THE Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a gag order enjoining parties in the petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan in some parts of the West Philippine Sea from issuing statements about the case to the media.
The order was issued during the Court’s regular en banc session and a day after Solicitor General Jose Calida warned that the lawyers involved in the petition may face disbarment over violations of legal ethics after they allegedly deceived petitioner-fishermen from Zambales and Palawan into signing the petition. The lawyers strongly denied Calida’s claim.
The petition seeks to compel the government to protect and rehabilitate the Scarborough Shoal, Ayungin Shoal and Mischief Reef, which China claims, and are within the Philippines’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Calida cited Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which states : “A member of the Bar may be removed or suspended from his office by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party in a case without authority to do so.” He added that the lawyers “were not authorized to file a case against the government agencies.”
Calida alleged that the fishermen-petitioners were only told by their lawyers that the petition was against foreigners intruding in the country’s water to fish. They were supposedly not informed the petition was against the government.
He added they were also told that the petition was also for their protection.
“Apparently, there is a gag order,” SC Spokesman Atty. Brian Hosaka said in a text message.
“Furthermore, the SC en banc reminded the counsels of their obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules of Court not to litigate their cases through their media or social media. Infractions shall be dealt with severely,” he added.
Also during the en banc session, the Court granted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’s (IBP) plea to be given more time to comply with the Court’s order to “move in premises” during the second round of the oral argument of the petition held last July 9.
“Petitioners were given until July 19, 2019, to confer with their clients and comply with the Supreme Court’s order to move in the premises last July 9, 2019,” Hosaka said in a statement.
Philippine jurisprudence defines a “move in the premises” as a directive for parties to inform the court of “developments pertinent to the case which may be of help to the Court in its immediate disposition.”
The Court issued the “move in the premises” order after a closed-door conference with the parties last Tuesday, which was called after Calida manifested that the fishermen from Palawan and Zambales, who are the main petitioners in the case, have decided to withdraw from the petition.
The fishermen are being represented by lawyers from the IBP.