0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
140 vues1 page
The Supreme Court ruled that requiring lawyers to join and pay dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not violate their constitutional rights. While the respondent argued that compulsory membership violated his right to privacy and association, the Court found that lawyers are already members of the bar association by virtue of becoming licensed attorneys. Requiring dues helps fund the IBP's role in regulating the legal profession and elevating professional standards, which benefits both lawyers and the public. Therefore, any compulsion to join the IBP and pay dues is justified as a reasonable exercise of state authority.
Description originale:
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Edillon Digest for CONSTI2
Titre original
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Edillon
The Supreme Court ruled that requiring lawyers to join and pay dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not violate their constitutional rights. While the respondent argued that compulsory membership violated his right to privacy and association, the Court found that lawyers are already members of the bar association by virtue of becoming licensed attorneys. Requiring dues helps fund the IBP's role in regulating the legal profession and elevating professional standards, which benefits both lawyers and the public. Therefore, any compulsion to join the IBP and pay dues is justified as a reasonable exercise of state authority.
The Supreme Court ruled that requiring lawyers to join and pay dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) does not violate their constitutional rights. While the respondent argued that compulsory membership violated his right to privacy and association, the Court found that lawyers are already members of the bar association by virtue of becoming licensed attorneys. Requiring dues helps fund the IBP's role in regulating the legal profession and elevating professional standards, which benefits both lawyers and the public. Therefore, any compulsion to join the IBP and pay dues is justified as a reasonable exercise of state authority.
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty.
ISSUE: WON respondents right to privacy was violated
MARCIAL A. EDILLON HELD: Topic: Right to Association NO To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is FACTS: not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. Respondent Edillon stubbornly refused to pay his Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group membership dues to the IBP for 3 years of which he is not already a member. He became a member A case was filed against him for non-payment of the said of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. 7 All that dues and the IBP submitted a resolution to the SC integration actually does is to provide an official national recommending his removal from the Roll of Attorneys organization for the well-defined but unorganized and Respondent Edillon argued that the requirement to pay incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a membership dues is in violation of his constitutional right in member. the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its that as a consequence of this compelled financial support elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is of the said organization to which he is admittedly subjected is the payment of annual dues personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, Hence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions of may require that the cost of improving the profession in this the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the legal force and effect. regulatory program the lawyers. Basically respondent herein argues that his right to privacy is Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense being violated because he was compelled to join the IBP compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such even though he does not want to. In addition, he is made to compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of pay annual dues to said organization. the State.