THE Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) has amended the
‘office order’ it earlier released for all public lawyers after
the Supreme Court issued for the second time a show
cause order on why it shouldn’t be disciplined over the
issuance which the latter deemed as ‘disrespectful and
belligerent.’
PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta said they came out with
the amended office order in connection with the ‘conflict-
of-interest’ provision of the newly-approved Code of
Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
The high tribunal, for the second time, ordered the chief
public attorney to show cause why she shouldn’t be
disciplined as a member of the Bar for issuing an office
order which the former found to be a disobedience to the
rule.
The Court noted that PAO’s Office Order No. 096 Series
of 2023 gave the public attorneys the "discretion and
disposition" to comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the
CPRA and advise the state lawyers to reconcile the
provision with Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code that
penalizes betrayal of trust and revelation of secrets by
lawyers, to avoid any criminal responsibility and
imprisonment.
It added that this was an insinuation that compliance with
the CPRA will amount to the commission of such offenses.
As such, it pointed out that although it presented itself as a
directive to comply with CPRA, PAO’s office order further
instigated disobedience to the rule.
In its amended office order, all public attorneys nationwide
have been directed to comply strictly with CPRA’s Section
22, Canon III.
Failure on the part of concerned PAO officials to properly
disseminate the same shall subject them to appropriate
administrative sanctions,” the amended office order said.
“This order shall take effect immediately and shall remain
in force until further orders,” according to PAO’s amended
order dated July 25, 2023 which was signed by the entire
agency’s senior officials led by the PAO chief.
In the July 11, 2023 court resolution, the PAO chief was
directed to show cause why she should not be cited in
indirect contempt for social media posts newspaper
articles about her public tirades against the CPRA
provision.
