Below is a detailed discussion of the limitations on the practice of law by lawyers who are elected as Vice Governor, Vice-Mayor, or members of a local Sanggunian under Republic Act No. 7160 (the “Local Government Code of 1991”), as well as the ethical implications under Philippine law and rules of professional conduct.

I. RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

A. Section 90 of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160)

The principal statutory basis for the limitations on local officials who are members of the Bar is found in Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991:

Section 90. Practice of Profession.
(a) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are members of the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office;
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the government except when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the government.

(b) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only in the absence of a private practitioner available for the same service.

This provision applies specifically to members of sangguniang panlalawigan (provincial board), sangguniang panlungsod (city council), and sangguniang bayan (municipal council). By extension and practice, the limitations also operate against the Vice Governor or Vice-Mayor if and when they sit or act as presiding officers or members of the sanggunian, because they also perform legislative (sanggunian-related) functions.

Key Points from Section 90

They may practice their profession but must avoid conflicts of interest and must not do so during official session hours.
They are prohibited from appearing as counsel in certain cases involving the government or government officials, specifically:
- Civil cases where any LGU or government entity is the adverse party.
- Criminal cases where a government official or employee is charged with an offense related to his or her office.
- Administrative proceedings involving their own LGU (they cannot collect a fee therefrom).
They must not use government property or personnel for private practice except when defending government interests.

The rationale behind these limitations is to avoid conflicts of interest, improper use of public office, and to uphold the integrity of both public office and the legal profession.

II. SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITIONS

A. Appearances in Court or Administrative Tribunals

Civil Cases Where an LGU or Government Office Is an Adverse Party
Sanggunian members who are lawyers cannot represent private litigants in lawsuits against a local government unit, or an instrumentality of the government. This is to prevent a situation where an elected official would be acting against the interests of the very governmental body to which he or she belongs (or of which he or she is an officer).
Criminal Cases Where a Government Official Is Accused
They may not appear as counsel if the accused is a public officer or employee being prosecuted for an offense related to his or her official duties. The law aims to prevent undue influence or the appearance of impropriety that could result from a local legislator defending a government official in a matter involving public trust.
Administrative Proceedings Involving Their Own LGU
Even if they appear on behalf of their LGU (for instance, in an administrative case in the Civil Service Commission), they are not entitled to collect any professional fees. This restriction aims to avoid the double compensation and conflict of interest that arises when a local official stands to profit from representing the same local government that pays him a salary or allowance.

B. Use of Government Resources

Section 90(a)(4) expressly forbids sanggunian members from using government property or personnel for their private law practice. An exception is allowed only when the lawyer-official is formally defending the interests of the government (i.e., acting in an official capacity to represent the LGU without fees).

C. Conduct During Session Hours

Sanggunian members may practice their profession (including law) so long as it does not conflict with their legislative duties (i.e., does not coincide with official session hours). This is a time-based limitation ensuring that the discharge of public functions is not compromised by private legal practice.

III. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

In addition to the statutory limits under the Local Government Code, Philippine lawyers are bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Relevant provisions include:

Canon 6, Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests.
Canon 6, Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. (This can be relevant if a local official steps down and later represents private interests in matters that he handled as a public official.)
Canon 15, Rule 15.01 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A conflict arises if the lawyer’s representation of a private client undermines his or her obligation to the LGU or vice versa.
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but must still remain mindful of the public interest and the rules prohibiting conflict of interest.
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. This includes strict compliance with R.A. No. 7160.

Violations of these canons or rules can result in disciplinary sanctions, ranging from reprimand to suspension or disbarment, depending on the severity of the offense and the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

IV. APPLICABILITY TO SPECIFIC POSITIONS

A. Vice Governor and Vice Mayor

Vice Governor typically presides over the Sangguniang Panlalawigan;
Vice Mayor typically presides over the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan (for municipalities, though commonly referred to as Vice Mayor for cities and municipalities alike).

