Photo from The Daily Tribune
It is not the dubious character called “Bikoy” that is now being put to the test but the independence of the lawyers’ league, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for hosting the obviously partisan operation against President Rody Duterte.
The IBP is earning the fruits of its indiscretion as its members have raised their voices to allege that the leadership allowed the organization to be used for the advancement of political ends.
The IBP showed where it stood when it petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) in June last year to reverse its decision nullifying the appointment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno through the granting of the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida.
It said then that the “Honorable Court failed to maintain the cold neutrality of an impartial judge when it engaged in its own evidence gathering expedition and sought to supplement the evidence on record.”
It joined the call of the yellow mob for Sereno to face impeachment, saying that it is the only process available to oust the head of the SC.
Legal luminary Bruce Rivera called out the mandatory body for lawyers saying that in a nation of free ideas, “the IBP as an institution has the right to defend the Bill of Rights and people’s freedoms. However, the IBP has to be non-political and non-partisan and the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter.”
He said in times of political turmoil, “the IBP is expected to side with justice.”
“When the leadership of the present IBP allows its seal and its facilities to be used as a staging ground to give credence to Joenel Advincula aka ‘Bikoy,’ it validates his story without even explicitly admitting. Why? Because the IBP should not be political and allowing ‘Bikoy,’ a self-confessed criminal and scam artist, to publicly accuse a constitutionally-elected President and his family of serious drug offenses a week before elections gives the public a chilling reminder of the IBP’s endorsement of the veracity of his story.”
Rivera noted that Advincula’s narration “has serious credibility and even logical flaws.”
“The IBP color is maroon or violet, which is the color of the legal profession. It is not red or blue and it will never be yellow,” he added.
Rivera added many of the silent members of the IBP support the President “and yet, we have not called out the IBP when it issues a direct challenge on him because many of us do respect the stand of the institution.”
But in the case of the “Bikoy” hosting, “I cringe looking at the IBP logo in the backdrop of Advincula. It gave credibility to an otherwise illogical, incredulous and seriously flawed story,” the lawyer said.
Even the Davao City chapter of the IBP had expressed its disappointment, saying Advincula’s appearance at the IBP “reeked of political agenda” and chastised the leadership for allowing IBP to be the “staging area” of the “Bikoy” show.
“While the IBP Davao City chapter respects the IBP national in representing its membership on some national issues, however, ‘Bikoy’ does not deserve the chapter’s support since the IBP is a non-partisan organization not established to cater to political interests,” an IBP Davao statement read.
Advincula supposedly went to the IBP national office on Monday to seek legal assistance from the National Center for Legal Aide (NCLA).
IBP national president Abdiel Fajardo, however, said the group had not yet accepted Advincula as a client because they still had to evaluate the merits of his case. IBP Davao said among the noble purposes of the body is to elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
“Certainly, the decision of the present leadership of the IBP national is not in accord with the said purposes,” it said.
It underlined that “Bikoy’s” storyline was polluted and its source came from the “very mouth of an alleged suborner himself.”
The IBP Davao City Chapter also warned the IBP leadership from issuing any statement that would politicize the organization.
The lawyers’ group would need a reexamination. For the good of the legal profession, a change in its patently biased leadership is about time.
Source and Original Article from: >>> The Daily Tribune
Comments