Below is a comprehensive discussion on the Repealing and Effectivity Clause of the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. This discussion also highlights relevant background information, interplays with existing rules, implications for the legal profession, and related principles under Canon VI (Accountability) and the General Provisions of the CPRA. While this write-up aims to be meticulous and thorough, it does not constitute legal advice; it is for educational and informational purposes only.

1. Overview of the New Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability

Background
- The Supreme Court of the Philippines adopted the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) in 1988, which governed the ethical conduct of lawyers for several decades.
- Recognizing shifts in legal practice (including technological advances, new forms of dispute resolution, and expanded expectations of the legal profession), the Court promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) in April 2023.
- The CPRA updates, supplements, and in several instances redefines the ethical boundaries and standards of accountability expected from Philippine lawyers.
Structure
- The CPRA reorganizes ethical principles into Canons and Sections. Each Canon addresses a major aspect of legal ethics (e.g., independence, integrity, fairness, accountability).
- Canon VI, Accountability, underscores that lawyers must be responsible not only to their clients, but also to the courts, the public, and the legal system as a whole.
- In the concluding part of the CPRA, the “General Provisions” set out how the new rules interact with prior ethical rules, providing a Repealing Clause (which identifies the rules the CPRA replaces or supersedes) and an Effectivity Clause (which states when the CPRA takes effect).

2. Canon VI on Accountability: Context for the Repealing and Effectivity Clause

Canon VI (Accountability) emphasizes that a lawyer’s accountability extends beyond conventional notions of professional responsibility. It clarifies:
1. Accountability to Clients – Lawyers must act with diligence, skill, and competence, while keeping clients informed and safeguarding their interests.
2. Accountability to the Courts – The role of a lawyer as an officer of the court entails respect for judicial processes and honest dealings in all court-related matters.
3. Accountability to Society – The broader obligations of lawyers to uphold justice, ensure public confidence in the legal system, and avoid acts that may undermine the rule of law or the profession’s integrity.
4. Accountability to the Profession – Lawyers must observe honesty, fairness, courtesy, and collegiality in professional dealings, refraining from misconduct that tarnishes the reputation of the Bar.
Though the Repealing and Effectivity Clauses are not exclusive to Canon VI, they fall under the CPRA’s concluding or “General Provisions” portion, reflecting the overarching principle that accountability includes adhering to the newly established guidelines and recognizing the cessation of the old code.

3. The Repealing Clause

3.1 Purpose of a Repealing Clause

A Repealing Clause identifies prior legal or regulatory provisions that are expressly abrogated or superseded by the new issuance.
In the context of the CPRA, this means explicitly declaring that all rules, circulars, and prior codes inconsistent with the CPRA are rendered without effect (i.e., repealed or modified).

3.2 Scope of the Repeal Under the CPRA

The CPRA typically states it repeals or supersedes the 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) in its entirety.
Any prior amendments, guidelines, court issuances, or Bar matter resolutions that are inconsistent with the CPRA also become inoperative. Examples include:
- Amendments introduced through Bar Matter resolutions governing lawyer-client relations, lawyer discipline, or rules about administrative aspects (e.g., mandatory continuing legal education guidelines, if inconsistent).
- Supreme Court circulars that clarify or implement sections of the old CPR, to the extent that those clarifications conflict with the new CPRA.

3.3 Limitations and Construction

The Repealing Clause does not invalidate or automatically dismiss existing disciplinary actions commenced under the old Code. As a general rule:
1. Ongoing Cases – Disciplinary or administrative proceedings that began under the old CPR may continue to be resolved under the procedures in effect when they were initiated.
2. Transitory Provisions – The new CPRA may include specific transitional rules stating that certain cases continue under old definitions or that the new code provisions apply retroactively if they are more favorable (or more in consonance with substantial justice).
3. Prospective Effect – Ethical mandates are often enforced prospectively; hence, many provisions of the CPRA will apply to new acts or omissions that occur after its effectivity date.