Even though they are primarily “presiding officers,” they are often deemed as part of the sanggunian. Hence, the same prohibitions in Section 90 generally apply to them. In practice:

If the Vice Governor or Vice Mayor is a lawyer, he or she may practice law subject to the same statutory restrictions.
He or she cannot appear against any government instrumentality in a civil or criminal case, or in administrative matters involving his or her LGU.
The use of any government property/personnel for personal legal matters is strictly prohibited.

B. Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/Bayan

Regular and ex officio members of the various local legislative bodies (Sanggunian) are the primary subjects of Section 90. While they have the right to practice law, the enumerated restrictions in R.A. No. 7160 and the ethical limitations under the Code of Professional Responsibility govern them strictly.

V. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND EXAMPLES

Conflict Checks
Before taking on a private client, a lawyer who is a local official must verify whether the prospective lawsuit or matter involves:
- The local government of which he or she is an official.
- Another government agency or official in a matter that could be related to that official’s duties.
- The sessions or legislative responsibilities schedule of the sanggunian.
Pro Bono Representation of the LGU
The sanggunian member-lawyer may represent his or her local government unit in court or in administrative proceedings, but cannot receive professional fees. This arrangement is often utilized if no other counsel is readily available or if the LGU wishes to save on external counsel fees.
Ethical Consequences
- A violation of the statutory prohibition can lead to administrative sanctions (including possible suspension or removal from office).
- A violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility can result in disciplinary action by the Supreme Court, which has plenary disciplinary authority over members of the Bar.
Avoiding Perception of Impropriety
Even if there is no direct violation, local officials who are lawyers must be vigilant in avoiding any arrangement that could create an appearance of impropriety—for instance, using their position to influence the disposition of a case in which they serve as private counsel.

VI. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDANCE

While there have been Supreme Court decisions interpreting Section 90 of R.A. No. 7160 and related provisions, the guiding principle is consistent: public office is a public trust. The Supreme Court has emphasized the special responsibility of lawyers holding public office to avoid conflicts of interest and to maintain the highest standards of professional integrity.

Illustrative points from case law often include reminders that local officials cannot be counsel on matters which would pit their private client’s interest against government or government officials in their official capacity. The Court has repeatedly underscored that a lawyer in the public service carries a greater burden of responsibility in preserving the dignity of both the public office and the legal profession.

VII. SUMMARY OF KEY TAKEAWAYS

Right to Practice vs. Public Office
- Vice Governors, Vice Mayors, and members of local sanggunians who are lawyers may continue practicing law but must comply with the restrictions under Section 90, R.A. No. 7160.
Prohibited Appearances
- They cannot appear in:
  (a) Civil suits where any government office or LGU is an adverse party;
  (b) Criminal suits where a government official is charged with an office-related offense;
  (c) Administrative proceedings involving their own LGU (except on a pro bono basis for the government).
No Use of Government Resources for Private Benefit
- They are forbidden from using government property, facilities, or personnel for their private legal practice.
Session Hours Limitation
- They cannot allow private legal engagements to conflict with their official sanggunian functions (e.g., holding legal consultations during legislative sessions is prohibited).
Ethical Standards
- They remain bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility and face possible sanctions by the Supreme Court for unethical or prohibited conduct.
Sanctions
- Non-compliance may lead to administrative, civil, or criminal liabilities under the Local Government Code and other laws, as well as disciplinary action under the CPR.
Policy Rationale
- The overarching policy is to prevent conflicts of interest, misuse of public office, and ensure that public service remains paramount over personal or professional gain.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Lawyers who serve as Vice Governors, Vice Mayors, or members of a local Sanggunian in the Philippines enjoy the privilege of continuing to practice law under strict statutory and ethical restrictions. The Local Government Code (particularly Section 90) and the Code of Professional Responsibility work in tandem to ensure that these public officials do not misuse their positions or engage in practices that undermine the integrity of the government and the legal profession.

By adhering to these rules—avoiding adverse representation against the government, refraining from charging fees in LGU-related administrative matters, and never using government resources for private endeavors—lawyers in local elective positions uphold both the dignity of their office and the profession’s highest ethical standards. Failure to comply risks not only administrative sanctions or disciplinary action by the Supreme Court but, more importantly, violates the public trust essential to good governance and ethical lawyering.