The Society of Honor by Joe America

A while back, I expressed the opinion in this blog that the Philippines needed more advocates like Harry Roque (“Calling Harry Roque! Is Harry Roque in the Building?“).

This opinion arose out of a recognition that advocates are needed to take on rooted and intransigent political and oligarchic business powers to get consumer legislation passed. After all, the Philippines has no Civil Liberties Union and no significant force advocating for consumers unless people take to the streets. Representatives are busy boxing or playing basketball or otherwise taking care of themselves.

But I was wrong about Roque. I first got an inkling of this when Roque joined an extremist crowd rallying in protest of DAP. And I was stunned when he endorsed Jejomar Binay for President after the Senate Blue Ribbon Subcommittee had begun revealing disturbing information about corrupt Makati processes. I learned later that Roque’s family is close to the Binay family. The last straw was his outrageous acts while representing murdered transgender Jeffery (Jennifer) Laude. His acts included:

• Corrupting a murder case involving two individuals by overlaying Roque’s political advocacies against the American Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) onto the Laude murder; he prejudged a man’s guilt before charges had been levied to advance his agenda in unrelated cases.
• Leading the Laude family in a march on American ships docked at Subic.
• Sneaking Laude’s sister and German boyfriend into Camp Aguinaldo prison and allegedly inciting them to climb a fence to confront the accused American soldier housed there. The German physically accosted one of the guards.

Quite frankly, if the case were under trial, no judge would permit such behaviors. Roque manipulated the system by declaring the American soldier guilty before evidence had been gathered, before any charges had been filed, and before a court was assigned.

Roque is a master manipulator. A manipulator of the courts and the media. It seems to me he is an ethically challenged game-player. He seems to be emulating his idol, Vice President Binay, who obviously believes that a malleable press can be used to cover bad deeds and accomplish the unthinkable. Or unpardonable.

Well, Roque’s incitement that caused two people to scale the prison fence will apparently get a disbarment case filed against him by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Is Roque impressed, or humbled?

No, no. He has decided to file his own case against the AFP, a concoction of grievances that is so wild that I cannot help but conjure up an image of Lieutenant Commander Phillip Queeg of the Caine Mutiny, portrayed so brilliantly by Humphrey Bogart, rattling his marbles as he is cracking up (“Caine Mutiny – Captain Queeg loses it“; You Tube).

Here’s Roque’s blog on the subject, in it’s entirety:

Reaction to AFP’s ACTUAL ( not just the threat) filing of Disbarment Complaint against me

Nov 4 by harryroque

Ref: Prof Harry Roque 09175398096 (Viber until 11 November) The AFP’s filing of disbarment charges against me today is anti-climactic to their repeated threats that they would do so for the past ten days. I welcome it and will answer it in due course. I hope that with its filing, the AFP can now concentrate on running after the Abu Sayaff and defending our territory in the West Philippine Sea. I am flattered that the AFP gave me so much attention in the midst of the many concerns that it faces. As I have previously stated, I will also file graft and administrative charges against the AFP for allowing Pemberton to remain in US custody in Aguinaldo. This is contrary to Philippine sovereignty and hence, a breach of the oath of allegiance that the AFP took. This is also dereliction of duty. I will also hold the AFP liable for contempt since to publicly announce the filing of disbarment against an officer of the court is to ridicule the administration of justice in this country. All such proceeding are supposed to be confidential. I assure the public that I will not be cowed by the AFP. I will continue to fight for my client’s interests with even more zeal knowing that Philippine state agents have sided with foreign interests. I will also continue to assert Philippine sovereignty. This is my duty as a member of the Bar and as a Filipino. My promise: I shall return to Aguinaldo should there be a need for me to personally take custody of Pemberton in order to turn him over to Philippine authorities less subservient to the United States. I will file all my complaints against the AFP as soon as I return from Europe where I am attending a Council of Europe and UNESCO meetings on the killing of journalists. Ironically, experts have identified the AFP as amongst the perpetrators of killings against our journalists

You notice that he refers to himself as Professor, as if this added designation is to convey special wisdom or authority. Much as Queeg is hung up on a captain’s authority. And Roque will go take custody of Pemberton personally.

The clattering of ball bearings gets loud at this point . . .

Further, we have Roque’s November 7 filing of contempt charges against the AFP on the legal technicality that the AFP erred when it publicized its disbarment complaint against him. I fear he wants to jail generals who have serious work to do and take up the Supreme Court’s valuable time in this 14-page defense of his Ego.

I have decided that Roque is an intimidator. It is a form of extortion, a way to get his political way by using . . . stepping on, threatening, attacking . . . the innocent or vulnerable. First, the American soldier is clearly, by all moral standards, innocent until proven guilty. Second, Laude was murdered by a person, not the United States of America. Third, the AFP was simply doing its job. Roque attacked all three, soldier, US and AFP. Bluster. Press conferences. Intimidation. Lawsuits.

No evidence in hand . . .

As an intimidator and extortionist, Roque is not armed with guns and he does not have a gang of bullies behind him. But make no mistake, his method of operation is forceful if not brutal. He uses the courts as his weapons, and they are pliable to his manipulations. He files fast and furious, plays the press, and he makes life hell for anyone who crosses him. He will make the AFP . . . or rather, Philippine taxpayers . . . pay a lot of money to defend  the AFP’s responsible behavior and punish his irresponsible behavior.

As if anyone with a grievance can sneak people into a prison and stand complicit as they scale jailhouse walls in protest. Free speech, that?

This is all a personal opinion, you dig? I have called on no psychiatrist to confirm my finding that “a little loopy” is the factual state of Roque’s mental condition, and I have not sought legal counsel to tell me whether or not the term “extortionist” is legalistically defensible. I only know what Roque’s behavior seems like to me.

However, I have looked at the rules for Philippine Legal and Judicial Ethics as available at the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library. Here are a few pertinent sections. First is the provision for disbarment and discipline of attorneys:

Rule 139-B – Rules of Court

Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

COMMON PROVISIONS

Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court. – The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

 That takes us to Rule 138, Section 27:

Rule 138 – Rules of Court

Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. –  A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Well, the bar is pretty high in that misconduct needs to be “gross”, and I suppose there is jurisprudence on what that means. To me it means whatever the judge assigned the case decides, which can be thumbs up or thumbs down. Sneaking people into a prison and egging people to break a law and physically accost a prison guard seems to me to be gross misconduct.

We do know that a member of the bar must be of good moral character:

Rule 138 – Rules of Court

Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Sec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. –  Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

The courts will have a chance to establish whether the judicial and legal professions have high moral standards or low moral standards for members. I like high values myself. I confess I don’t have much confidence that some judges know what this means. I am not optimistic. Associate Supreme Court Justice Leonen probably does, but other judges seem to subscribe to rules of amoral interdependency.

Is Harry Roque redeemable?

Not if the lack of remorse demonstrated in his counter-filing is his official stand going forward. He makes no apology, admits no wrongdoing. He attacks.

Acts that would speak well for the Philippine judicial and legal professions are:

• Disbarment of Professor Harry Roque.

• Dismissal of his complaints against the AFP as frivolous and insulting to the courts.

I would also suggest the University of the Philippines review its own ethical standards and determine if Professor Roque satisfies them.

Bottom line:

The courts should not be used as tools to empower thuggish attorneys who have no respect for laws and no respect for moral, civil or judicial decency.