto II, Assistant
Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, testified that he took a leave of
absence from his office to attend the IBP convention. He stayed at the Philippine
Plaza with the Drilon group admittedly to give "some moral assistance" to Atty.
Violeta Drilon. He did so because he is a member of the Sigma Rho Fraternity.
When asked about the significance of Sigma Rho, Secretary Benedicto explained:
"More than the husband of Mrs. Drilon being my boss, the significance there is
that the husband is my brother in the Sigma Rho."

He cheered up Mrs., Drilon when her spirits were low. He talked to her immediate
circle which included Art Tiu, Tony Carpio, Nilo Pena, Amy Wong, Atty. Grapilon,
Victor Lazatin, and Boy Reyno. They assessed the progress of the campaign, and
measured the strengths and weaknesses of the other groups The group had
sessions as early as the later part of May.

Room 114, the suite listed in the name of Assistant Secretary Benedicto toted up
a bill of P23,110 during the 2-day IBP convention/election. A total of 113 phone
calls (amounting to Pl,356) were recorded as emanating from his room.

Opposite Room 114, was Room 112, also a suite, listed in the names of Mrs.
Drilon, Gladys Tiongco (candidate for Governor, Eastern Mindanao) and Amy
Wong (candidate for Governor, Metro Manila). These two rooms served as the
"action center' or "war room" where campaign strategies were discussed before
and during the convention. It was in these rooms where the supporters of the
Drilon group, like Attys. Carpio, Callanta, Benedicto, the Quasha and the ACCRA
lawyers met to plot their moves.

(7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-
Laws).

Atty. Teresita C. Sison, IBP Treasurer, testified that she has heard of candidates
paying the IBP dues of lawyers who promised to vote for or support them, but
she has no way of ascertaining whether it was a candidate who paid the
delinquent dues of another, because the receipts are issued in the name of the
member for whom payment is made (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 24-28).

She has noticed, though, that there is an upsurge of payments in March, April,
May during any election year. This year, the collections increased by P100,000
over that of last year (a non-election year from Pl,413,425 to Pl,524,875 (t.s.n.
June 28, 1989, p. 25).

(8) Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more than one page of legal
size sheet of paper (Sec. 14[a], IBP By-Laws).
On the convention floor on the day of the election, Atty. Paculdo caused to be
distributed his bio-data and copies of a leaflet entitled "My Quest," as wen as, the
lists of his slate. Attys. Drilon and Nisce similarly distributed their tickets and bio-
data.

The campaign materials of Atty. Paculdo cost from P15,000 to P20,000. They were
printed by his own printing shop.

(9) Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than

those authorized by the officer presiding at the election (Sec. 14[b], IBP By-Laws).

Atty. Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his campaign materials on

the convention floor. Atty. Carpio noted that there were more campaign materials
distributed at the convention site this year than in previous years. The election
was more heated and expensive (t.s.n. July 6,1989, p. 39).

Atty. Benjamin Bernardino, the incumbent President of the IBP Rizal Chapter, and
a candidate for chairman of the House of Delegates on Nisce's ticket, testified
that campaign materials were distributed during the convention by girls and by
lawyers. He saw members of the ACCRA law firm campaigning for Atty. Drilon
(t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 142-145).

(10) Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or

against a candidate (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).

Atty. Bernardino disclosed that his cousin, Atty. Romeo Capulong, urged him to
withdraw his candidacy for chairman of the House of Delegates and to run as
vice-chairman in Violy Drilon's slate, but he declined (t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 137,
149).

Atty. Gloria Agunos personnel director of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in Baguio and
president of the Baguio-Benguet IBP Chapter, recalled that in the third week of
May 1989, after the Tripartite meet of the Department of Labor & Employment at
the Green Valley Country Club in Baguio City, she met Atty. Drilon, together with
two labor officers of Region 1, Attys. Filomeno Balbin and Atty. Mansala Atty.
Drilon solicited her (Atty. Agunos') vote and invited her to stay at the Philippine
Plaza where a room would be available for her. Atty. Paculdo also tried to enlist
her support during the chapter presidents' meeting to choose their nominee for
governor for the Northern Luzon region (t.s.n. July 13,1989, pp. 43-54).

Atty. Nisce testified that a Manila Chapter 4 delegate, Marcial Magsino, who had
earlier committed his vote to Nisce changed his mind when he was offered a
judgeship (This statement, however, is admittedly hearsay). When Nisce
confronted Magsino about the alleged offer, the latter denied that there was such
an offer. Nisce's informant was Antonio G. Nalapo an IBP candidate who also
withdrew.
Another Nisce candidate, Cesar Viola, withdrew from the race and refused to be
nominated (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104). Vicente P. Tordilla who was Nisce's
candidate for Governor became Paculdo's candidate instead (t.s.n. June 29, 1989,
p. 104).

