By Romeo T. Capulong

Every time I am introduced as a speaker through a narration of my professional activities I am always reminded of that European lawyers forum in Rome not so long ago. After saying that I was the chief counsel of the National Democratic Front Peace Panel and defense lawyer of the leading NDF personalities including Jose Maria Sison, the Italian lawyer who introduced me raised his baritone voice and proudly said: ”Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my distinct honor to introduce to you Atty. Romeo Capulong, the number one communist lawyer in the Philippines.”

There will probably be an open forum after my presentation. And if anyone of you wants to ask me if it is true that I have already earned the unique distinction as the number one communist lawyer in the Philippines, I already have the answer. I do not want to incriminate myself. And neither do I want to lose my credibility. To be safe I would rather be ambiguous by saying I will neither confirm nor deny it.

I have chosen this experience of mine as my prefatory statement because it is particularly relevant to my topic this afternoon.

Understandably, a great part of our activities in IBP during the past twenty-six years since it was founded has been focused on elevating the standards of our profession and improving the administration of justice. I think I can safely say that no one among us is competent to determine and to state how much has been done by IBP to achieve these two objectives. But we all agree that both the bench and the bar must continue to work hard to arrest the deterioration of our justice system.

Let me now draw your attention to the third of the three-fold objective of the IBP, which is in my view, equally - if not more important - than the first two. I refer to our public or social responsibility to our people.

I was once president of the Nueva Ecija chapter of IBP and member of the Board of Governors representing Central Luzon. I also presided the National Committee on Legal Aid. And for more than six years now, I have been the chair of the Committee on Human Rights and Due Process. My familiarity with the programs and activities of the IBP qualifies me to say that the dominant view among us is that traditional legal aid programs are fulfilling the discharge of our social responsibility. I beg to differ with this view.

First of all, allow me to underscore the distinction between traditional legal aid and, to use a politically neutral term, non-traditional legal aid.

On a broad sense, traditional legal aid or lawyering for indigent litigants is an old field in our legal system. Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitution guaranteed that free access to the courts should not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. The present Constitution is more emphatic and encompassing in Article III, Section 11: “Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”

In fulfillment of this constitutional mandate, we have at present the Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO) in the Department of Justice and the Roberto Concepcion Legal Aid Program of the IBP as the two main pillars of traditional free legal aid. To complete our overview of traditional legal aid programs, let us give credit to voluntary bar associations such as the Philippine Bar Association, Citizens Legal Aid Society of the Philippines (CLASP), some corporate law firms, law schools, national agencies such as the Department of Agrarian Reform, local government units and other private initiatives that maintain their own legal aid programs for indigents.

Indeed, we can proudly say that in terms of human and material resources our legal system is relatively coping up with its legal duty to provide free legal assistance to our poor. This traditional type of legal aid upholds and complies with the legal right of its beneficiaries who are all poor, as most of them are peasants, workers, urban poor, small fisherfolk, indigenous Filipino and Filipino consumers.

This type of legal aid is also deemed by the majority as the fulfillment of the social responsibility of the IBP and the constitutional duty of the state to the poor to ensure an orderly and impartial dispensation of justice.

My piece today is not to question traditional legal aid as a program of the IBP and the government, as well as of voluntary bar associations and other providers of free legal assistance. This type of legal aid must be encouraged and supported by both the public and the private sector for as long as there poor people. More than 70 percent of our people still live below the poverty level and without sufficient means to afford their most basic needs.

Surely, no one of us in IBP would see anything wrong with a socialized or a purely welfare program of providing free lawyers’ services to our poor people. In the same way, we always appreciate free medical and dental aid, free tuition or relief goods from any source, especially in times of disaster. In fact, we have concretely expressed our support for traditional legal aid programs.

All of us private practitioners know that, in our own little ways, we maintain free legal assistance programs for relatives, friends and neighbors. Some public officials and politicians hire, either at their personal expense or at the expense of the government, private lawyers who extend free legal services to their constituents and political followers. Some of the big corporate law firms in the country have their own legal aid programs for the poor. All the voluntary bar associations provide in one way or another legal aid for the poor. The leading law schools of the country maintain legal aid clinics, which serve the dual purposes of giving apprenticeship and training programs for senior law students and legal aid for the poor. Trade unions and mass-based organizations of peasants and urban poor train their own paralegals who provide legal services that do not require admission to the bar as a requisite for rendering such services. I think the recent trends in our legal system of allowing pro se appearances and representation and assistance to litigants by non-lawyers in quasi-judicial bodies is just another form of legal aid program for the poor.

