Chel Diokno should be disbarred?

Chel Diokno should be disbarred?




Everybody knows Chel Diokno is no fan of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.

Part of the Liberal Party led senatorial coalition “Otso Derecho”, he is part of the historic political shut out of an opposition slate in a national election.



Despite his political setback, he does not want to be out of the spotlight, still wanting to be at the consciousness of the Filipino (maybe for another run at the national elections in 2022) he wants to dent the image of the President through a case they filed in the Supreme Court.

(photo credit to Daily Tribune)


But just like all the propaganda that has the intention to destroy the Duterte administration, there action backfired, right before their faces.

Daily Tribune’s commentary by Concept new Central dated July 28, 2019 titled “Diokno, deceit and disbarment” gives us a wholistic and a new point of view as to what was really the intent by these so called “human rights lawyers”

In the interest of our readers and for the information of the public we are quoting in full the said article below:






Diokno, deceit and disbarment



Given the brand equity that senatorial candidate Jose Manuel Diokno brought to the table in his failed bid to bring to the Senate minority principled and intelligent opposition, we are deeply concerned by the challenges to his credibility in connection with the unsigned, disowned and disavowed Writ of Kalikasan filed against state agencies allegedly on behalf of small fishermen concerned about the environment.

Among the opposition’s senatorial slate, Diokno was the most credible and well-intentioned. He was also the most competent. While he lost, he provided hope for a prospective political landscape shorn of it given a proliferation of incompetents from his side of the aisle.
The ploy to worm into the fishermen’s domestic and localized concerns a grand and global issue that brings into the calculus geopolitical debates as well as deeply technical questions on striking an intricate balance between exploiting natural resources and sovereign capital against preserving these has been foisted on fishermen and is central to the controversy now threatening Diokno’s otherwise pristine reputation.


Diokno is being accused of misrepresentation, manipulation and deception. The specific charge he faces is covered by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. “A member of the Bar may be removed or suspended from his office by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party in a case without authority to do so.”
Diokno claims his clients — both those who did not sign the petition and those who’ve eventually and effectively discharged him as their counsel — were allegedly tampered with in violation of legal ethics.
To his misfortune, where such intervention is construed positively as necessary acts to educate not only on the details of allegations but also on effective respondents and the eventual geopolitical impact of invoking a Writ of Kalikasan, then Diokno may indeed be in trouble.
Where Diokno claims his clients were approached unethically, the narrative says otherwise. Already discomforted, it is his supposed clients who sought out assistance. According to the Solicitor General, the petitioners approached the legal officer of the Naval Forces in West Palawan because “they were distressed that they filed a case against the government” which may have not been their intent.


The tables have not only been turned; they’ve been overturned. The violation of legal ethics Diokno charges might find more applicable foundations when charged against him.
Who deceived and who were deceived? “Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them.” Hamlet’s soliloquy and introspection against a sea of troubles are uncannily apt for the fishermen conceptually taking arms against both their own fortunes and the Philippine state they are part of.
This is important where the legal naïveté of innocents is employed to prosecute a political agenda. For instance, did the fishermen know it was the government that was to be accused of criminal irresponsibility or were they simply seeking redress from poachers without bringing into question such variables as the 2016 arbitral ruling, the complexity of economic zone rights versus those under constitutionally delineated territory?


The petition assumes a thoroughly studied reading of the 2016 arbitral ruling, a fine discernment between economic zones and Philippine territory, and expertise on the technical nature of the distinctively Filipino Writ of Kalikasan.
Without judging on the issues, to these questions levied on the petitioners, their initiative to subsequently seek assistance from authorities other than their claimed counsel who might pry them off a predicament they might have unknowingly entered, these, with their eventual disavowal most eloquently answer the question.
In Hamlet’s introspection, the question was existential. The same should be compelling where the threat of suspension or disbarment looms ominously over Diokno because of the larger issue of protecting the judicial system.
A disbarred lawyer is not a criminal. Short of prosecuting for criminality, disbarment is a defensive administrative mechanism requiring a mere preponderance of evidence to protect the judicial system and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court.







Share us your thoughts by simply leaving on the comment section below. For more news updates, feel free to visit our site often.


Stay updated with today's relevant news and trends by hitting the LIKE button.


Thanks for dropping by and reading this post.


Report from Daily Tribune

Post a comment

0 Comments