SC scolds OSG team over ‘offensive’ motion
The Supreme Court has accepted the apology of three government lawyers even as it issued a stern warning for their use of “disrespectful, offensive, abusive and degrading language” in a pleading they submitted to the high tribunal.
The incident stemmed from the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) over a 2022 case in which an individual was acquitted after his warrantless arrest was found to be illegal.
In a resolution made public only recently, the high court’s Second Division disclosed that it issued a show-cause order to Assistant Solicitor General Bernard Hernandez, Senior State Solicitor Josephine Arias and State Solicitor Donna Dumpit-Lipit.
The three were directed to explain why they should not be held in contempt for their disrespectful language against the Supreme Court in their motion for reconsideration.
In the ruling penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the high tribunal noted that the three state solicitors had claimed it “made a selective factual evaluation of the records of this case and unfairly and hastily concluded, … that the petitioner’s arrest is … a case of frame up and planting of evidence.”
The Supreme Court also cited, among other statements, a portion of the trio’s pleading that described its ruling as being “based on the gross misapplication of the facts, laws and jurisprudence, which misapplication is so glaringly erroneous and extremely prejudicial to the People.”
In their explanation to the Supreme Court, Arias took full responsibility as the assigned solicitor in the case. She asked the high tribunal to spare Hernandez who was set to retire at the time, and Dumpit-Lipit, who had no hand in preparing or drafting the motion and merely cosigned the motion.
No ill intent
According to Arias, their motion meant no offense against the Supreme Court and was made without ill intent.
She further explained that the OSG’s mandate and responsibility was to assist “zealously” in prosecuting for the state cases that involve the illegal possession and importation of firearms.
According to her, the words she uttered were made in a “burst of passion,” owing to the public interest of the case due to the violence it brings.
Arias said that even justices, judges and the OSG were not spared from this, including her mentor, a former assistant solicitor general, who was gunned down along with his son in 2006.
“In the passion of advocating for the People’s cause and out of the fever-pitch preparation and review of the flurry of documents that came with the filing of the motion, we failed to reflect the utmost respect we unceasingly accord the entire Court, especially to the Court’s Second Division,” the three state solicitors said in their explanation.
The Supreme Court, for its part, cited several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which state that a lawyer shall act with propriety and give due respect to the court at all times, and that they should not engage in conduct that adversely discredits the legal profession.
Court reminder
It also reminded the state solicitors of the provision stating that a lawyer “owes fidelity to the Constitution, the Court, promote respect for laws and legal processes, at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession.”
The high tribunal added that under Sections 4 and 6, Canon II on Propriety, and Canon VI on Accountability of the CPRA, a lawyer shall use dignified and sensitive language, observe fairness and obedience, avoid harassing the Court, observe the highest degree of morality, adhere to rigid standards of mental fitness, and faithfully comply with the rules of the legal profession.
In this case, the three state solicitors failed to honor the covenants they should have observed “in their haste” to file the motion, it noted.
“By using disrespectful, offensive, abusive and degrading language against the Court, intentional or otherwise, they sow the seed of distrust of the public against members of the Judiciary, most especially against the members of the highest court of the land, the last bulwark of justice,” it added.
No sanction
But recognizing the sincerity of the apology and admission of mistake, in addition to the fact that the three state solicitors have not had any previous administrative cases as members of the Bar, the Supreme Court said it was convinced that they did not genuinely intend to malign the court.
“Indeed, they overzealously advocated for the People, a trait which every client, especially the People, would want its counsel to possess. While this in itself is commendable, the manner by which the concerned lawyers went about it was undesirable, to say the least,” it said.
While it accepted the apology, the high court warned them “that a similar behavior or action in the future shall be dealt with more severely and they may be held liable and sanctioned as members of the bar for violations of the CPRA.”
