SYNTHESIS

The practice of law is both a privilege and a responsibility. Moreover, it is a privilege clothed
with public interest. A lawyer does not only owe his duties to his client, but also to his
brethren profession, to the courts, and to the nation. It takes a signi=icant part in one of the
most important functions of the State, the administration of justice, as an of=icer of the
court.

In the case of In Re: Integration Bar of the Philippines, we are presented with an array of
reports that supports and justi=ies the creation of such integration. The said resolution
discussed in depth how: Firstly, the court, in the integration of the Philippine Bar, exercises
its power, under Art. VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, and that, indeed it is an inherent part
of the Court’s constitutional authority over the Bar. It does not confer new powers, but is a
mere legislative declaration of such; and Secondly, such integration of the bar of the
Philippines is said far from being unconstitutional as it is far and just that the exercise of
privilege given to law practitioners be regulated to assure compliance with the lawyer’s
public responsibilities.

Since then, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines permits the admission, to said association,
of duly recognized and authorized lawyers of the Philippines pursuant to intricate
requirements set by the judiciary in the admission for the bar. Pertinent rules in Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court govern on the said matter, which was further amended through a
resolution presented in the Bar Matter No. 1153 of 2010, to wit; (1) that an applicant must
satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all prescribed courses for the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent; and (2) the same applicant must provide proof
of his completion of a four-year high school program, and a course of study prescribed for
bachelor’s degree in arts or sciences.

In addition, fairness in admission to the bar has always been a challenge, as this was further
tried under the promulgation of R.A. 972, also known as the Bar =lunkers Act of 1952,
where it challenges to alter what is deemed to be the passing rate for one to be admitted in
the bar. In the case of In Re: Cunanan, this was further resolved as Sec. 2 of the said act was
considered unconstitutional due to its fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the
Act, further, it was also struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account
of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.

Relative to the same, admission in the Bar is considerably far more lenient in comparison to
its disquali=ication, and suspension. As mentioned above, the practice of law is a privilege
clothed with public interest, hence the State must be concise and strict in keeping members
of the Bar. In Valcneia vs. Cabanting, the court declared the disbarment and suspension of
lawyers and counsels involved in a series of malpractice and misconduct as presented in
such case. It is indeed indispensable that lawyers must act without any undue in=luence
towards his client and that greed shall not get the better of a counsel’s loyalty and
disinterestedness. Membership in the Bar is also a privilege burdened with conditions, as in
the case of Santos vs. Llamas, the court upheld that lawyers have such bound duties to
adhere that are not only for the bene=it his practice of the law, but also his duties to
administer it. Such rules include departure from malpractice and misconduct according to
Canons 7 and 10. Such integrity was even stressed upon the Bar Matter No. 1154, in the
case of Haron S. Meling, and his non-disclosure of his pending cases and his unauthorized
use of the appellation “Attorney”, all while being a member of the Shari’a Bar.

All-inclusive, the practice of law is indeed meticulous, the strictness associated with the
practice of law is a re=lection of its profound responsibility in safeguarding individuals'
rights, ensuring justice, and maintaining societal order.