EN BANC

[G.R. No. 00 . January 9, 1973.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE

PHILIPPINES.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIARY; POWERS OF THE SUPREME

COURT; COURT 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 THE ADMISSION TO
THE PRACTICE OF LAW. — 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.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNIFICATION OF THE BAR, CONSTITUTIONAL; BASIS. —
Resolution of the second issue — whether the unification of the Bar would be
constitutional — hinges on the effects of Bar integration of the lawyer's
constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech, and
on the nature of the dues exacted from him.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; INTEGRATION OF THE BAR PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL
AND LEGALLY UNOBJECTIONABLE. — 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 Philippines Bar is "perfectly constitutional and
legally unobjectionable," and, 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.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration 1 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. 526 2 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."

T h e Report of the Commission abounds with arguments 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 national
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 Governmental 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 abuses 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 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 on 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 a privilege clothed with public
interest, it is fair 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 only 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 education 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "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 practicing
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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-committal. In
addition, a total of eighty (80) local Bar associations 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 opposition
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)
voted 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," and, 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

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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, Ruiz Castro, 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com