In re: IBP Elections Bar matter No. 491 ISSUE: WON IBP elections violated Art. 1, Sec.
s violated Art. 1, Sec. 4 (non-political character of
October 6, 1989
Per Curiam
Group 5, Aniag
FACTS:
June 3, 1989 – The election of the national officers of the IBP took place.
The day before the oath-taking, the Supreme Court resolved to suspend
the same because of widespread reports from lawyers, newspaper columns
and news personally received by the SC Justices regarding intensive
ELECTIONEERING and OVERSPENDING by the candidates, primarily the 3
who ran for the IBP Presidency: Atty. Nereo Paculdo, Atty. Ramon Nisce,
and Atty. Violeta Drilon. In this resolution, they reviewed the campaign
period itself, not the election process.
Three newspaper columnists; namely, Jurado, Mauricio and Locsin,
contained different accounts of the events that transpired:
 Jurado – Violeta Drilon allegedly used PNB helicopters to visit far-
flung IBP chapters and had regional directors and labor arbiters
campaign for her (DOLE Secretary was her husband, Franklin
Drilon); rampant vote buying by members of Sec. Drilon’s
fraternity (Sigma Rho) as well as lawyers of ACCRA (where Atty.
Drilon was employed)
 Mauricio – DOLE personnel aided Atty. Drilon’s candidacy; billeting
of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they haggled them
for their votes
 Locsin – echoed Mauricio’s accounts
SC issued its en banc resolution to investigate on June 15, stressing that the
IBP is supposed to be NON-POLITICAL in character and there should be NO
LOBBYING OR CAMPAIGNING because ideally, the officers are chosen
based on PROFESSIONAL MERIT AND WILLINGNESS and ABILITY TO
SERVE. They formed a committee to investigate and summoned several
individuals as resource persons on the improper conduct of the IBP
elections
IBP) and Sec. 14 (prohibited acts) of the By-Laws of the IBP - YES
HELD: (Details of the violations, found in the end, taken verbatim from
2019 LegProf Digest)
KEY RULING:
It is evident that the manner of campaigning employed by the candidates
violated several times Sec. 14 and made a travesty to the idea of a “strictly
non-political” Integrated Bar enshrined in Sec. 4
 Candidates and participants in these elections not only violated
the by-laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession
imposed on lawyers as to their corollary of their obligation to
obey and uphold the constitution and its laws, the duty to
“promote respect for law and legal processes” and to abstain
from “activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system” (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of
Professional Responsibility)
o Respect for law is gravely eroded when the lawyers
themselves engage in unlawful practice and cavalierly
brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for
their observance
o The ardor with which the candidates pursued the
presidency of the association detracted from the dignity
of the legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing
and being brined to vote one way or another, certainly
did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it
in the public’s esteem
 Spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote a certain
way did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in
the public’s esteem. This was probably a result of the perceived
“power” of being the IBP President as part of the JBC
 To impress upon the participants of the seriousness of their
misconduct, the stern disapproval of the Court, to restore the
non-political character of the IBP and to reduce, if not eliminate
 expensive electioneering which spawned unethical practices
which diminished the stature of the IBP as an association of
practitioners of a noble and honored profession, the Court orders:
o Elections are annulled
o In view of the Court’s power to amend, modify or repeal
the By-Laws under Sec. 77, Art. XI of the By-Laws, the
5 – FREE HOTEL, FOOD, DRINKS, ENTERTAINMENT (also benta
court also changed several provisions regarding the
HAHA)
conduct of elections of the IBP.
DETAILS OF THE VIOLATIONS TAKEN VERBATIM FROM D2019 LEGPROF
DIGEST
1 – PROHIBITED CAMPAIGNING AND SOLIICATIONS
 All 3 candidates traveled around the country to solicit votes
 Nisce admitted and submitted copy of nomination forms he
photocopies
2 – USE OF PNB PLANE (sobrang benta HAHA)
 Acc to PNB records, Factoran (yes, DENR guy) borrowed a
plane from PNB for his cabinet member USEC Tria (Sigma
Rhoan) to go to Bicol for work re: typhoon hitting the area.
 Tiu, who was running for VP (also Sigma Rhoan), was unable
to book a flight from PAL for the trip of Drilon, himself, and
others.
