Sara Duterte, Zuleika Lopez disbarment looms
Vice President Sara Duterte and her former chief of staff, Atty. Zuleika Lopez. Composite image from Inquirer files.
Manila, Philippines—In a development that has sent ripples through the Philippine legal and political spheres, Vice President Sara Duterte is facing disbarment complaints while her former chief of staff, lawyer Zuleika Lopez, has been accused of actions that some legal experts say could merit disbarment.
These controversies arise from alleged misconduct related to the handling of confidential funds, interactions with constitutional bodies, and violations of lawful orders, raising serious questions about adherence to legal ethics and the rule of law.
Prominent lawyer Lorna Kapunan has expressed strong belief that Duterte’s disbarment is justified, adding that Lopez should also face the same consequence for her actions.
‘Lawyers disbarred for less’
In November 2024, disbarred lawyer and Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation Larry Gadon filed a disbarment complaint against Duterte before the Supreme Court.
The complaint stemmed from Duterte’s public statement where she allegedly claimed to have contacted an assassin to target President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife Liza, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez in the event of her own assassination. Gadon described these remarks as “illegal, immoral, and condemnable.”
“As a lawyer herself, she should be disbarred,” he added.
READ: Larry Gadon files disbarment rap vs Sara Duterte
Additionally, the Supreme Court confirmed receiving an anonymous disbarment complaint against Duterte over her comments about exhuming the remains of President Marcos’ father and dumping them into the West Philippine Sea.
The anonymous complaint is on top of an existing pending case on disbarment for Duterte, which was filed back in 2011.
READ: SC says it received anonymous disbarment complaint vs Sara Duterte
Duterte acknowledged awareness of a disbarment case filed in 2011, related to an incident where she assaulted a court sheriff. She dismissed the recent complaints, saying:
“In Bisaya, ‘puwera bahala’ (whatever happens, happens). Whoever they side with will win. So we’ll strike, and let’s see where it lands.”
READ: VP Sara Duterte brushes off disbarment complaints
In an interview, Kapunan weighed in on the seriousness of the allegations, agreeing that the grounds for disbarment against Duterte are valid.
When asked directly if Duterte deserves to be disbarred, Kapunan responded emphatically, “Oh yes. In fact, lawyers have been disbarred for less.”
She detailed various reasons lawyers have faced disbarment in the past, including “intemperate language, failure to return monies to the client, immoral conduct, criticizing the Supreme Court, gender-insensitive language, and disrespect for authority.”
Kapunan underscored that these established grounds have been the basis for disbarment historically.
Ex-chief of staff could face the same disbarment
Lopez, who formerly served as Vice President Duterte’s chief of staff, has faced significant legal scrutiny. While she is not currently facing a formal disbarment complaint, legal experts, including Kapunan, have expressed belief that her actions could constitute grounds for disbarment.
Lopez was cited in contempt by the House of Representatives for allegedly lying during a congressional hearing on confidential funds. Lawmakers accused Lopez of giving inconsistent statements under oath regarding the OVP’s budget allocations and transactions.
READ: House panel moves to cite OVP exec Lopez for contempt
Lopez’s defiance also extended to the issuance of a letter to the Commission on Audit (COA), instructing the audit body not to honor a subpoena issued by the House of Representatives. Kapunan characterized this as “clear interference” with legal processes, stating:
“In fact, not only the vice president, but her chief of staff could also be—there also is a ground for disbarment when the chief of staff, Attorney Lopez, issued a suppression letter… Sometime in August of 2024, she wrote a letter to the COA chair saying, do not respect the subpoena of the House. Clearly, under our canons, that is interference. Interference with the process.”
Understanding disbarment in the Philippines
In the Philippines, disbarment is the most severe penalty imposed on a lawyer, resulting in the permanent revocation of their license to practice law. The process is governed by Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 signed in 2015.
Disbarment cases may be initiated in three ways:
- Motu Proprio by the Supreme Court (SC): The SC has the authority to start disbarment proceedings on its own initiative, even if no formal complaint is filed. This process is known as motu proprio.
- Filing of a Complaint: A verified complaint can be submitted to the SC or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complaint must detail the specific acts of misconduct, supported by affidavits and relevant documentation.
- Referral by the Courts or Government Agencies: Other courts or government offices can refer cases to the SC or the IBP if they find sufficient grounds during their own investigations.
Once a complaint is accepted, it is investigated by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The commission reviews evidence, conducts hearings, and submits its findings to the IBP Board of Governors.
The board can either recommend the case’s dismissal or propose disciplinary action, including disbarment. These findings are then forwarded to the Supreme Court, which has the final authority to approve, modify, or reject the recommendation.
Under Rule 139-B, disbarment proceedings are confidential during the investigation stage to protect the parties involved. However, Section 18 of Rule 139-B mandates that the final decision of the Supreme Court must be published as part of its rulings.
Furthermore, Section 30 of Rule 138 guarantees that no lawyer shall be disbarred or suspended without due process, which includes the right to a fair hearing, the opportunity to present evidence, and legal representation.
Grounds for disbarment
According to Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer in the Philippines may be disbarred or suspended from practice for any of the following causes:
- Deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office – Engaging in fraudulent or dishonest acts in professional capacity.
- Gross immorality – Conduct that is considered grossly unethical and contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals.
- Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude – Being found guilty of crimes that reflect a lawyer’s lack of moral integrity.
- Violation of the lawyer’s oath – Failing to uphold the principles and duties sworn upon as a member of the Bar.
- Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court– Intentionally refusing to comply with court orders.
- Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney without authority– Representing oneself as a lawyer without the proper authority or during suspension.
The Supreme Court holds exclusive authority over disbarment decisions as mandated under Section 27 of Rule 138.
Graphics by Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net. Sources: Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court (as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 signed in 2015), Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
