E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
The IBP and De Vera redux
Sunday, 05 15, 2005
Our article on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) elicited a flurry of reactions, principally in praise of incoming president Nards De Vera’s performance during the lawyers’ Baguio convention and his vision for the IBP in the next two years.
I do not wish to bloat De Vera’s self-esteem, so I will not dwell on the praises here. Rather, I will answer the accusations leveled against him.
That De Vera was previously disbarred and, therefore, lacks the moral integrity to lead the IBP. The premise is wrong. De Vera was never disbarred. The Supreme Court found this out for itself in Garcia vs. De Vera, 418 SCRA 27. There, the Court said: “On the administrative complaint that was filed against respondent De Vera while he was still practicing law in California, he explained that no final judgment was rendered by the California Supreme Court finding him guilty of the charge. He surrendered his license to protest the discrimination he suffered at the hands of the investigator and he found it impractical to pursue the case to the end. We find these explanations satisfactory in the absence of contrary proof... In this case, the petitioners have not shown how the administrative complaint affects respondent De Vera’s moral fitness to run for governor.”
That De Vera is an advocate of lost causes, and he could bring the IBP down with him. Not true. In fact, De Vera was victorious many times in the causes he fought for. Besides, advocacy for lost causes should never be a disqualification to lead. Otherwise, how are we to judge lonely swimmers against the current such as, say, Bertrand Russell? What is important is the advocacy, the determined effort to never abandon one’s point of view. De Vera’s lost causes, whatever they might be, are fodder for the hearts of the many who stand by him and, understandably, a dose of hemlock to those who oppose him. To pursue particular issues of public interest, De Vera had his Equal Justice for All Movement and other groups, but this should not deter him from pursuing through the IBP the same advocacies. In the immediate past, the inexplicable silence of the IBP on many issues rendered it a pitiful loser by default. What should have been otherwise familiar territory for advocacy became, unfortunately, an inglorious field of retreat - a cop-out, as lawyer Winston Abuyuan calls it. The IBP will, under De Vera, pursue “lost causes,” and thereby make a statement that it is now an activist lawyers’ group.
That De Vera belongs to the Sigma Rho and, therefore, he will lead the way Joel Cadiz, the outgoing president and likewise a Sigma Rhoan, did. Meaning, the public can expect the same timorous stance of the IBP – or, at worst, more and this time piled high and deeper? That sounds like a non sequitur to me. I did say this about De Vera and the Sigma Rho: “De Vera is a member of The Fraternity, alright; but his activist and non-conformist streak puts him more often in a class of his own – separate from but still a part of The Fraternity, and an advocate of causes some of its members may not be comfortable espousing. In any case, that is what The Fraternity – monolithic in its raison d’etre to seek the truth always – encourages its members to do: Be the maverick, if you will. At the end of the day, you would still be seeking the right path and that is all that matters.” The Sigma Rho probably has the biggest collection of seekers of the right with the most diverse of personalities. Cadiz could be in one extreme, with De Vera in the other. De Vera can never be the clone of Cadiz in the matter of running the IBP. Cadiz and De Vera are two generations apart in the Sigma Rho. The orientation of one is not necessarily congruent with that of the other, so one will not elicit a sympathetic vibration from the other. I kid you not: De Vera will lock horns with any Sigma Rhoan who comes charging at cross purposes with him. His resolution to pursue the matter of the legal fees had been one spectacular display of steadfastness.
That De Vera is merely a pawn, who will allow the IBP to be used by power brokers. His detractors must be talking of another De Vera, not Nards. Have they not witnessed the fierce independence of mind of De Vera, best exemplified in the legal fees imbroglio? De Vera, in opposing Cadiz, was, in effect, conducting a war simultaneously on three fronts, namely: Malacañang, which signed R.A. No. 9227 into law; Congress, which enacted the bills authorizing the use of higher fees to augment the compensation of members of the Judiciary; and, the Supreme Court, which implemented the law via A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC. Against the importunings of Cadiz, De Vera insisted on the approval of the resolution authorizing the filing of a petition to question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9227. De Vera is the valiant knight here, definitely not the pawn.
