In Re: Edillon
A.C. No. 1928 | August 3, 1978 | En Banc
Parties in the Case
Respondent: Atty. Marcial A. Edillon
Petitioner: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors
I. Doctrine
○ The freedom of association, while constitutionally protected, does not
include an absolute right not to associate when it conflicts with the valid
exercise of police power.
○ Mandatory membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
and the requirement to pay annual dues are constitutional, as they are a
valid exercise of the Supreme Court's regulatory power over the legal
profession and are justified by public interest.
○ The practice of law is not a vested right, but a privilege, subject to the
State’s regulation through the Supreme Court.
II. Facts of the Case
Atty. Marcial A. Edillon was a duly licensed lawyer practicing in the
Philippines. Despite repeated notices, he refused to pay his annual dues
as required by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), following its
creation through Supreme Court rules implementing Bar integration.
The IBP, pursuant to its By-Laws and Section 10 of Rule 139-A of the
Rules of Court, passed a resolution recommending Edillon’s name be
removed from the Roll of Attorneys for delinquency in dues.
When required to comment, Edillon reiterated his refusal to pay, arguing:
That compulsory membership in the IBP violated his constitutional
rights, including his freedom not to associate, and
That forcing him to financially support an organization he opposed
infringed on his liberty and property without due process.
He also challenged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to discipline him
based on what he considered an administrative (not judicial) matter.
III. Issue
WON compelling a lawyer to be a member of the IBP violating one’s
constitutional freedom to associate.
IV. Ruling
No. The SC maintains that the IBP does not make a lawyer a member of
any group of which he is not already a member of. By virtue of his
passing the Bar exams, Edillon automatically becomes an IBP member.
The first objection posed by the respondent is that the Court is without
power to compel him to become a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, hence, Section 1 of the Court Rule is unconstitutional for it
impinges on his constitutional right of freedom to associate (and not to
associate). Our answer is: To compel a lawyer to be a member of the
Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate.
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he
is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he
passed the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to
provide an official national organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a
member.
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He
is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter
or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The
Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the
cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects
and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the lawyers.
Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer
to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an
exercise of the police power of the state The Court further maintains that
said IBP fees is a regulatory measure intended to raise funds for carrying
out its objectives and purposes of the integration. The Court carries the
constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules that concern
admissions and practice of law, including the integration of the Philippine
Bar.