MANILA — Two days after the Supreme Court required her to explain why she should not be disciplined, Public Attorney’s Office chief Persida Rueda-Acosta apologized on Friday and vowed to comply with the conflict of interest provision in the new lawyers’ code.

In a 2-minute video uploaded on her Facebook page, Acosta offered her “whole-hearted” apology to Supreme Court magistrates, on behalf of PAO lawyers.

“Mga minamahal naming mahistrado/justices of the Supreme Court, sa ngalan po ng aming mga abogado sa Public Attorney’s Office at ng inyong hamak na lingkod, ako po ay buong pagpapakumbaba at marespetong humihingi sa inyo ng taos sa pusong paumanhin kung kayo man po ay nasaktan sa mga pangyayari,” she said.

(To our beloved justices of the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Public Attorney’s Office and all public attorneys nationwide, I humbly and most respectfully apologize if were hurt by the circumstances.)

PAO had issued a manifesto calling out section 22, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, saying it would pit one PAO lawyer against another, which would “result to disorder” and “sow distrust and suspicion among opposing parties.”

Section 22 limits the coverage of “conflict of interest” to a PAO lawyer and his/her direct supervisor handling a case. This means other PAO lawyers may represent the opposing party.

PAO pointed out that the new Code did not take into account the independence given to PAO under its governing law, Republic Act No. 9406.

It also claimed violation of the equal protection clause because PAO was supposedly singled out in the code and its clients were differently treated compared to those of other lawyers without any valid classification.

But the Supreme Court reminded PAO of its duty to extend legal assistance to the poor.

It also pushed back against Acosta’s “unabated public tirades against Canon III, Section 22 of the CPRA through social and mainstream media, branding the adoption of the CPRA as unconstitutional, and an undue interference and intrusion by the Supreme Court into PAO’s operations.”

Acosta was asked to explain why she should not be cited in indirect contempt of court and why she should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar.

• SC requires PAO chief to explain why she shouldn’t be disciplined over position on lawyers’ code

Watch more News on iWantTFC

In her public apology, Acosta explained that PAO was only concerned for its clients and lawyers.

“Humihingi po kami ng inyong lubos na pang-unawa. Ang amin pong mga sinabing mga argumento ay dala lamang po ng aming lubos na pagnanasa na pagsilbihan nang lubusan ang aming mga kliyente at ang mga mahihirap na nangangailangan, na siya ring aming tinuturo sa aming mga kasamang mga abogado,” she said.

(We beg for your understanding and indulgence. The arguments that we stated were brought about by our passion to efficiently serve our clients and the poor and needy, which we have been inculcating in our lawyers’ practice.)

“Taos sa pusong paumanhin po... Makakaasa po kayo na ang mga Public Attorneys ay susunod sa ‘Section 22 in relation to Sections 13 at 18, Canon III’ ng Code of Professional Responsibility,” she added.

(Our deepest apologies… Rest assured that our Public Attorneys will abide by “Section 22 in relation to Sections 13 and 18, Canon III” of the Code of Professional Responsibility.)

ABS-CBN News earlier reported that PAO issued an office order requiring its lawyers to comply with section 22 of the new code.

• After SC denial, PAO orders compliance with ‘conflict of interest’ provision in lawyers’ code

Acosta has headed PAO since she was appointed by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2001, when PAO was then known as the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office (CLAO).

She has served under 4 presidents.

Under RA 9406, a 2007 law that amended the Administrative Code of 1987 and which governs PAO, the Chief Public Attorney, while appointed by the President, “shall not be removed or suspended, except for cause provided by law.”

He/she can only be replaced upon death, permanent incapacity, removal or resignation and incumbent PAO officials and personnel “shall continue holding his/her position without the needs of new appointment.”

Watch more News on iWantTFC