THE Supreme Court (SC) is now set to require all practicing lawyers to render free legal services for the poor.

This came after the high court considered the proposal of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to require practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in a bid to widen the access of the poor to legal services.

In a resolution, the SC en banc has mandated the IBP to manifest whether the “Implementing Regulations on the Rule on Comprehensive Legal Aid Service [Bar Matter No. 2012]” published in The Bar Tribune serves as the IBP’s final proposed implementing regulations.”

The IBP was required to submit “within 15 days from notice: [a] a report on the deliberations and discussions of the House of Delegates of the IBP at the 26 to 28 [of] January 2012 convention to supplement its Compliance and Manifestation submitted on 18 [of] August 2011; and [b] its final proposed CLAS [Comprehensive Legal Aid Service] Rule and implementing regulations based on the following: [i] the written comments, recommendations and suggestions of all IBP Chapters pursuant to the Court’s Resolution of 20 July 2010; [ii] the concerns raised during the National Convention of Lawyers; and [iii] the results of the deliberations and discussions of the House of Delegates of the IBP at the convention held on 26-28 January 2012.”

earlier, the IBP submitted a draft rule entitled Rule of Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing Lawyers.

Then chief justice Renato Corona proposed some revisions to the draft. After the Court received the comment of the IBP on the suggested revisions, it resolved to approve on February 10, 2009 the revised proposed Rule.

Section 9 of the draft rules provides that: “The IBP, through the NCLA, is hereby given authority to recommend implementing regulations in determining who are ‘practicing lawyers,’ what constitute ‘legal aid cases’ and what administrative procedures and financial safeguards which may be necessary and proper in the implementation of this rule may be prescribed.”

The said provision also mandates the IBP to “coordinate with the various legal chapters in the crafting of the proposed implementing regulations and, upon approval by the IBP Board of Governors, the said implementing regulations shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final approval.”

Pending the submission of the IBP of the final draft implementing rules, the court received numerous oppositions from several law firms and IBP Chapters expressing their concerns on the adverse effect of making free legal aid services mandatory.

In its new resolution signed by Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal, the court likewise directed the IBP to submit within the same period, among others, relevant statistics on the ratio of the number of pauper litigants to the number of lawyers under the Public Attorney’s Office and other major concerns relevant to the proposed program, such as the projected annual expenses.