COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW BY MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS UNDER THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Under Philippine law, certain public officials are expressly prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law during their tenure. Among these officials are the Members (including the Chairpersons) of the Constitutional Commissions—the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), and the Commission on Audit (COA). This prohibition is rooted in both ethical considerations and constitutional mandates aimed at maintaining the independence, impartiality, and integrity of these critical institutions.

II. RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article IX of the 1987 Philippine Constitution establishes the Constitutional Commissions (CSC, COMELEC, and COA) as independent bodies. Specifically:

Article IX-A, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Nor shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the management of any business, or be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.”
Article IX-A, Section 1 underscores the independence of each Constitutional Commission, which is a key reason they must remain free from potential conflicts of interest, including those that might arise from the private practice of law.

The language of the Constitution is unequivocal in stating that Members of the Constitutional Commissions are barred from taking any other office or employment, from practicing any profession (including the legal profession), and from engaging in business or financial dealings with the government that could undermine their impartiality.

III. RATIONALE BEHIND THE PROHIBITION

Preservation of Independence and Impartiality
The Constitutional Commissions serve as checks upon the powers of other branches or offices of government. Their independence ensures credibility in:
- Overseeing the civil service and ensuring merit-based public employment (CSC);
- Conducting elections and ensuring their integrity (COMELEC);
- Auditing the finances of government agencies and ensuring accountability (COA).
Allowing Members of these Commissions to practice law privately could invite conflicts of interest or undue influence, thus compromising their impartiality.
Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest
The Constitution explicitly directs Members of the Commissions to “strictly avoid conflict of interest.” A commissioner who simultaneously practices law could end up representing private interests—possibly adverse to or entangled with government interests—which would undermine public trust in the fairness and objectivity of that Constitutional body.
Promotion of Full-Time Commitment
The tasks of a Constitutional Commissioner are critical and demand full-time attention. Private practice of law often requires substantial time and effort, which could detract from or interfere with a commissioner’s sworn duties.
Ethical Considerations
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility (soon to be replaced by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability) and broader principles of legal ethics, a lawyer in public office owes fidelity to the Constitution and the public interest. Engaging in private law practice while holding a high public office could compromise the ethical duties of loyalty, confidentiality, and conflict-free representation.

IV. SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION

Absolute Prohibition During Tenure
The prohibition is total for as long as the Commissioner remains in office. There are no exceptions in the Constitution allowing part-time or incidental legal practice. Even pro bono legal work unrelated to the official’s duties could fall within the prohibition if it constitutes “practice of law.”
Practice of Law Defined
- Generally, “practice of law” involves any activity, in or out of court, which requires the special knowledge of law. This includes litigation, giving legal advice, drafting legal documents for clients, and performing any act that lawyers customarily carry out for pay or as part of a professional service.
- The Supreme Court has used a broad definition of practice of law, emphasizing that it extends beyond court appearances. Consequently, a Constitutional Commissioner cannot engage in any legal work—paid or unpaid—that is typically within the sphere of a practicing attorney.
Financial Interest and Avoidance of Conflicts
Members of the Commissions are also prohibited from having direct or indirect financial interests in any contract with the government, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government or its instrumentalities, to reinforce the independence of their offices.

V. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION

Administrative or Disciplinary Sanctions
- A Member of a Constitutional Commission who violates the prohibition could be subject to disciplinary action. Although the Constitution is silent on the specific disciplinary mechanism for sitting Commissioners, the gravamen of such act would typically be misconduct or betrayal of public trust, both of which are grounds for removal.
- By analogy, other public officials who violate prohibitions on private practice have faced administrative liabilities, and the same principle applies to Constitutional Commissioners, albeit with the unique processes tied to their positions.
Loss of Public Trust and Credibility
- The independence and integrity of the Constitutional Commission risk being severely compromised, leading to public distrust in its decisions.
- Any decisions tainted by a Commissioner’s conflict of interest could be legally challenged and undermined, eroding the Commission’s authority.
Potential Impeachment or Removal Mechanisms
- While the Constitution does not explicitly include Members of Constitutional Commissions among impeachable officers (it enumerates the President, Vice-President, Members of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman are indeed impeachable officers under Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution), they are subject to constitutional processes for accountability.
- If a Commissioner’s violation rises to the level of culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust, it could trigger impeachment proceedings, or, for lesser offenses, possible disciplinary mechanisms as recognized in jurisprudence.

VI. JURISPRUDENCE AND RELEVANT LAWS

Philippine Supreme Court Decisions
- While direct case law specifically focusing on Commissioners practicing law is relatively sparse (largely because the rule is straightforward and compliance is generally observed), the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the prohibition against public officials (e.g., judges, solicitors, legal officers in government agencies) engaging in private practice unless specifically authorized by law (which is not the case for Constitutional Commissioners).
- In analogous contexts, the Court has emphasized that where a constitutional or statutory provision expressly bars such private practice, it must be observed strictly in order to preserve the integrity of the office.
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713)
- R.A. 6713 supplements these constitutional prohibitions by setting standards of conduct for all public officials and employees, emphasizing the need to avoid conflicts of interest and impropriety.
- A Constitutional Commissioner is also bound by these ethical standards, which further reinforce the prohibition on any outside employment or practice that could conflict with the official’s duties.

VII. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Mandatory Resignation from Private Practice
Upon appointment to a Constitutional Commission, a lawyer-Commissioner must cease any and all involvement in private law practice. This includes:
- Withdrawing from law firm partnerships;
- Terminating client representation;
- Ceasing to appear in court or administrative tribunals in a private capacity;
- Stopping all legal consultancy engagements.
Strict Observance to Avoid Even the Appearance of Impropriety
Commissioners must not only avoid actual conflicts but also the appearance of impropriety. Even informal or unpaid legal advice to friends, family, or acquaintances could be misconstrued as private practice if it goes beyond casual conversation and constitutes legal counsel or representation.
Public Confidence and Accountability
Because they head constitutionally independent bodies, Commissioners must ensure that no suspicion of partiality or personal gain arises from their conduct. Public confidence in the CSC, COMELEC, and COA hinges on the Commissioners’ strict compliance with ethical and constitutional obligations.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Members of the Constitutional Commissions occupy positions of the highest trust and bear a solemn duty to uphold the Constitution. To preserve the integrity and independence of these bodies, the 1987 Constitution categorically prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (and other professions) and from holding financial interests in government contracts or franchises. This prohibition is essential to prevent conflicts of interest, ensure undivided commitment to public service, and safeguard public trust.

Any deviation from this rule can lead to serious legal and ethical consequences, including administrative or disciplinary actions and possible removal from office. Consequently, once appointed, Commissioners are expected to fully divest themselves of any involvement in private legal work and to comport themselves in a manner that fosters absolute confidence in the impartiality and autonomy of their respective Constitutional Commissions.