The IBP is in a maelstrom. Amid the bewilderment, strong feelings - pro or con or indifferent - towards the changing of the guards on July 1, De Vera is riding in, much to the consternation of the members of the ancien régime in the organization, wary of what De Vera will do. De Vera, the catalyst and reformer, is the sum of all the fears of those who have held sway in the IBP for so long. But that is the beauty of a professional organization like the IBP: leaders, of all shades and persuasions, come and go, but the institution remains. Now is the time for a shade and a persuasion like Nards’.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
That De Vera was previously disbarred and, therefore, lacks the moral integrity to lead the IBP. The premise is wrong. De Vera was never disbarred. The Supreme Court found this out for itself in Garcia vs. De Vera, 418 SCRA 27. There, the Court said: “On the administrative complaint that was filed against respondent De Vera while he was still practicing law in California, he explained that no final judgment was rendered by the California Supreme Court finding him guilty of the charge. He surrendered his license to protest the discrimination he suffered at the hands of the investigator and he found it impractical to pursue the case to the end. We find these explanations satisfactory in the absence of contrary proof... In this case, the petitioners have not shown how the administrative complaint affects respondent De Vera’s moral fitness to run for governor.”
That De Vera is an advocate of lost causes, and he could bring the IBP down with him. Not true. In fact, De Vera was victorious many times in the causes he fought for. Besides, advocacy for lost causes should never be a disqualification to lead. Otherwise, how are we to judge lonely swimmers against the current such as, say, Bertrand Russell? What is important is the advocacy, the determined effort to never abandon one’s point of view. De Vera’s lost causes, whatever they might be, are fodder for the hearts of the many who stand by him and, understandably, a dose of hemlock to those who oppose him. To pursue particular issues of public interest, De Vera had his Equal Justice for All Movement and other groups, but this should not deter him from pursuing through the IBP the same advocacies. In the immediate past, the inexplicable silence of the IBP on many issues rendered it a pitiful loser by default. What should have been otherwise familiar territory for advocacy became, unfortunately, an inglorious field of retreat - a cop-out, as lawyer Winston Abuyuan calls it. The IBP will, under De Vera, pursue “lost causes,” and thereby make a statement that it is now an activist lawyers’ group.
That De Vera belongs to the Sigma Rho and, therefore, he will lead the way Joel Cadiz, the outgoing president and likewise a Sigma Rhoan, did. Meaning, the public can expect the same timorous stance of the IBP – or, at worst, more and this time piled high and deeper? That sounds like a non sequitur to me. I did say this about De Vera and the Sigma Rho: “De Vera is a member of The Fraternity, alright; but his activist and non-conformist streak puts him more often in a class of his own – separate from but still a part of The Fraternity, and an advocate of causes some of its members may not be comfortable espousing. In any case, that is what The Fraternity – monolithic in its raison d’etre to seek the truth always – encourages its members to do: Be the maverick, if you will. At the end of the day, you would still be seeking the right path and that is all that matters.” The Sigma Rho probably has the biggest collection of seekers of the right with the most diverse of personalities. Cadiz could be in one extreme, with De Vera in the other. De Vera can never be the clone of Cadiz in the matter of running the IBP. Cadiz and De Vera are two generations apart in the Sigma Rho. The orientation of one is not necessarily congruent with that of the other, so one will not elicit a sympathetic vibration from the other. I kid you not: De Vera will lock horns with any Sigma Rhoan who comes charging at cross purposes with him. His resolution to pursue the matter of the legal fees had been one spectacular display of steadfastness.
That De Vera is merely a pawn, who will allow the IBP to be used by power brokers. His detractors must be talking of another De Vera, not Nards. Have they not witnessed the fierce independence of mind of De Vera, best exemplified in the legal fees imbroglio? De Vera, in opposing Cadiz, was, in effect, conducting a war simultaneously on three fronts, namely: Malacañang, which signed R.A. No. 9227 into law; Congress, which enacted the bills authorizing the use of higher fees to augment the compensation of members of the Judiciary; and, the Supreme Court, which implemented the law via A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC. Against the importunings of Cadiz, De Vera insisted on the approval of the resolution authorizing the filing of a petition to question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9227. De Vera is the valiant knight here, definitely not the pawn.
The IBP is in a maelstrom. Amid the bewilderment, strong feelings - pro or con or indifferent - towards the changing of the guards on July 1, De Vera is riding in, much to the consternation of the members of the ancien régime in the organization, wary of what De Vera will do. De Vera, the catalyst and reformer, is the sum of all the fears of those who have held sway in the IBP for so long. But that is the beauty of a professional organization like the IBP: leaders, of all shades and persuasions, come and go, but the institution remains. Now is the time for a shade and a persuasion like Nards’.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment