Some people must really be frustrated at not having become a lawyer that they lose no opportunity to bad-mouth the legal profession. Former sexy actor Rep. Dan Fernandez was thus at it again. After undermining — behind the cloak of parliamentary immunity, mind you, in a cowardly attempt to escape consequences — lawyers merely exercising their duty to assist resource persons appearing before the House QuadCom, he went at it again. This time he said that there was no need to become a lawyer to give correct legal opinions since everyone, especially the GenZ’ers, has access to Google.

Using Google as his “authority,” Mr. Fernandez then proceeded to give his considered opinion on three important constitutional issues: that the right to remain silent does not apply to legislative inquiries; that the sub judice rule is trumped by the right of the people to public information; and that the uncontrolled use by the QuadCom of its contempt powers is legal because it complies with House rules.

Wrong on all counts! That is the trouble with a little learning obtained from Wikipedia — it is a dangerous thing. There is a reason why people, before being admitted to the Bar, have to first earn a baccalaureate after a four-year course, and then undergo another grueling four-year study of all aspects of the law for the equivalent of a doctorate.

If that were not enough, one has to pass muster in what is considered to be the toughest government examination in the country: the Bar. For a dentist like Mr. Fernandez to declare that one does not have to be a lawyer to know the intricacies of the law is akin to saying that I can start extracting teeth since there are videos about the procedure on YouTube.

A dilettante in the law may be forgiven for thinking the way Congressman Fernandez does. It takes years for someone to know the legal niceties, nuances and gradations of constitutional powers vis-à-vis their limitations; the balance between the right of the public to information as against the sub judice rule; the grand evolution of the right to remain silent.

And the role of lawyers is confusing to those not in the know. We are not here to extricate our clients from any legal mess by any means; we are officers of the court first, and exist to defend violations of the rights of even the most unpopular. Because in so many instances, being hated is not synonymous with guilt.

Rep. Fernandez must always remember that members of the House of Representatives make laws, but they are not the law unto themselves. He also fails to understand that the rules of Congress cannot prevail against the provisions of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land, the expression of the most lofty aspirations of our people.

It is the same Constitution that makes the Judiciary the bastion against such governmental excesses. It is the lawyer’s bounden duty to protect the citizenry against official misconduct. It is therefore obtuse — if not extravagantly presumptuous — for anyone to think that the role of a member of Congress in society is somehow superior to that of lawyers, considering that many lawmakers are themselves lawyers.

If Mr. Fernandez wishes to educate himself on the extent and limits of the contempt power in relation to the Bill of Rights, I wish to gently invite his attention to the cases of Neri v. Senate, Galman v. Pamaran, and Ong v. Blue Ribbon (the last which I argued successfully before the High Tribunal), which jurisprudence he may Google at his leisure. There are many more, to be sure, but he may start with those, as I do not wish to tax his mental abilities. After all, there is a whale of difference between an open mind and an empty one.