PAO Chief, Acosta: CPRA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution - singles out the PAO lawyers to represent conflicting interests

📷: Supreme Court, PIO | https://bit.ly/www_faceboook-mystories_orig_post

 

PAO Chief, Persida Acosta: Section 21 Canon III of the Proposed (now approved) CPRA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution -   singles out the PAO lawyers to represent conflicting interests |

Based on its so-called "Respectful Manifesto", the proposed (now approved) CPRA violates equal protection clause of the Constitution as Section 21, Canon III of the said Code obliges PAO lawyers to represent clients with conflicting interests.

Section 21 Canon III of the Proposed (now approved) Code of Professional Responsibility  and Accountability, only requires full disclosure to and written informed consent of the second conflicting client. Supposed the first and original  client of the District Office objects to the acceptance by the office of the opposing party?

Under Section 21, PAO is compelled to represent both clients by mere consent of the second client. In this set up, the PAO lawyer willl be  exposed to suspicion coming from the first client that the PAO has no undivided loyalty and fidelity to his/her cause.

Section 21 Canon III singles out the Public Attorney’s Office as it gives an added definition to the conflict of interest which is no applicable to other lawyers in general. This circumstance violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. […]The difference in the treatment of the clients of the PAO from that of the clients of other lawyers is an unjustifiable unequal treatment under the law despite the absence of valid classification.

RATIONALE

The appeal of both parties handled by the Public Attorney’s Office would give rise to a situation where bth the lawyers representing the opposing parties would come from the same office. […] This is a ludicrous situation where the competency of the Public Attorney’s Office would be put in question and the wheels of justice might be considered a mockery of sorts. […]

Indigent client  are not left without any option in the few and fair instances when the services of the Public Attorney’s  Office cannot be availed of. 

Remedies are available to these indigent clients such s but not limited to following: 

i.) The appointment of counsel de oficio of private lawyers; 

ii.) the Legal Assistance to the Poor Act of 2010; 

iii.) legal aid clinics of the different law schools; 

iv.) the services of the IBP lawyers and the like.

PAO CARAGA re: Respectful Manifesto on the 'conflict of interest'

portion of the New CPRA 

Read the original post here 🔗 

https://www.facebook.com/100044183448862/posts/pfbid0rVq8GymfSLD7DBVin2kAxWpxYQgctSVfwRHNaxwko4pSKjDzE6Xtmpjc1Zmi1iUWl/?mibextid=Nif5oz