IBP not touching detained CoS’ case

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has urged lawyers to take legal action to protect the rights of individuals cited in contempt and ordered detained by congressional committees during their investigations.

IBP national president Antonio Pido said the rights of individuals invited as resource persons in congressional hearings have been defined in Supreme Court (SC) decisions, including the legal remedies available if those rights are violated.

He stated that any lawyer assisting an individual held in contempt and ordered detained by a congressional committee is presumed to be aware of the legal remedies available and is encouraged to take immediate action to protect those rights.

However, the IBP made it clear that it would remain non-political amid the growing feud between the country’s top leaders and their allies.

Pido said the IBP is not required to take a stand in the case of Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, Atty. Zuleika Lopez, who condemned the violation of her right to due process.

Lopez was cited in contempt and ordered detained by the House Committee on Good Governance for allegedly providing evasive or false answers to questions regarding alleged anomalies in the disbursement of the Office of the Vice President’s confidential funds.

Lopez also objected to the House’s attempt to transfer her to the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW) where convicted individuals are imprisoned.

The IBP explained that it is prohibited from engaging in partisan politics by “making statements, taking any action, or engaging in any activity that favors a particular political party or political group.”

The IBP pointed out that Lopez was invited by the House committee in her capacity as chief of staff to “a national political figure currently involved in a partisan political feud with another political figure.”

The IBP further clarified that Lopez’s profession as a lawyer was not the reason for her invitation to the committee but rather her role as the CoS of a national figure.

It concluded, “Therefore, if the IBP were to take a stand regarding the contempt and detention order issued by the House committee against this individual, it would undoubtedly be seen as an activity that compromises the IBP’s position as a non-political organization.”