Only a few days after the Supreme Court (SC) asked her to explain why she should not be cited in contempt, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief Persida Acosta issued an apology to the High Court.

Acosta had been warned by the SC over her remarks against the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) – the new code of conduct for lawyers.

“Mga minamahal namin [na] mahistrado, justices of the Supreme Court. Sa ngalan po ng aming mga abogado sa Public Attorney’s Office, at ng inyong hamak na lingkod, ako po ay buong pagpapakumbaba at marespetong humihingi sa inyo ng tao sa pusong paumanhin kung kayo man po ay nasaktan sa mga pangyayari. Humihingi po kami ng inyong lubos na pang-unawa,” Acosta said in a video posted on her Facebook page.

(Our beloved magistrates, justices of the Supreme Court. On behalf of the lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office, and your humble servant, I am humbly and respectfully apologizing if ever you were hurt because of what had happened. I am asking for your utmost understanding.)

Acosta explained that they raised the arguments before the High Court because of their desire to serve their clients and indigent people in need. She added that they got worried about the possible implications of the new CPRA on their clients and lawyers.

The PAO chief gave assurances that public attorneys would adhere to section 22, in relation to sections 13 and 18, canon III of the new CPRA. Acosta added that she respects the SC, which was her first “home” in public service.

On July 12, the High Court issued a press release and said it noted Acosta’s “unabated public tirades” against canon III, section 22 of the new CPRA, “through social and mainstream media, branding the adoption of the CPRA as unconstitutional, and an undue interference and intrusion by the Supreme Court into PAO’s operations.”

The High Tribunal said that Acosta should explain why she should not be cited for indirect contempt over her social media posts and newspaper articles, “which tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.” The SC even called Acosta’s tirade a “threat to the independence of the judiciary.”

The SC also denied Acosta and her office’s request to delete the provision they challenged before the SC. Only a few days after the new CPRA was launched, the PAO sent a letter to Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo and said the new provision allows two PAO lawyers to represent opposing parties in court cases, among others.

New order

In Office Order No. 96 dated July 13, Acosta formally tasked PAO lawyers to comply with the CPRA provision they questioned earlier.

“We hereby give the discretion and disposition as a lawyer to the individual resident public attorneys assigned in specific courts to comply with the said rule in relation to Sections 131 and 18,2 Canon III thereof,” the order read.

The order also said that public attorneys must reconcile the CPRA provision, with the provisions of article 209 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 36 of Republic Act No. 10951. The law discusses betrayal of trust by an attorney or a solicitor.

The PAO, in the order, also advised its lawyers “to adopt precautionary measures” in handling cases with conflict of interest for their safety, and to avoid criminal and administrative liability. – Rappler.com