Let me just say that giving aid to the needy whether in the form of food, clothing, shelter or medicines or free legal services to the victims of an unjust system may provide temporary relief to the poor. But in the long term such kind of aid, given without a complementary program to raise the social awareness of the beneficiaries about the unjust system prevailing in our country today, diminishes rather than help the poor. It contributes to the perpetuation of the system, which breeds poverty and injustices.

Having said this, let me now discuss the other type of lawyering for the poor which, in my view, has long been neglected by the IBP and the voluntary bar associations despite its continuing relevance to our national life. This is lawyering for the poor, not simply because the latter cannot afford to pay legal fees, but additionally and more significantly because of the awareness that poverty is the result of an unjust system that needs to be changed or uprooted. As lawyers, we can make a significant contribution to this. The late Senator Jose Diokno called this developmental legal aid. The more popular term is human rights lawyering. I have a special preference for the broader concept known as public interest lawyering. Some groups call it alternative law practice. Perhaps we can just say that it is lawyering for the oppressed and exploited sectors of our society. And those who are engaged in it may be aptly called people’s lawyers because in addition to rendering competent professional services their commitment to social change is an essential component of their legal services.

In a well-attended meeting in Makati in September 1991, our House of Delegates unanimously affirmed a resolution of the Board of Governors, which I sponsored as IBP governor, adopting Developmental Legal Aid as a program of the IBP under the National Legal Aid Committee which I was presiding then. The unanimous adoption of the program was made after a long workshop and detailed presentation of its merits. To the credit of the House of Delegates, I assure you it did not result from lobby work or accommodation process. Today, eight years later, and despite limited resources, we manage to continue this program, generally in collaboration with the Public Interest Law Center, wherein I have also been very much involved. The IBP Committee on Human Rights and Due Process, which I am presently presiding, is now managing the program.

You will probably ask: What is this other form of legal aid and how is it different from traditional legal aid?

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to cite some concrete cases, which we handled. In the celebrated Flor Contemplacion case, our very own President Jose Grapilon, Atty. Edre Olalia of the Public Interest Law Center and I collaborated in our failed attempt to save the life of a Philippine domestic helper in Singapore. Needless to say, our main objective as true professionals was to save the life of an innocent victim of a frame-up in an authoritarian system where the helplessness was the result of the criminal neglect of her own government and the power and wealth of her adversary in the case. We agreed to handle this case, less than a week before the day of the hanging on March 16,1995. We were aware that the whole nation, if not the whole world, were following this case. We knew that the plight of our client would project the apathy and callousness of the Philippine government to the deplorable conditions and multifarious problems of the five million Filipino migrant workers working in 168 countries around the world. We needed the active participation of militant organizations like Migrante and Bayan, as well as of the media to expose the frame-up and manipulation of the Singaporean judicial system by the rich and powerful culprit, to project our strong newly discovered evidence, and to make it an international embarrassment for the Singaporean government to deny our petition for a new trial.

The martyrdom of the Philippine domestic helper Flor Contemplacion is now part of the history of the struggle of Filipino migrant workers for a better life. We felt the pain of our failure to save her life. But we are consoled by the fact that because of this case the Philippine government has shown a little sensitivity to the problems of our so-called “ Modern Heroes”. Unlike traditional legal aid, our work as people’s lawyers did not end upon termination of the case. Today, four years after we rendered our pro bono legal services in this case, we are more deeply committed not only to the legal defense, protection and promotion of the human rights of the five million Filipino migrant workers. More important than this, we believe that their struggle is also our struggle and that the government should respond not only to the problems of migrant workers in the host countries but should confront the root causes of such migration by providing adequate job opportunities in our own country.

For more than three years now, we in the Public Interest Law Center have been the lawyers of the 2,000 farmers in Hacienda Looc, an 8,650 hectare seaside farm in Nasugbu, Batangas. The farmers and the whole community of 10, 000 residents are defending themselves against mass eviction and total uprooting from their farms and homelots by two giant real estate developers. The latter claim they bought the Hacienda from the Asset Privatization Trust after it had already been awarded to the farmers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).

From the beginning of our professional relationship with our clients, we have been coordinating with the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), with Sentro Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRA) and later with Ugnayan ng mga Mamamayan Laban sa Pangwawasak ng Kanilang Kalupaan (UMALPAS-KA), the local farmers’ association of our clients. Today, after three years of dedicated professional work, we can make an initial evaluation of our rich experience as people’s lawyers for poor peasants who are victims of landgrabbing in the guise of ‘development’ under a government that has no political will to implement even a fake land reform program.