Nisce recalled that during the Bench and Bar Dialogue in Cotabato City, Court
Administrator Tiro went around saying, "I am not campaigning, but my wife is a
candidate." Nisce said that the presidents of several IBP chapters informed him
that labor officials were campaigning for Mrs. Drilon (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. 109-
110). He mentioned Ciony de la Cerna, who allegedly campaigned in La Union
(t.s.n. June 29,1989,p.111)

Atty. Joel A. Llosa, Nisce's supporter and candidate for governor of the Western
Visayas, expressed his disappointment over the IBP elections because some
delegates flip-flopped from one camp to another. He testified that when he arrived
at the Manila Domestic Airport he was met by an assistant regional director of the
DOLE who offered to bring him to the Philippine Plaza, but he declined the offer.
During the legal aid seminar, Atty. Drilon invited him to transfer to the Philippine
Plaza where a room had been reserved for him. He declined the invitation (t.s.n.
July 4,1989, pp. 102-106).

Atty. Llosa said that while he was still in Dumaguete City, he already knew that
the three candidates had their headquarters in separate hotels: Paculdo, at the
Holiday Inn; Drilon, at the Philippine Plaza; and Nisce, at the Hyatt. He knew about
this because a week before the elections, representatives of Atty. Drilon went to
Dumaguete City to campaign. He mentioned Atty. Rodil Montebon of the ACCRA
Law Office, accompanied by Atty. Julve the Assistant Regional Director of the
Department of Labor in Dumaguete City. These two, he said, offered to give him
two PAL tickets and accommodations at the Philippine Plaza (t.s.n. July 4,1989,
pp. 101-104). But he declined the offer because he was already committed to Atty.
Nisce.

Atty. Llosa also revealed that before he left for Manila on May 31, 1989, a
businessman, Henry Dy, approached him to convince him to vote for Atty.
Paculdo. But Llosa told Dy that he was already committed to Nisce.

He did not receive any plane tickets from Atty. Nisce because he and his two
companions (Atty. Eltanal and Atty. Ruperto) had earlier bought their own tickets
for Manila (t.s.n. July 4, 1989, p. 101).

SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES INCURRED

BY THE CANDIDATES

Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250,000 during his three weeks of
campaigning. Of this amount, the Capitol Bar Association (of which he was the
chapter president) contributed about P150,000. The Capitol Bar Association is a
voluntary bar association composed of Quezon City lawyers.

He spent about P100,000 to defray the expenses of his trips to the provinces
(Bicol provinces, Pampanga, Abra, Mountain Province and Bulacan) (t.s.n. June
29,1989, pp. 9-14).

Atty. Nisce's hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216,127.74. This does not
include the expenses for his campaign which began several months before the
June 3rd election, and his purchases of airplane tickets for some delegates.

The records of the Philippine Plaza Hotel, headquarters of Atty. Drilon's camp,
showed that her campaign rang up over P600,000 in hotel bills. Atty. Callanta paid
P316,411.53 for the rooms, food, and beverage consumed by Atty. Drilon's
supporters, but still left an unpaid bill of P302,197.30 at convention's end.

FINDINGS.

From all the foregoing, it is evident that the manner in which the principal
candidates for the national positions in the Integrated Bar conducted their
campaign preparatory to the elections on June 3, 1989, violated Section 14 of the
IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a "strictly non-political"
Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws.

The setting up of campaign headquarters by the three principal candidates

(Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) in five-star hotels: The Philippine Plaza, the Holiday
Inn and The Hyatt the better for them to corral and entertain the delegates billeted
therein; the island hopping to solicit the votes of the chapter presidents who
comprise the 120-member House of Delegates that elects the national officers
and regional governors; the formation of tickets, slates, or line-ups of candidates
for the other elective positions aligned with, or supporting, either Drilon, Paculdo
or Nisce; the procurement of written commitments and the distribution of
nomination forms to be filled up by the delegates; the reservation of rooms for
delegates in three big hotels, at the expense of the presidential candidates; the
use of a PNB plane by Drilon and some members of her ticket to enable them to
"assess their chances" among the chapter presidents in the Bicol provinces; the
printing and distribution of tickets and bio-data of the candidates which in the
case of Paculdo admittedly cost him some P15,000 to P20,000; the employment of
uniformed girls (by Paculdo) and lawyers (by Drilon) to distribute their campaign
materials on the convention floor on the day of the election; the giving of
assistance by the Undersecretary of Labor to Mrs. Drilon and her group; the use
of labor arbiters to meet delegates at the airport and escort them to the Philippine
Plaza Hotel; the giving of pre-paid plane tickets and hotel accommodations to
delegates (and some families who accompanied them) in exchange for their
support; the pirating of some candidates by inducing them to "hop" or "flipflop"
from one ticket to another for some rumored consideration; all these practices
made a political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole election process.

