Sheriff socker

Lawyers can’t roll in the gutter. They have to be noble, civilized, and way dignified. At least, that’s the goal.

That is why when lawyer Jesus Falcis III went on social media in 2018 with curse words, the Supreme Court had no choice but to sanction him. Sure, it was regarding an ongoing dispute with celebrity Kris Aquino, and Atty. Falcis had no other venue available to him then to air his grievances. Allegedly. And perhaps, the rules on social media posts by lawyers were still unclear at that time. Some lawyers have indeed claimed that their “private” posts are beyond the review of the courts. But, nah. In a decision handed down some eight years later, Atty. Falcis was meted with a year’s suspension from the practice of law.

To his credit, Falcis accepted the penalty. He agreed he had to be held accountable for his tweets and posts, and made no further fuss. But taking advantage of the moment, Falcis did make a dig at the pending disbarment cases against former Prez Digong Duterte and the vice president (still?), Sara Duterte. Remember those?

In particular, the case arising from a 2011 incident where the vice president was then mayor of Davao City. She had violent objections about a demolition being implemented by a court sheriff. So violent, that the sheriff, one Abe Andres, suddenly found himself on the receiving end of four punches administered by none other than the mayoress. Socked and shocked!

In 2013, reports aired that disbarment cases were filed by a lawyer and sheriffs as a result of Mayoress Duterte’s assault. Thirteen years later, what do we have? What action has been taken?

Normally, disbarment cases are referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for non-binding recommendations. Has the local IBP been able to huddle, shudder, gulp, and then issue said recommendation to theSupreme Court? What did they recommend? Or, and this is difficult to swallow, are those complaints still sitting with the IBP?

In 2018, there were news reports of a lobbyist trying to get Sara’s disbarment cases withdrawn. However, it was Sara who publicized this nugget, saying that she had no hand in the lobbyist’s efforts, and that he was allegedly currying favor with her or her papa towards an appointment in the Supreme Court. How do we process this self-serving revelation?

Prior to that, or in 2012, Sara had reportedly apologized to Sheriff Abe against her counsel’s advice. Hard to deny she socked him good if this was extensively documented by the Press. How could an apology hurt? Sadly, that apology was ineffectual, if the case was still hanging around in 2018.

More than 2,000 people just reacted to a Facebook post by the politically-vigilant Voice of Millennials, asking what happened to Sara’s disbarment case. Good question. What’s the status, indeed?

Perhaps, it would make more sense to non-lawyers if there is method to the disposition of disbarment cases. If these cases are resolved in a timelier fashion. If there are timelines we should be aware of. And if there are penalties imposed on IBP chapters who dilly-dally on resolving complaints.

The pending impeachment case that will soon play out before our television sets and alternate screens has revived interest in Sara’s disbarment anew, and might even reveal more. News flash: Sheriff Abe has been named as a witness by the prosecution. How will the sheriff’s testimony contribute towards deciding Sara’s guilt for the Constitutional violations she is accused of committing? Will it help result in her impeachment? Who knows. But it is good publicity, yes?

Because we shouldn’t forget that disbarment case. More citizens should start thinking about its disposition. The noisier we should become. And perhaps, for those who are tasked with deciding the case (paging IBP?), it’s time to clean up the docket.

Should Madame Duterte be disciplined? Will she be disbarred? Minor issues compared to her impeachment case, but still. For lawyers, and those accusing the legal profession of sliminess in general, this is important.