1.The people’s lawyer and clients have been able to confirm through their own experience that the legal fora that adjudicates disputes involving land developers and peasants such as DAR, DARAB and DENR are generally pro-big business and vulnerable to bribery and political pressure. Thus, the farmers have no illusion that such agencies are impartial and will uphold their rights and the rule of law.

2.In defending their rights, the peasants have learned to organize and to empower themselves and have begun to rely on their own strength, unity and militancy to defend themselves. Meanwhile, we continue to invoke the law, utilize the legal issues and our professional skills as lawyers in support of the just cause of their clients.

3.The peasants of Hacienda Looc have learned that their experience is not an isolated case. Indiscriminate conversions of prime agricultural lands into commercial, residential and industrial purposes, mass evictions of peasants, land grabbing and massive destruction of the environment are happening all over the country. I am sure that in the IBP, we are all aware and are deeply concerned about the government policies that now seriously affect our food security and environment and threatens our own survival. And yet, we all know that only a few among us are responding to the challenge to handle more cases on the side of the victims of these government policies.

4.Lastly, our close inter-actions with our clients have been a humbling learning process for us in PILC and a self-fulfilling experience that continues to deepen our commitment not only to handle similar cases but also to popularize and institutionalize lawyering for the poor as a viable field of law practice.

The people’s lawyer is distinguished from the traditional practitioner or from the pro bono lawyer who provides legal assistance for free under a government welfare program because the people’s lawyer does not limit himself to the interpretation and use of the law. He or she knows that the law is merely the expression of the collective interest of the dominant sector of society. The people’s lawyer does not limit himself or herself to an absolute acceptance of the law or the legal system. He or she takes a critical view of the law and what the law should be from the perspective of his or her disenfranchised client.

In the case of Hacienda Looc, he or she situates the legal problems and the conditions of the farmers who are threatened with eviction and total uprooting from their communities within the larger context of the malaise that afflicts Philippine society. In this particular case, the problem should be situated within the context of massive and unabated plunder of our national patrimony for so-called development by big business and foreign investors at the expense of our poor peasants, tribal Filipinos and our future generations.

The people’s lawyer has or must have a very high degree of personal integrity and commitment to contribute his or her share to the struggle of the poor clients for social justice and meaningful reform. She/he gives premium to these principles and causes over and above personal and material agenda.

Unlike the traditional practitioners, who merely pleads the clients cause in an adversarial proceedings, usually with the cold neutrality of a skilled legal technician, the people’s lawyer has a high degree of passion and dedication to the legal as well as the social cause of the client, pleading such cause in and outside the legal fora, in dialogues, in networking, in the streets, in the media and in conferences like this, the gathering of distinguished leaders of the bar.

To my mind, there are six basic principles that distinguish and provide guidance to a lawyer in the handling of a public interest case.

1.The issue fundamentally affects the lives of a large number of people, usually a sector of our society or even the whole society itself.
2.The issues arose out of a conflict or rights or interests and exploitation and oppression of the numerous poor by the tiny privileged sector and/or government policy or program.
3.Unlike the traditional practitioner, the public interest lawyer views and handles the legal issue and the case in the larger context of the nature and problems of our society.
4.Having accepted the professional responsibility to handle the public interest case, the lawyer initiates and assists in a process whereby the public interest issue and the legal battle are utilized for organizing, and raising the social awareness, unity and militancy of the clients and those people who support the cause of the clients.
5.The legal battle is not confined to the courtroom. The public interest lawyer uses what the great lawyer, the late Jose W. Diokno calls meta-legal tactics, mobilizing and utilizing the clients’ strength, unity and militancy, bringing the issues to the public, and rallying support for the clients’ cause.
6.In the handling of the case, the public interest lawyer interacts with his clients in a mutually beneficial way whereby he or she learns and deepens his or her commitment to the clients’ struggle for the empowerment and betterment of their lives. The relationship is broadened from a mere professional one to a unity of understanding of the problems of Philippine society and common goals for fundamental reforms.

We all know that lawyers perform an important strategic role in Philippine society in the shaping and direction of our national life. Rightly or wrongly, we are often perceived by the community as leaders or potential leaders with the wisdom and capability for such role not normally attributed to other professions.