The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the
By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on
all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution
and the laws, the duty to "promote respect for law and legal processes" and to
abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility).
Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to
be millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the
very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance.

The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the
association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of
lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another, certainly did not
uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public's esteem.

The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions, denials and
outright prevarications that tainted the statements of the witnesses, including
tome of the candidates, during the initial hearing conducted by it before its fact-
finding committee was created. The subsequent investigation conducted by this
Committee has revealed that those parties had been less than candid with the
Court and seem to have conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least
withhold vital information from it to conceal the irregularities committed during
the campaign.

CONCLUSIONS.

It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the provision in the 1987
Constitution (See. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a Judicial and Bar Council composed
of seven (7) members among whom is "a representative of the Integrated Bar,"
tasked to participate in the selection of nominees for appointment to vacant
positions in the judiciary, may be the reason why the position of IBP president
has attracted so much interest among the lawyers. The much coveted "power"
erroneously perceived to be inherent in that office might have caused the
corruption of the IBP elections. To impress upon the participants in that electoral
exercise the seriousness of the misconduct which attended it and the stern
disapproval with which it is viewed by this Court, and to restore the non-political
character of the IBP and reduce, if not entirely eliminate, expensive electioneering
for the top positions in the organization which, as the recently concluded
elections revealed, spawned unethical practices which seriously diminished the
stature of the IBP as an association of the practitioners of a noble and honored
profession, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. The IBP elections held on June3,1989 should be as they are hereby annulled.
2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by the House of
Delegates (approved by this Court in its resolution of July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter
No. 287) of the following national officers:

(a) the officers of the House of Delegates;

(b) the IBP president; and

(c) the executive vice-president,

be repealed, this Court being empowered to amend, modify or repeal the By-Laws
of the IBP under Section 77, Art. XI of said By-Laws.

3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-President
elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the governors of the nine [91
IBP regions) from among themselves (as provided in Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP
By-Laws) should be restored. The right of automatic succession by the Executive
Vice-President to the presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term
(which was abolished by this Court's resolution dated July 9,1985 in Bar Matter
No. 287) should be as it is hereby restored.

4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive Vice-President shall
automatically succeed to the office of president. The incoming board of
governors shall then elect an Executive Vice-President from among themselves.
The position of Executive Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP
regions. One who has served as president may not run for election as Executive
Vice-President in a succeeding election until after the rotation of the presidency
among the nine (9) regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the rotation
shall begin anew.

5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 47. National Officers. — The Integrated Bar of the Philippines

shall have a President and Executive Vice-President to be chosen by
the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as
much as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex
oficio Vice-President for their respective regions. There shall also be
a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed
by the President with the consent of the Board.

6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as follows:

(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be
the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House of
Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be
 appointed by the President with the consent of the House of
Delegates.'

7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of Chairman, Vice-

Chairman, Secretary-Treasurer and Sergeant-at- Arms of the House of Delegates
is hereby repealed

8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 37. Composition of the Board. — The Integrated Bar of the

Philippines shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of
nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as delineated in Section
3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1)
Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House
of Delegates from that region only. The position of Governor should
be rotated among the different Chapters in the region.

9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows:

Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors at least one (1)
month before the national convention the delegates from each region
shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as
much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region.

10. Section33(a), Article V hereby is amended by addingthe following provision as

part of the first paragraph:

No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general

membership shall be held prior to any election in an election year.

11. Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article VI should be as
they are hereby deleted.

All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by the Resolution en
banc of this Court of July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter No. 287) that are inconsistent
herewith are hereby repealed or modified.

12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in the nine (9) IBP
regions within three (3) months, after the promulgation of the Court's resolution
in this case. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board of Governors shall meet
at the IBP Central Office in Manila to elect from among themselves the IBP
national president and executive vice-president. In these special elections, the
candidates in the election of the national officers held on June 3,1989, particularly
identified in Sub-Head 3 of this Resolution entitled "Formation of Tickets and
Single Slates," as well as those identified in this Resolution as connected with
any of the irregularities attendant upon that election, are ineligible and may not
present themselves as candidate for any position.

13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be appointed by the
Court to administer the affairs of the IBP. The Court makes clear that the
dispositions here made are without prejudice to its adoption in due time of such
further and other measures as are warranted in the premises.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla. Bidin,

Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Fernan, C.J. and Medialdea, J., took no part.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.