As was pleaded for Antonio Trillanes to participate via remote teleconferencing in senatorial hearings even when he was detained on coup d’état charges, the same is being requested on behalf of a senator behind bars.

“Does De Lima have the basic moral ascendancy required of a Justice Secretary, a Senator of the Republic, or even an ordinary officer of the court and a lawyer?

Ironically, we are talking about a lawyer who, if accusations are proven, through her acts, not only ridicules the lawmaking process but the lawyering profession as well.

On the subject of disbarment of officers of the court who engage in destructive deception and the deliberate debasement of the legal profession, one astute reader reminded us of another instance involving a ranking member of the opposition. Reacting to threatened sanctions against opposition lawyers who misrepresented supposed fishermen, our reader suggested that disbarment proceedings likewise be carried out on another on issues of immorality.

Where an officer of the court tasked to uphold the law is not only undeserving of the title but through scandalous and overt acts of gross immorality, effectively tarnishes the legal profession, then disbarment enters the picture. At disbarment’s core is the integrity of the court system where open and gross immorality debases the whole.

Recall when the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) in their advocacies had proposed that accused drug trafficker Leila de Lima should face disbarment.

Beyond the accusations of insidiously employing her office to facilitate a multi-million fund raising scam to bankroll political ambitions through illegal drug trafficking under the penitentiary system over which she had operational authority, the VACC’s proposition involved De Lima, decadence, debauchery and immorality.

Openly, De Lima confessed to a seven-year relationship with her driver and bodyguard who, while legally separated, was technically a married man.

The relevant statutes applicable are based on a landmark Supreme Court decision in Dantes v. Dantes (AC 6488, 22 September 2004) where “grossly immoral conduct” is a ground for disbarment. Add here relevant rules under the Code of Professional Responsibility covering lawyers.

Rule 1.01 “forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyers conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be…so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.”

Note the public scandal that resulted when it was discovered that De Lima was involved with not one but two men under her.

Rule 7.03 declares “a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on (his) fitness to practice law, nor should (he), whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”

Not only did the revelation of simultaneous illicit relationships with men who both worked for De Lima revolt and nauseate the public by her open defiance of moral standards but that she, as a lawmaker would, during congressional investigations, advice one to deliberately violate a legal subpoena effectively disrespects laws and legal authority, and is in brazen contempt of Congress.

On both rules, the Supreme Court’s decision in Barrientos v. Daarol (AC 1512. 29 January 1993) declared that “As officers of the court. lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and must lead life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also behave…in such a manner as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that (he) is flouting those moral standards (Tolosa v. Cargo, 171 SCRA 21, 26 (1989), citing Toledo v. Toledo, 7 SCRA 757 (1963) and Royong v. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859 (1963).”

Refraining from adulterous relationships is a clear requirement. The fundamental question a disbarment court must answer is, “Does De Lima have the basic moral ascendancy required of a Justice Secretary, a Senator of the Republic, or even an ordinary officer of the court and a lawyer?”