Justice Secretary Secretary Jesus Crispin C. Remulla supported the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision that denied the plea of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) to delete a provision in the lawyers’ code of conduct that limits the invocation by PAO lawyers of the rule on conflict of interest. “Sana ay maging maliwanag ang lahat sa PAO tungkol sa bagay na ito (I hope this becomes clear to the PAO),” Remulla said during a press briefing on Wednesday, July 12. Remulla said that the PAO, an attached agency of the Department of Justice (DOJ), is a public service office and not a law firm. “Ang conflict of interest frame of mind na pinamamalas ng PAO sa atin ay isang pagtingin sa kanilang opisina bilang isang law office. Hindi po. Sila ay legal service ng Republika ng Pilipinas (The conflict-of-interest frame of mind that PAO shows that it views itself as a law office. It is not. It is the legal service of the Republic of the Philippines),” he pointed out. He said he has talked to PAO Chief Persida V. Rueda Acosta about the issue but she maintained that the PAO’s policy against conflict of interest is part of its manual. “Kaya mabuti na ang Korte Suprema na ang kumausap (So it would be better that the Supreme Court talks to her),” he said. Aside from denying PAO’s plea to delete Section 22 of Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), the lawyers’ code of conduct in the practice of their profession, the SC also ordered Acosta to explain why she should not be disciplined as a lawyer and held in contempt for her “unabated” social media posts and newspaper publications that “tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.” In denying the request, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said the High Court “reminded the PAO of its primordial mandate to ‘[extend] free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.’” “To turn away indigent litigants and bar them from availing of the services of all PAO lawyers nationwide due to alleged conflict of interest would be to contravene PAO’s principal duty and leave hundreds of poor litigants unassisted by legal counsel they cannot otherwise afford,” the PIO said quoting from the resolution. Challenged by PAO before the SC was CPRA’s Section 22, Canon III which states: “A conflict of interest of any of the lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office incident to services rendered for the Office shall be imputed only to the said lawyer and the lawyer’s direct supervisor. Such conflict of interest shall not disqualify the rest of the lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office from representing the affected client, upon full disclosure to the latter and written informed consent.” In her public statements, newspaper publications, social media posts, and in letters sent to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo and the 14 other SC justices, Acosta – in behalf of PAO -- claimed that the provision in CPRA allows PAO lawyers to be pitted against each other before the courts by representing opposing parties in cases. Acosta said the provision “puts at risk the life and limb of the handling public attorneys because if things go wrong, clients would have enough reason to suspect that their counsels double-crossed them.” “There were instances when conflict-of-interest representation was the cause of death of former public attorneys,” she also said. PAO even asked the SC for a dialogue on its request. In its press statement, the SC’s PIO said that “contrary to the claims of Atty. Acosta, the Court promulgated the CPRA in the exercise of its exclusive rule-making power under the Constitution.” “It was likewise in furtherance of the Court’s authority to supervise the practice of law and to provide free legal assistance to the underprivileged,” it said. The PIO also said: “The Court also noted Atty. Acosta’s unabated public tirades against Canon III, Section 22 of the 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 Court thus directed Atty. Acosta to show cause why she should not be cited in indirect contempt for her social media posts and newspaper publications which tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. “Furthermore, the Court characterized Atty. Acosta’s resort to social and print media to air her unfounded grievances against the Court as a threat to the independence of the judiciary. “The Court thus ordered Atty. Acosta to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar.”