Compensation for counsel de oficio

Title

Language

English

Year

1960

Subject

Francisco, Vicente J.

Lawyers -- Salaries, wages, etc.

Appointed counsel -- Salaries, wages, etc.

Counsel de oficio -- Salaries, wages, etc.

Republic Act No. 2613.

Republic Act No. 296.

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

ABUSE OF THE PRIVILEGED HOUR So much internal heat has 1'ecently been genera;Ud by politics that no less than two major expWsi.ons erupted m. Congress during the last days of its special session. The detcmatWn, if we may use the same figure of speech, was such that i't wa.s heard not anly through the length and b"eadth of the Philippines but al.oo abroad to the evident embariassment of the entire Filipino people. Both occurred in the Hall of the House of Repres-entatives and partook of the same nature: prim"leged spe.ech, or the use of the privileged hour. The first was the pri'!Jileged "Lett!Jr to Garcia" by Congressman Sergio Osmeiia, Jr., accusi.ng President Ca.r7os P. Garcia of having raceived somewhere 10 million pe.eos' b?-ibe for his 11eto on the Rice and Corn Nationalization Bill. The second was the vaJ.edictor-y address of Congressman Cipriano Primicia.s, Jr., who is scheduled to be ousted soon if ha is no't yet ousted, impugning the honesty and integrity of three membiers of the S1tpr~me Court, Justices Padilla, Labrador and Angelo Bauti,stc.. wko, in compliance with Article VI, Section 11 , of the Constitution, form a v#al part of the House Electora.l Tribunal upcn designation of the Chief Justice. For the first time after Liberation, three members of the highest tribunal of the land were atlMked on the floor of the. House of Representatives for no other rea,.. son than that in a decision of six to thre.e they decla·red that young Prirnici.as, whn Uiter attacked them vnder the mantel of parliamentary immunity, had not been duly electe.d. Prim~ias pointed out no error com1nitted by the three juNts he was accusing or that the-'IJ had erred in their judgment; it was app~ntly enough to him that they were appointed Supreme Cowrt justice:J by Liberal Presidents, and that the ~ior member 1vho presi.des over the Hauss. Electoral Tribunal is al,. 1.f-gedly his father's ''political arch-rival" in Pangasinan. With aU the riecklessness and aba'tUlcJn of one sure that what M was saying was absolutely privileged and that he crnild not be held accountable for it, Congressman Primicias even forgot that he was casting a reflection on. thie Chief Justice · who under the Constitution i.s directly responsible for the designation of the three Justices it•, the House Elecioral T'1'ibunal. He gave vint to his anger and disappointnient by charg· ing that because they voted with the three Liberal members and not toith the three Nacionalistas, they made thiemselves "unwO'rthy to ?'em.a.in as ·members of the Supreme Court from which they shaul<l volunta1-ily [Jet out 01· g.et thrown out." The language u.sed, in our opinWn, was not only violent and improper but wholly. unparliamentary and it's a pity that the congressman from Pangasinan used it. In th<J same vein, w.e believ.e that, in the absence of any vroof or evidence, the charges hurled against the Justices (Cont'imted on po.91 ' 162) COMPENSATION FOR COUNSEL DE OFICIO In the convention of judges held in May, 1958, EzSenatxn· Vicente J~ Francisco. sugge,stetl the giving of compensation to counsel de oficio, as part of his over~ all proposal to improve tlve administration of ju,st·ice in the Philippines. He pointed out that "almost every day, we see courts appointing counset de oficio for accu$ed who appear witlwut lawyer. Thes~ lawyers de ofieio are required to render service for the defernse of the accused as a necessary service; for the maintenance of public justice. ThetiJ are not paid anything for such service. It 1s said that the remuneration of such extra work must be found in the gene1·al income of his profession of which it is one of the incidents. Thi.s view is not consistent with sound public policy. If the State pays to convict its guilty subjects, it shoitld al.so pay counsel to acquit those who are innocent. The State of Nettv Ym·k pays the appointed attorney in capital offenses $1,000. 00. It is sug·gested, therefore, that attorneys de oficio re·ceio11.1e reinuneration from the Government. Only in very ra1·e cases do attorneys de oficio render their services 1dth enthusiasm. They usually ask for postponemm:t of t:ial be~ause they have to attend to ca.aes f01· whu:h. thei-1· services have been paid. By giving remu11eration to suck lawyers, we will help rnany young lawyers make a living out of their profession. As everybody knowtJ., the law profession is overcrowded and many lawyers cannot live on what they iearn from their pract~oe, and eventually they are compelled to accetpt posit·1.ons as clerks, police officers or civil service men." Congrnss recently (August 1, 1959) enacted into law Ex-Senator Francisco's proposal and is now P--m.bodied hi Republic Act No. 2613, mnending Republic Act 296, the perUnent portion of which reads as follows: "SEC. 6. Disposition of moneys paid into court. - All moneys accruing to the Governm.ernt in the Supreme Court, in the Court of Ap-peals, and in the Co.urts of First Instance, including fees, fines, forJe:itures, costs, ,or. other miscellaneous receipts, and all trust or deposttory funds paid into such courts shall be received by the corresponding clerk of court and, in the absence of special provision shall be paid by him into the NatiOnal Treasury f.o the credit of the proper account or fund and under such regulation.~ as shal,l be prescribed by the Auditor General: Provided, however, That twenty .per c~nt of all f(es collected shall be set aside as special fund for the compensation of attorneys de oficio as may be provid€d for in the rules of court." Unfortunately, however, the laudable objective of the law has th'US far remained unattained because no provision in the Rules of Court has yet been made for its imple· men'tation, as requfred by the Act. The e-nactmen-t of implementing rules is therefore imperative. June 30, 1960 LAWYERS JOURNAL JG!

Media