MANILA — Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla on Wednesday sided with the Supreme Court in the “conflict of interest” issued that the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) raised over a new code governing the conduct of Philippine lawyers.

PAO had urged the high court to remove section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) which limits the application of conflict of interest among PAO lawyers to the specific lawyer handling a case and his/her direct supervisor, which would allow other PAO lawyers to appear for the opposing party.

PAO said this would pit one PAO lawyer against another, which would “sow distrust and suspicion.”

In response, the Supreme Court denied PAO’s request and required PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta to explain why she shouldn’t be cited in contempt of court or subjected to disciplinary action over her comments on the issue.

• SC requires PAO chief to explain why she shouldn’t be disciplined over position on lawyers’ code

Remulla said the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the issue of what constitutes conflict of interest.

“Ako kasi naniniwala na ang PAO is serbisyo. Ito ay hindi law office. Ang conflict of interest frame of mind na pinamamalas ng PAO sa atin ay isang pagtingin sa kanilang opisina bilang isang law office. Hindi po, sila ay legal service ng Republika ng Pilipinas,” Remulla said in a press conference.

(I believe that PAO is a service. It is not a law office. The conflict of interest frame of mind that our PAO showed comes from the view that it's a law office. No. it is a legal service of the Republic of the Philippines.)

The Justice chief said PAO should respect the high court’s ruling, rejecting PAO’s argument that the CPRA provision is an intrusion into the independence of PAO.

Remulla revealed the DOJ itself had experienced several instances where the handling of complaints and cases were delayed because of PAO’s refusal to take on cases due to alleged conflict of interest.

In the case of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) detainee Jad Dera, his co-respondents who were job order security personnel at the NBI were not able to immediately secure lawyers because PAO refused to represent them on the ground that it previously represented the suspects and others involved in the case.

• Remulla claims Dera might have 'influenced' some probes in NBI

“Eh hindi naman eh, independiyente ang bawat isang abugado niyan eh. Ang ginagawa lang naman natin dito ay para yung karapatan ng bawat tao ay maipagtanggol ng isang abugado. Yan ay nasa Saligang Batas natin, nasa ating Constitution that every person is entitled to counsel. Kaya mayroon tayong PAO para ang karapatang ito ay maging totoo sa bawat Pilipino,” he explained.

(Each lawyer there is independent. We are only upholding everyone's righ to counsel. Under our constitution, every person is entitled to counsel. That's why we have PAO, so that this right becomes a reality for every Filipino.)

“Yan ay attitude ng isang law office,” he said of PAO’s position. “Hindi yun eh, serbisyo yan. Kaya maraming nadedelay na mga kaso. It's a cause of delay in the legal system.”

(That is the attitude of a law office, even though it's a service. That's why many cases are being delayed.)

Asked if he intended to talk to Acosta about this issue, Remulla said he had already raised this issue with the PAO chief.

“Sabi niya, yun daw ang manual of operations nila. Eh yung manual, ikaw din naman yung gumawa nun eh. Kaya mabuti na ang Korte Suprema na ang kumausap pero alam ko na yang problema na yan, matagal na. Napakatagal na ng problema na yan,” he said.

(She said that's what their manual of operations says. But you're the one who made the manual. That's why it's better for the Supreme Court to talk to them, but I've known about that problem for a long time.)

Acosta earlier told ABS-CBN News she did not disrespect the high court and was only relaying the sentiments of PAO lawyers.

• PAO opposes health experts' call to review Dengvaxia amid dengue spike
• Senator calls for Acosta's resignation over vaccination 'scaremongering'
• Unvaccinated PAO chief must be barred from attending work in-person: Drilon