By Rey Panaligan The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Friday withdrew the petition for a Writ of Kalikasan it filed in behalf of several fishermen to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate several areas in the West Philippine Sea (WPS). In a statement issued by national president Domingo Egon Q. Cayosa, the IBP said: “With due regard to the plight and position of the fishermen-petitioners, the views and recommendations of the handling lawyers and the IBP chapters involved, and the matters raised and guidance by the Honorable Supreme Court, a motion has been filed for the withdrawal or discharge of the counsels for the fishermen and for the withdrawal of the petition.” In an omnibus motion and manifestation, the IBP asked the SC for the withdrawal of the petition with its two members as signatories and those of Monico Abogado, Roberto Asiado, Nonelon Balbontin, Randy Dacumos, Angelo Sadang, Reny Magbanua, and Wilfredo Labandelo. At the same time, IBP members Andrei C. Palacios and Gil Anthony E. Aquino asked the SC to allow their withdrawal as lawyers for Ricardo Natural, Larry Hugo, Arzel Belidan, Ronald Grandia, Ronel Badilla, Expedito Magdayao, Jonel Hugo, Roberto Valdez, Sanny Belidan, Rowl P. Ejona, Felix Ulzon, Raffy M. Asiado, Primo M. Asiado, Adrian P. Abayan, Danilo Belono, Romeo Malaguit, Dennis Bania, Jing Malinao, Nilo Labrador, and Rolando Labandelo. Other details of the IBP’s omnibus motion and manifestation were not immediately available. The motion and manifestation are expected to be tackled by the SC in its Tuesday’s full-court session next week. The SC had required several government agencies to comment on the petition supposedly filed by fishermen from Palawan and Zambales. It also set oral arguments on the petition. But the second day of the oral arguments last July 9 was canceled after Solicitor General Jose C. Calida manifested to the SC that the group of Zambales and Palawan fishermen has decided to withdraw their signatures from the petition. Calida then moved for the withdrawal and eventual dismissal of the petition filed by the fishermen. He had earlier sought the dismissal of the petition in his comment. He told the SC that the IBP filed the petition without the express consent of the fishermen who were denominated as petitioners in the case. He submitted the affidavits of the 19 fishermen who manifested the withdrawal of their signatures and eventually the petition. He also presented a video interview of the fishermen who detailed their involvement in the filing of the petition. After a closed-door session with the SC justices, Calida said that both parties in the petition agreed to file a joint motion to dismiss. Earlier, the SC had issued a gag order that prevented government and private lawyers from commenting publicly on the issues involved in the petition. The SC justices decided to issue the order after the lawyers traded contradicting statements on the reported disowning by the fishermen of their petition filed through the IBP. In a television interview, Calida said the lawyers who filed the petition could be disbarred for filing the case without the consent of the fishermen. On the part of the private lawyers, Chel Diokno accused the government of having a hand in the withdrawal of the petition. He also claimed government lawyers may have violated legal ethics. Diokno also said that the fishermen filed the petition “with their full knowledge and consent because they want to freely fish in our own sea and have enough income to raise their families.” Cayosa, on the other hand, asked for 10 days to confer with the fishermen before filing any pleading. He was given until Friday, July 19, to do so.