‘Counsels, approach the bench.’ A sitting judge usually calls lawyers to approach the bench when their conduct in the courtroom needs correction, a reminder, a warning, and occasionally a stern rebuke. In Philippine courts, trial judges have not hesitated to censure lawyers when their behavior threatens to derail proceedings with unnecessary arguments, theatrics, or personal attacks. The ultimate objective of litigation including this impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte is the proper administration of justice.
I am sure norms of conduct are taught to every law student in legal ethics. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which took effect in April 2023, every lawyer, ‘as an officer of the court, assists in the administration of justice and as a client’s representative, acts responsibly upon a fiduciary trust.’ An ethical lawyer is expected to embody integrity and act ‘with independence, propriety, fidelity, competence and diligence, equality and accountability.’
Against this backdrop, what I find dumbfounding in the ongoing impeachment trial is the apparent disregard by some lawyers on both sides for the very standards they are professionally bound to observe. Lawyers from the prosecution and defense and even senator-judges have made statements, both in court and outside it, that arguably fail to uphold the dignity of the profession and have also resorted to language that appears abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper, the conduct specifically addressed by Canon II of the CPRA. Whether as part of litigation strategy or simply grandstanding, I have seen instances where opposing counsel and even witnesses appear to be unnecessarily harassed, belittled, or insulted. But perhaps the most troubling practice is the extensive use of media platforms by lawyers from both sides to comment on matters pending before the impeachment court.
Press conferences, interviews, and social media posts may be useful in explaining what is happening in the impeachment court. But there is a thin line between informing the public and trying the case in the court of public opinion. Section 19, Canon II of the CPRA addresses this concern. Lawyers should not publicize or comment on matters pending before a court in a manner that may cause prejudgment, sway public perception, tarnish the integrity of the tribunal, impute improper motives to its members, or create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before a final decision.
For me, there is simply too much talking. And all lawyers ought to know the meaning and spirit of the sub judice rule.
One of the House prosecutors, Congressman-lawyer Ridon, has argued that the public has a right to understand what is happening in the impeachment trial. His point is that the proceedings involve technical legal concepts and that lawyers on both sides have a responsibility to explain the evidence and rules to the public. I understand the argument. But I disagree that lawyers necessarily have to become public commentators on every development in the case.
The public certainly has a right to know what happens in a public trial. Lawyers can explain procedure and clarify legal terminology. What they should not do is use the media to litigate what they could not accomplish in court. And that is exactly what is happening and will continue to happen in this impeachment trial. Every statement by any lawyer is immediately dissected, amplified, weaponized, and converted into political ammunition. What begins as an explanation can quickly become advocacy, and advocacy becomes propaganda in this case that has polarized the country to an extraordinary degree. Unless lawyers, even those designated as spokespersons or so-called analysts, are willing to discipline themselves as in limit their public comments to legitimate explanations of procedure and avoid influencing public sentiment, I would rather see the presiding judge issue a reminder, or even a directive, concerning the sub judice rule.
‘Counsels, approach the bench.’ Someone needs to remind all lawyers, myself included, that we are not merely political advocates but we are officers of the court. The standards imposed in the CPRA go with us wherever we go. Section 2 of Canon II reminds lawyers not to ‘behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.’ Section 3 likewise prohibits conduct that creates or promotes an unsafe or hostile environment, including online.
In an age when outrage attracts attention and rude language generates clicks, there appears to be a temptation among some lawyers to play to the audience. Crassness is mistaken for courage. Insults are mistaken for advocacy. Grandstanding is mistaken for legal brilliance. For me, it is none of these. A lawyer can be forceful without being offensive, passionate without being abusive, and vigorous in defending a client without sacrificing professional dignity. I do not expect the Supreme Court to initiate disciplinary proceedings against every lawyer who may have crossed the line during this impeachment trial. But I do hope the lawyers themselves will exercise some measure of self-policing.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) should remind its members that professional accountability is not merely a provision in a code. It is a responsibility owed to the profession, the courts, the clients, and ultimately to the administration of justice. Self-policing is indispensable to every profession. A handful of bad eggs can give the entire profession a bad name. If lawyers themselves refuse to call out misconduct within their ranks, who will?
‘Counsels, approach the bench.’
There is, interestingly, a parallel in the Christian life. Believers are called ambassadors of Christ: ‘We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.’ (2 Corinthians 5:20) An ambassador represents someone greater than himself. Whatever he says or does reflects upon the one he represents. The same is true of a Christian. But Christians, like lawyers, are far from being perfect. Peter was one of Jesus’ closest disciples. Yet when Jesus was arrested, Peter fled and later denied three times that he even knew Jesus. Peter failed miserably. But his failure did not become the end of his story. He recognized his sin, repented, was restored by Christ, and eventually became one of the most courageous witnesses or advocates of the Gospel. Christianity does not teach that believers will never fail. It teaches that believers must recognize their failures, repent, and return to Christ.
The greater danger for believers and lawyers alike is not falling but becoming comfortable with the fall and after it. A lawyer cannot invoke professional ethics only when convenient. He cannot demand strict compliance from colleagues while excusing his own violations. Likewise, a Christian cannot selectively obey Scripture, as in embracing commands that are convenient while ignoring those that are uncomfortable.
This is the danger of being lukewarm. Christ’s warning in Revelation is severe: ‘Because you are lukewarm – neither hot nor cold – I am about to spit you out of my mouth.’ (Revelation 3:16) A lawyer who repeatedly disregards professional responsibility may face suspension or disbarment. A Christian who repeatedly and consciously treats Christ’s commands as optional faces a far more profound question, not merely whether he has violated a rule, but whether his professed faith is genuine.
There is a difference between a believer who falls and one who refuses to get up. Peter fell. Peter repented. Peter was restored.
The lesson for lawyers is equally simple. We may argue vigorously and defend our clients passionately. But we cannot abandon the rules that make us professionals in the first place. The impeachment trial will eventually end. The lawyers will leave the courtroom, the senators will cast their votes, and the cameras will move on. But the dignity of the legal profession will remain.
So, for all lawyers, may they be reminded of the CPRA, in whatever way, shape, or form. And to those of us who profess to follow Christ, may we be reminded of the tenets in the Bible. Lawyer behavior may face sanctions from an earthly judge (Supreme Court or the IBP), but the conduct of believers will be measured by the One before whom every one of us will ultimately stand. Let us all hear from within ourselves-‘Counsels, approach the bench,’ before it gets too late!
Siegfred has a diversified set of education and experiences which has made him a game changer and a servant leader in organizations. His professional degrees came from the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York, Ateneo Law School, and University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. His corporate experiences include stints as general counsel for the country’s flag carrier, a food exporter with manufacturing plants in Davao and in Laguna, and a sports distributor company. Siegfred is a former soldier and a lawyer by profession, a teacher and inspirational speaker by passion, and a book author and a writer with a mission.