Perhaps, it is because of this perception and our natural inclination and the preparation inherent in our craft that lawyers occupy prominent positions in government politics, business, and generally in many other fields of human endeavor. This is true not only in the Philippines but also in other countries, both in the third world and in the so-called western democracies. Lawyers play a significant role in the general political education of the people and in bringing forward national as well as local issues that have a direct bearing on the livelihood, rights, and welfare of the nation and people.

Conversely, it is also true that in the public mind we are oftentimes disparagingly stereotyped as shrewd, self-seeking, ambitious, opportunists, and protectors and advocates of the status quo, who are generally wanting in commitment to social change.
Some of the criticisms and observations about lawyers are valid; most, of course, are not. Lawyers in our country are simply and in the main, middle class Filipinos. Lawyering is just like any other profession whose values, ethics and political outlook are shaped by the dominant culture and the concrete conditions of the time. It may be true that generally lawyers are, by reason of their training, legal education and experience in law practice, conservative and naturally inclined to defend the establishment.

After all, the law, stripped of its usual rhetorical façade is merely the collective expression of the interests and a sophisticated mechanism of the dominant elite in any given society to perpetuate the existing system. It is also true that legal education in the Philippines and the educational system in general have been so structured and oriented to serve elite and foreign interests. Finally, it cannot be denied that quite a number of the members of our profession, in opting to serve the interests of the elites have identified and sometimes merged their interests with their clients and have completely abandoned their ethical values. They became conspirators in the plunder of our economy, the exploitation of our workers and peasants and the repression of our people.

But the foregoing are the exceptions rather than the rule. Our historical experience has shown that lawyers by nature are sensitive to social and political conditions and especially to injustices and human rights violations. We generally respond to the challenge to contribute our skills in defending the poor and even serve and lead in the struggle for a just and humane society. At crucial junctures in our history, we produced passionately committed people’s lawyers like Apolinario Mabini, Jose Abad Santos, Claro M. Recto, Jose W. Diokno and Lorenzo M. Tanada. The deposed dictatorship saw the flowering of people’s lawyering, with many young and almost totally unknown lawyers in all parts of the country taking the side of the people and responding to the severe conditions of military and political repression.

These lawyers worked as members of FLAG, MABINI, PLLP, BONIFACIO, COLUMN, MAKATAO, BICOLANDIA, SOMOROY, and other regional organizations of human rights lawyers. In the United States, where many Filipino lawyers have joined the swelling ranks of Filipino professionals who left the country because of the economic and political crisis, the New York-based Filipino Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights similarly responded to the challenge of the time by doing support work for the people’s movement and by exposing and denouncing human rights violations and suppression of our freedoms. They have also led – at great personal risks and financial sacrifices – in handling public interest cases, which exposed and challenged the validity of unjust, oppressive, undemocratic, and anti-people legislation and policies, and in utilizing whatever judicial remedies available for upholding human rights and the rule of law.

Since its founding more than twenty years ago, the IBP has been mandated by its charter to (1) elevate the standards of the legal profession, (2) improve the administration of justice and (3) enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

The IBP has oftentimes been unfairly criticized as passive and indifferent to public interest issues and the problems of our society. Some say that by its very nature the IBP is saddled with inherent limitations which arise from its composition, leadership and the dynamics of its relationship with the incumbent dispensation and the existing political and economic order. Worst, our detractors are saying that our programs and activities on the national and local levels are ineffective, if not irrelevant, to our defined goals and especially to the challenge of our time.

Almost seven years ago, the board of governors took an unequivocal position and thereby contributed to the long and heroic struggle to dismantle the US bases in the Philippines. In 1994, the IBP, at the instance of its national leadership headed by president Mervyn Encanto, in an unprecedented move, took a lead role in the opposition against the oil price increase by challenging in the Supreme Court the legality of the decision of the former administration. Recently, we in the Committee On Human Rights And Due Process and the National Committee on Legal Aid have been asked by the national leadership to study the expanded value-added tax law as a public interest issue and present a position paper to the board of governors with the objective of either taking the issue again to the Supreme Court or advocating its repeal or amendment.

Indeed, there are now many other public interest issues that are being taken up by IBP officers, committees, and members on the national and local levels pursuant to our mandate to discharge our responsibility to our people. While there is a lot we can and need to do to elevate the standards of our profession and improve the administration of justice, it is the effective discharge of our public responsibility that will make the IBP truly relevant to our time and allow us all to be proud and be counted.