 He allegedly went to DENR to “follow up papers for a client”,
saw Tria, and asked if they could hitch so they did.
 They got to Bicol and had lunch with Atty. Real Jr, a chapter
President of the IBP
3 – FORMATION OF TICKETS AND SINGLE SLATES  all 3 admitted
to forming slates
4 – FREE TRANSPO
 Nisce admitted to buying round-trip tickets to voting
delegates (Badelles got 4 round-trip tix which he did not use
b/c didn’t to commit, Atiliano, Lim, Real Fortes…)
 Only 1 of his 4 candidates won
 Paculdo – 24 rooms @ Holiday Inn, 3 of which are suites
occupied by him, officers of Capitol Bar Assoc, and Atty.
Jalandoni. He paid 150k.
 Hotel Manager de Guzman said he booked 52 rooms and
the booking was made under his wife Atty. Gloria Paculdo’s
name. Total of 227k was paid.
 Drilon – 40 rooms @ Phil Plaza and acc. to its rep Ms.
Villanueva, it was made under name“IBP c/o Atty. Callanta”.
Sales Manager Juco said Mr. Benedicto (ASSEC in DOLE) was
the first to book and said Callanta will make the
arrangement.
 Callanta paid a total of 316k w/ unpaid balance of 302k. Acc
to Villianueva, 232k.
 Callanta admitting putting a downpayment of 123k and his
contrubtors [They’re all Sigma Rhoan or an “affiliated org”
HAHA ANG LALA]:
o Nilo Peña (Quasha Law)  Lots of the senior
partners are brods
> Called Drilon a “sigma rho sister”
o Antonio Carpio
> Reserved room for his firm’s members who
attended the “legal aid seminar”
> Assistant in her campaign by talking to his former
UP Law Prof and classmate
o Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law)  Brods
 o Jay Castro
o Danny Deen
o Angangco Tan (Angara Law) Brods
o Alfonso Reyno
o Cosme Rossel
 Drilon denied knowing Callanta paid and allegedly didn’t
know under whose name her room was registered. Basta
she asked for a room and paid for her room.
 Nisce - 30 Rooms @ Hyatt via bro-in-law Paras, paid a down
of 57k. Managers testified that he paid 217k.
 He admitted he reserved rooms for those who committed
themselves to his candidacy
6 – CAMPAIGNING OF LABOR OFFICIALS
 ASSEC Benedicto admitted he took a LOA to attend the
convention and stayed at Phil Plaza b/c he’s a brod and gave
“moral assistance” to Violeta not just bc Frank was his boss
but bc Frank is his brother (medyo sweet <3)
 The immediate circle: Tiu, Carpio, Pena, Wong, Grapilon,
Lazatin, and Reyno
 Benedicto made 113 phine calls and his suite totaled 23k; in
the other room was the “war room/strategy room” w/
Carpio, Callanta, Benedicto, Quasha and ACCRA lawyer
brods.
7 – PAYING THE DUE OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS
 Teresita Sison, IBP treasurer, testified she heard of
candidates paying off IBP dues who promised to vote for
them but no way to ascertain who paid for who
 Though payments do spike up during election years
8 – DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN ALLOWABLE 1
PAGE LEGAL SIZED BIO-DATA
 General rule is they can only distribute on the day itself, 1
page legal size bio-data
 Paculdo circulated a leaflet called “My Quest”, 15-20k from
his own printing shop
 Drilon and Nisce also distributed their tickets and bio-data
9 – CAUSING DISTRIBUTION BY PERSONS NOT AUTHORIZED
 Paculdo employed uniformed girls
 Carpio noted that there are more materials this year and
election was more heated and expensive
 Bernardino, Chapter Pres of IBP Rizal and candidate of
Nisce, testified that materials were distributed by girls and
lawyers (HAHA) and ACCRA lawyers campaigning for Drilon
10 – INDUCING OR INFLUENCING A MEMBER TO WITHHOLD VOTE
OR VOTE AGAIN ANOTHER
 Lots of names and details about campaigning and
influencing
 One Magsino was gonna vote for Nisce but was offered a
judgeship (SC said this is hearsay)
All concur except CJ Fernan and Justice Medialdea who took no part, and
Justice Gutierrez who was on leave