ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ON THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW BY SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

I. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Primary Provision
The prohibition against Senators and Members of the House of Representatives engaging in the private practice of law is anchored on Article VI, Section 14 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states in part:

“No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or franchise or special privilege granted by the Government … He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.”

While the provision does not use the exact phrase “private practice of law,” it effectively prohibits legislators from appearing as counsel in courts, administrative agencies, or tribunals, which is a key aspect of the practice of law.
Purpose and Rationale
- Preventing Conflicts of Interest: The primary reason behind the prohibition is to avoid conflicts of interest. A legislator is tasked to craft laws for the nation’s general welfare; allowing personal legal representation could place them in a position where they might use legislative influence or inside knowledge for private gain.
- Ensuring Legislative Focus: Members of Congress have substantial duties—law-making, oversight, budget deliberation, and representation of constituents. The prohibition ensures that full attention is directed toward public service rather than divided between public office and private practice.
- Preserving the Integrity of the Legislature: The prohibition fosters public trust by preventing scenarios where legal representation could be leveraged or perceived to be leveraged for political or economic favoritism.

II. COVERAGE OF THE PROHIBITION

Who are Covered?
- Senators
- Members of the House of Representatives
Scope of the Prohibition
- Personal Appearance as Counsel: They cannot personally represent private clients in any court case or before quasi-judicial or administrative agencies (e.g., the National Labor Relations Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Energy Regulatory Commission, etc.).
- Representation in Electoral Tribunals: They are also barred from representing parties before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, and the Commission on Elections.
- Indirect Interest or Interventions: The Constitution further proscribes them from having direct or indirect financial interests in government contracts or franchises and from intervening for pecuniary benefit or in matters they may act upon by virtue of their office.
Extent of “Practice of Law”
- Traditionally, “practice of law” involves any activity in or out of court that requires the application of law, legal principle, or legal procedure to serve the interest of another. This generally includes drafting documents, counseling clients, and negotiating legal matters.
- Key Constitutional Emphasis: The explicit text highlights the most visible form of law practice—courtroom and quasi-judicial appearances. However, even outside such appearances, any legal endeavor undertaken for compensation risks violating the spirit of the constitutional prohibition.
- Non-Appearance Work: The Constitution focuses on personal appearance. There is some debate in jurisprudence and legal circles whether purely advisory legal work or partnership in a law firm (without making court appearances) is absolutely prohibited. While the black-letter language specifically bans “personal appearance,” the overall policy leans towards limiting or entirely discouraging any form of active lawyering that could lead to conflicts of interest.

III. LEGAL AND ETHICAL FOUNDATIONS

Other Relevant Laws
- Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees):
  - Section 7(b)(2) states that public officials “shall not engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law.” While this primarily deals with officials in the executive branch, the principle of not engaging in private practice for certain positions in government is affirmed.
- Rules of Court and Rules on Professional Responsibility:
  - Lawyers in public office must also adhere to Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that they “shall not use their public position to promote or advance their private interests,” among other dictates.
Ethical Considerations Under the Code of Professional Responsibility
- Canon 6: A lawyer in government service “shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests.”
- Canon 7: A lawyer shall uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times, a standard that is unquestionably relevant for lawmakers who are also lawyers.
- Canon 9: A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. While not directly on point, it underscores how the practice of law demands exclusive dedication when it comes to client representation.
Jurisprudential Clarifications
- The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest for legislators who are members of the Bar.
- No extensive Supreme Court pronouncement broadly legalizing “off-court” legal work for legislators exists; most references uphold the constitutional directive that “personal appearance” as counsel is barred, and any legal work that might place them in conflict with their legislative duties or in a position to leverage influence is likewise frowned upon.

IV. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION

Constitutional Sanctions
- The Constitution itself does not specify the exact penalty for a legislator who violates Section 14 of Article VI. However, a proven violation may result in:
  - Ethics Committee Proceedings in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, which could recommend disciplinary measures, including suspension or expulsion, depending on the gravity.
  - Possible disbarment or disciplinary action by the Supreme Court (through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines), if the legislator’s conduct is deemed a serious breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Administrative and Criminal Liabilities
- For Conflict of Interest: If the violation of the prohibition involves graft or corruption, possible charges under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) could be pursued.
- For Code of Conduct Violations: Violation of RA 6713 might entail administrative sanctions such as suspension or removal from office (though for legislators, removal is typically governed by legislative processes) and possible administrative fines.

V. EXCEPTIONS AND GRAY AREAS

Appearance on One’s Own Behalf (Pro Se)
- Personal Cases: A Senator or Representative may typically act in his or her own personal capacity (pro se) in court because this is not considered practicing law for another; it is the assertion of one’s own rights. The constitutional prohibition focuses on representing others.
- Test Cases: When legislators file or join suits that directly concern their legislative functions (e.g., questioning the constitutionality of a law), they typically appear as parties, not as counsel.
Non-Legal Consultancy Work
- There is a nuanced line between purely legal practice and general consultancy or advisory services. However, because lawyers who offer “consultancy” on legal issues typically engage in the practice of law, this area is fraught with risk of violating the ban, especially if the consultancy involves legal analysis, drafting, or representation in negotiations on another’s behalf.
Academic and Educational Activities
- Teaching law in an academic institution is generally allowed, as this does not equate to representing clients or appearing in court. Still, such engagement must not interfere with legislative duties or create conflicts of interest.

VI. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For Legislators Who are Lawyers
- Refrain from Court Appearances: Once serving as a Senator or Representative, do not personally appear for private clients in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.
- Withdraw from Active Law Firm Partnerships: At the very least, cease to be an active partner handling client cases; if retaining a nominal partnership, avoid involvement in the firm’s litigation or transactional matters that might conflict with legislative work.
- Disclose Potential Conflicts: Where doubt exists, it is prudent to disclose possible conflicts of interest to the Ethics Committee or relevant oversight body.
For Clients or Law Firms Approached by Legislators
- Exercise Due Diligence: Before engaging a legislator who is also a lawyer, law firms or potential clients must be mindful that the legislator is constitutionally barred from private legal practice in most representational capacities.
- Check the Nature of the Representation: If it involves appearances before courts or administrative bodies, such representation is expressly disallowed.
Ensuring Compliance
- Regular Ethics Training: Members of Congress (and their staff) should undergo regular training on legal ethics to avoid inadvertent violations.
- Institutional Oversight: The Senate and House of Representatives have internal Ethics Committees to oversee and address ethical concerns, including the potential unauthorized practice of law.

VII. CONCLUSION

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are clearly prohibited from personally appearing as counsel in any court or quasi-judicial agency, as well as from intervening in matters where they may secure pecuniary benefit. This constitutional mandate serves to:

Protect the integrity of legislative office,
Ensure undivided public service, and
Prevent conflicts of interest or the undue use of legislative influence for private gain.

While the text of the law specifically bans “personal appearance,” prudence and the spirit of ethical governance call for a broad and conservative interpretation—that lawmakers must not practice law in any form that undermines their legislative duties or compromises public trust. Violations can lead to legislative ethics proceedings, potential disbarment, and other legal or administrative penalties.

Ultimately, the prohibition under Article VI, Section 14 is a cornerstone of ensuring that the nation’s lawmakers remain wholly devoted to the greater public interest, fortifying the public’s confidence in the legislative branch.