FOR PUBLICATION
AHRC-ART-010-2011
January 27, 2011
An Article by the Asian Human Rights Commission
PHILIPPINES: Defects in legal practice and legal aid for the poor
Correspondence with a public attorney exposed the country’s defect in legal practice and legal aid
OVERVIEW: On October 12, 2010, the AHRC wrote to Ms. Persida Acosta, the chairperson of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) in Manila, requesting for her intervention on the complaint of a prisoner, Iladio Laidan, against his legal counsel Joseph Jev Palomar, who is a PAO lawyer. Laidan had approached the AHRC in person during a jail visit at the provincial jail in North Cotabato.
In Laidan’s complaint to us, he claimed that “his lawyer has not been adequately informing and giving him regular updates about the progress of his case”. Laidan was arrested and charged with Rape with Homicide in September 23, 2004. Only in July 19, 2007 nearly three years after his arrest and filing of charge, that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) 12 in Kidapawan City resolved that he has a case to answer.
Laidan was arraigned on July 24, 2007. When the RTC commenced the trial of his case on September 27, 2007, he appeared in court without a lawyer. The court had to appoint a private practitioner, lawyer Russel Abonado, to be his “counsel-de-officio to assist him in today’s hearing only”. Laidan agreed when told it was free of charge. But it turned out that his ‘one-day’ lawyer was representing him throughout the case.
On July 19, 2008, Rogelio Narisma, the RTC judge, had to order lawyer Abonado to be replaced because “it seems that (he) is busy with his other official functions that he cannot attend regularly to this case. When this case was call he was not again in Court”. After Abonado was “relieved of his responsibility”, PAO lawyer Palomar, took over the case upon the Court’s request for a lawyer, again.
Nothing was heard as to whether the Court took action on private lawyer Abonado, whom it earlier appointed but who had neglected his duty. The legal representation of Laidan’s case was then transferred to Palomar, who had said that “I only inherited his case and acted as counsel-de-officio”. Palomar said he took “oath as a lawyer only in the year 2005 and (I) only started as a public attorney last August 1, 2006. He was not even a lawyer at the time when the charge on Laidan was first filed.
Below is the exchange of correspondence between the AHRC and PAO lawyer Joseph Jev Palomar on the case of Laidan:
Excerpt of our letter to Ms. Acosta on October 12, 2010:
“I am writing to request your appropriate intervention on the case of Iladio Laydan, a detainee presently held at the Provincial Jail in Amas, Kidapawan City. He was charged with Rape and Homicide before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23 in Kidapawan City.
Laydan, who is in his sixth years of detention, had approached the AHRC during a jail visit expressing concerns about the lack of progress in his case. Since he was detained in September 2004, the last court hearing of his case was on July 22, 2010. The prosecution panel was still in the process of presenting their evidence.
Laydan is being represented by Atty. Palomar, a public lawyer attached to the PAO and is under your authority.
I am deeply concerned by Laydan’s claim that his lawyer has not been adequately informing and giving him regular updates about the progress of his case. Also, he claimed that in every court hearings, he never got an opportunity to speak to his lawyer as the latter do not approach the bench where he was seated, and even after the court hearing finishes.
I am deeply concerned by the manner this public lawyer is dealing this detainee’s case. I urged your intervention by taking action to address his concerns. Public lawyers should not have been reminded of their responsibility to their clients: adequately inform them of the progress of their case.”
Excerpt of the reply of Joseph Jev Palomar on November 9, 2010:
“This has reference to your Endorsement, dated October 14, 2010, which our office received last November 5, 2010, requiring us to make appropriate action on the letter of Mr. Md Ashrafuzzaman of the Asian Human Rights Commission.
For the record, the case of the accused, Iladio Laidan, was only filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, in Kidapawan City, Cotabato, on July 13, 2007 and he was only arraigned on Jyly 24, 2007. I only inherited his case and acted as his counsel de officio on July 24, 2008 as per Order of the Honorable Court, dated July 24, 2008, since his first and court-appointed lawyer was Atty. Russel Abonado, a private practitioner, who was relieved of his responsibility by the Honorable Court due to his numerous absences.
From the time I represented the herein accused, his case was set for hearing almost every month and the last hearing was conducted last October 21, 2010 but which was postponed due to the absence of the prosecutor. The prosecution has so far presented the father of the victim and local Civil Registrar of Tulunan, Cotabato.
Today the least and as my practice and commitment to all my clients, I always make it a point to confer with them almost every hearing. As to Laidan’s case, I can still recall that I had talked to him several times concerning the progress of his case and I even requested him with the assistance of the jail guard to inform any of his family member/s to see me in my office so that I can ask about the background of his case but none so far had gone to my office.
Lastly and with all sincerity, I can say that I had never been remiss in my responsibility as a public attorney and res t assured that I am always performing my duty as a public attorney to the best of my ability.”
Excerpt of the AHRC’s reply to Palomar on November 26, 2010:
“In your comment dated 9 November 2010 to Ms. Acosta, you denied Laydan’s claim. You also defended your performance as PAO lawyer providing legal aid service: “as my practice and commitment to all my clients, I always make it a point to confer with them almost every hearing”.
In dealing with Laydan’s case, you have also defended that: “I can still recall that I had talked to him (Laydan) several times concerning the progress of his case” and “I even requested him with the assistance of the jail guards to inform any of his family member/s to see me in my office so that I can ask about the background of his case”.
We are pleased by the professionalism you have mentioned in your claims; however, we express strong reservations as to whether they actually happened in reality. We could not be simply satisfied by your superficial and shallow explanation to a very serious allegation of neglect of duty. We would like to be certain, in the interest of this prisoner’s case, that your claim had adequate documents and records to demonstrate the legal aid service you have rendered in this case.
As you are aware, Article VI of PAO Memorandum Circular No. 18, series of 2002, requires guidelines in terms of “Recording and Reporting of cases and services” to cases that PAO lawyers are handling. For your benefit, we would like to request these documents below concerning Laydan’s case be produced to the prisoner and to us. This could also prove your compliance with this guideline in your daily routine work”
Excerpt of Palomar’s reply to AHRC on January 10, 2011:
“At the outset, I would like to thank you for acknowledging my letter/ comment, dated November 9, 2010, and also for your deep concern over the plight of the poor and the marginalized members of our society.
However, with all due respect, I was distraught by the basic of your letter-complaint as the same was only one-sided.
For the record, I took my oath as a lawyer only in the year 2005 and I only started as a public attorney last August 1, 2006.
Considering the foregoing, I was very surprised to read in your letter-complaint, which was addressed to our central office, that the accused, Mr Iladio Laidan, was detained as early as the year 2004, at the time when I was not yet a lawyer.
After scrutinizing the records of his case, I found out that there were lapses in the endorsement/handling of Mr. Laidan’s case from the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Makilala- Tulunan( MCTC) to the Regional Trial Court ( RTC) of Kidapawan city and that his case was only forwarded to the honorable Court (RTC-Cr.23) on July 13, 2007 and he was only arraigned last July 24,2007.
Moreover, to substantiate my claims in my letter/ comment, dated November 9, 2010, I am attaching herewith the copies of the endorsements, transmittal, information, orders, notices, and subpoenas issued by the courts (MCTC and RTC) and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, and to prove to you that my claims in my letter/ comment were not superficial, shallow and self-serving.”
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
