Emuy, Francis Jeric

Honorico, Ralph
Luz, Karlen
Virgilio, Mark
Ulangkaya, Jasielle
Regulated Liberalization of Law

The practice of legal profession in the Philippines is reserved by the 1987

constitution for the Filipinos. However, there have been calls for the liberalization of the
legal practice to allow foreign lawyers to render service in Philippines. According to
Franklin Drilon, “The liberalization of law practice will help strengthen the country's legal
profession, and will help the country face the many challenges in the political and business
sector being created due to the ASEAN Integration starting this year."

This proposal is still under consideration by the Supreme Court. Based on the said
proposal, foreign lawyers and foreign legal firms will not be admitted to the Philippine Bar
but may render certain legal services in the Philippines. The are limited to providing
services regarding the application of their home country law, third-country law, public
international law and international components of cross-border transactions. However,
there are certain factors that must be considered before approving this proposal.

The Supreme Court must consider the language barrier that might hinder the
communications between the filipino client and the foreign lawyer. In legal consultations,
lawyers usually use that dialect which would allowthem to talk effectively and to build a
rapport with the client so that the latter can communicate the details of his circumstances
more accurately. Other lawyers usually encourage their witnesses to talk using their native
tongue. These foreign lawyers, at most, should be required to learn the filipino language.

Another is the cultural barrier. The filipinos have certain beliefs and habits that are
unique to them. The lawyers are wary of these things to be able to establish a good
relationship with their clients. As such the Supreme Court should require that the foreign
lawyers who will render services must be those who have stayed in Philippines for a
reasonable period which would allow them to get accustomed to the filipino traits. In the
alternative, the court may require that these foreign lawyers should be assisted co-counsels
who are filipino lawyers with respect to litigation.

Another thing that should be considered by the Supreme Court is the impact of such
liberalization to lawschools. It is possible that the rate of students entering lawschool would
decrease. The prevaling opinion of most students are that the study of law in some countries
are easier compared to the study of law in Philippines. This may result in some filipinos
migrating to other countries to study their law to bypass the bar exam in the Philippines.
Furthermore, the liberalization of law in the Philippines might compromise the integrity of
local jurisprudence. It should be noted that foreign jurisprudence only have persuasive
effect.

The Supreme Court should also limit the areas of law in which foreign lawyers are
allowed to practice. According to Jo Blanca Labay, an associate of the ACCRALAW
office, in the age of globalization where markets are converging and integrating, there is a
demand from the business sector for lawyers who can give legal advice not only in
domestic law, but also in foreign law. For instance, with respect to to those prospective
investors in the Philippines, it is imperative for foreign investors to seek legal advice to
ensure compliance not only with Philippine law but, in cross-border transactions. In labor
laws, the Philippines have many overseas filipino workers. The foreign lawyers of other
countries where such OFWs are working would be able to help in espouse their claims in
those countries.

The Supreme Court must also require the strict application of the Code of
Professional Responsibility to Foreign lawyers rendering legal services in the Philippines.
It should be noted that these rules are grounded on general norms which must be observed
not only by lawyers but also by the persons engaged in a different profession. In relation
to this, the Supreme Court must set up machineries which would enforce the strict
application of the rules to foreign lawyers such as setting of sanctions, penalties and
disqualifications. Otherwise, it would be easy for foreign lawyers to escape liability for
their gross misconduct by simply going back to their homecountry to the detriment of their
filipino client.

Liberalization of the practice of law in the Philippines is a huge step which must be
made with restrictions. The Supreme Court should consider the dangers of allowing foreign
lawyers to render legal service in the Philippines especially to the filipino clients. Foreign
lawyers have greater mobility and can easily go from one country to another. The fact that
the Supreme Court have almost no disciplining power over such persons whenever they
commit violation of the Code of Professional Ethics makes it dangerous to for filipinos to
engage their services.

In conclusion, the liberalization of legal profession may be allowed in the

Philippines. However, it should be heavily regulated. The Supreme Court should set up
qualifications for allowing the same taking in consideration the filipino clients who will
avail such services. It should only be limited to certain fields of law such as corporation
law, labor law, and even banking laws. The Congress should also help in regulating such
practice by enacting a law to set up machineries and sanctions for misconduct.