PAO chief gets second show cause order from SC

FOR the second time, the Supreme Court (SC) has ordered Public Attorney's Office (PAO) Chief Persida Rueda Acosta to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar over the issuance of an office order which the Court deemed as “belligerent and disrespectful.”

PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta

The controversial order, PAO Office Order 096, Series of 2023, was issued by Acosta in response to the Court's resolution, dated July 11, 2023, directing the PAO to strictly comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRa).

In a statement, the Court noted that said office order gave the public attorneys the “discretion and disposition” to comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA and advise the state lawyersto reconciled the said provision with Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes betrayal of trust and revelation of secrets by lawyers, to avoid any criminal responsibility and imprisonment, an insinuation that compliance with the CPRA will amount to the commission of such offenses

Furthermore, the High Court said, the office order urged the state lawyers to adopt precautionary measures in handling conflict-of-interest cases “to protect their life and limb” and avoid criminal and administrative liability.

The Court en banc, in a unanimous vote, deemed the foregoing instructions in Acosta's office order as belligerent and disrespectful as she effectively accused the Court of directly exposing the public attorneys not only to criminal and administrative liability, but also physical danger.

As such, it pointed out that although it presented itself as a directive to comply with Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA, the Office Order further instigated disobedience to the said rule.

In the July 11, 2023 Resolution of the Court, Acosta was directed to show cause why she should not be cited in indirect contempt and disciplined as a member of the bar for her unabated public tirades against Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA.

The Court's first show cause order was over Acosta's social media posts and newspaper articles, “which tended, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.”

Acosta's office order is viewed by the Court as a further act of disobedience and obstruction which degrades the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court Public Information Office has yet to upload a copy of the Resolution to the Court's website.