3.4 Hierarchy and Consistency

Even after the CPRA’s effectivity, it is also subject to overarching constitutional and statutory provisions. If a conflict arises between the CPRA and existing statutory law (e.g., the Revised Penal Code or special laws), general rules of statutory construction and the principle that the Supreme Court’s rule-making power in legal practice controls matters of legal ethics and the discipline of lawyers apply.
Nonetheless, in the sphere of regulating attorney conduct, the Supreme Court’s issuance (the CPRA) typically prevails.

4. The Effectivity Clause

4.1 Rationale and Standard Procedure

An Effectivity Clause states the date when a new rule or code becomes legally binding.
Commonly, Supreme Court circulars or promulgations in the Philippines take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in two newspapers of general circulation or upon completion of another specified condition (e.g., posting on the SC website, or a date certain stated in the issuance).

4.2 Typical Wording

The CPRA’s Effectivity Clause often mirrors the standard text:

“This Code shall take effect [fifteen (15) days] following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation, or on such later date as may be indicated by the Court, and upon its posting in the Official Gazette, whichever is later.”
The Supreme Court may issue an accompanying Bar Matter resolution that further clarifies the effectivity timeline.

4.3 Practical Impact

Date of Binding Force
- All lawyers become bound to comply with the CPRA once it takes effect.
- Violations committed after the effective date are judged according to the CPRA’s standards, even if the conduct began under the old code but continued beyond the effectivity date.
Continuing Legal Education
- The Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program may be updated to integrate CPRA rules into MCLE seminars. Lawyers must familiarize themselves with the CPRA as soon as possible post-effectivity to avoid inadvertent breaches.
Administrative and Disciplinary Adjustments
- Law firms, government legal offices, law schools, and other institutions must revise internal guidelines to align with the CPRA.
- Disciplinary bodies, such as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) chapters and the Supreme Court’s Office of the Bar Confidant, update their rules of procedure to reference the CPRA.
Public Confidence and Notice
- The effectivity clause also ensures the public has notice of the new ethical standards. Upon effectivity, the CPRA becomes the principal reference for evaluating attorney behavior.

5. Implications and Key Points to Remember

Mandatory Compliance
- Upon effectivity, every lawyer admitted to the Philippine Bar must conform to the CPRA. Failure to do so can lead to disciplinary measures such as reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, depending on severity.
Role of the Supreme Court and the IBP
- The Supreme Court has plenary authority over the admission to and regulation of the practice of law.
- The IBP, as the official national organization of Philippine lawyers, assists in disseminating information about the CPRA, conducts seminars, and processes initial disciplinary complaints.
Transitional Considerations
- Lawyers must carefully review any transitional or saving clauses in the CPRA. In some instances, the Supreme Court may provide that certain sections have an immediate mandatory effect, while others give a grace period for compliance (e.g., new standards involving technology or client data protection).
Supremacy of Judicial Pronouncements
- Where confusion arises in the application of the new code, the Supreme Court’s rulings and administrative circulars will guide interpretation.
- Consistent jurisprudence will likely develop as new disciplinary cases under the CPRA make their way to the Supreme Court.
Integration with Other Rules
- The CPRA’s accountability provisions intersect with the Rules of Court (especially on attorney practice in litigation), the Rules on Notarial Practice, and other specialized codes for lawyers in government service.
- Lawyers in specific fields (e.g., government prosecutors, public attorneys, corporate counsel) must ensure they are aware not only of the CPRA but also any special rules established by their respective offices or enabling laws. Nonetheless, these special rules typically must align with the CPRA, which remains the foundational ethical framework.

6. Conclusion

The Repealing and Effectivity Clause of the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) is vital because it formally marks the transition from the 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility to the updated ethical framework. Key takeaways include:

Repeal of all inconsistent prior rules, clarifications, or guidelines.
Effectivity typically fifteen (15) days after required publication or on a date certain set by the Supreme Court.
Applicability of new ethical standards to acts or omissions occurring after effectivity (with transitional handling for ongoing cases).
Enforcement primarily by the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ disciplinary mechanisms, ensuring that Filipino lawyers honor the updated ethical obligations.

Lawyers must stay informed about the specific text of the Repealing Clause and the Effectivity Clause, track any subsequent Supreme Court issuances clarifying implementation and interpretation, and integrate CPRA mandates fully into their practice. By doing so, they uphold not only their own professional accountability but also the integrity of the legal system in the Philippines.