**The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in a landmark reform of the ethical standards governing the legal profession, promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) through A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC dated 11 April 2023. Following its publication in the Philippine Star and the Manila Bulletin on 14 May 2023, the CPRA took effect fifteen calendar days thereafter, or on 30 May 2023.
One of the most visible and symbolically significant changes introduced by the CPRA is the complete revision of the Lawyer’s Oath—the solemn vow every newly admitted member of the Philippine Bar pronounces before the Supreme Court during the traditional oath-taking and roll-signing ceremonies.
The revised oath is no longer the familiar former version found in Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. It has been deliberately rewritten to reflect the philosophical shift embodied in the new Code: toward explicit accountability, public interest, access to justice, and the lawyer’s role as an officer of the court alongside the role of advocate.
The Full Text of the Revised Lawyer’s Oath
The new Lawyer’s Oath, as prescribed by the CPRA, reads in full:
“I, _________________, do solemnly swear (affirm) that I accept the honor, privilege, duty and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people.
I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of Philippines.
In doing so, I shall work towards promoting the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.
I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice. I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion.
[For oaths] So help me, God. (Omit for affirmations).”
(The phrase “So help me, God” is omitted for affirmations.)
Comparative Analysis: Old Oath vs. Revised Oath
| Aspect / Phrase | Former Lawyer’s Oath under Rule 138 | Revised CPRA Oath (2023) | Significance of Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening declaration | “I, ___, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support its Constitution…” | “I…accept the honor, privilege, duty and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people” | Expressly frames legal practice as an honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility exercised as an officer of the court in the interest of the people. |
| Allegiance to the Republic | Explicit (“I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines”) | “I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of Philippines” | Recasts the undertaking as express fealty to the Constitution; the revised oath no longer separately states that the lawyer will maintain allegiance to the Republic. |
| Falsehood | “I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court” | “I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone” | Broader coverage—no longer limited to falsehood in court and expressly prohibits perverting the law to favor or prejudice anyone unjustly. |
| Frivolous suits | “I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same” | Not expressly repeated in the revised oath | The substantive prohibition remains in Section 7, Canon III of the CPRA, which prohibits frivolous suits and abuse of court processes. |
| Delay of cause | “I will delay no man for money or malice” | Not expressly repeated in the revised oath | The gendered formulation was removed from the oath, while Section 4, Canon IV of the CPRA separately prohibits a lawyer from causing or occasioning delay in any legal matter. |
| Standard of conduct | “…according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients” | “I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility” | Replaces the former fidelity formulation with express commitments to faithful performance, integrity, and utmost civility. |
| Reference to governing rules | None | None expressly | The revised oath states its commitments substantively; the CPRA itself separately governs lawyers’ professional conduct and accountability. |
| Voluntary imposition | “and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” | “I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion” | Substantially the same, but rephrased for clarity and stylistic consistency. |
Rationale Behind the Revision
The Supreme Court, through the Sub-Committee for the Revision of the Code of Professional Responsibility chaired by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, conducted nationwide consultations from September 2022 to January 2023. The revision of the oath emerged from the following key considerations:
- The old oath contained archaic language (“delay no man,” “best of my knowledge and discretion”) that no longer reflected contemporary ethical expectations.
- The former oath did not expressly commit lawyers to work for justice, safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities, and communities, or ensure greater and equitable access to justice.
- There was a need to emphasize accountability from the very moment of admission, not merely responsibility.
- The oath reflects central themes of the CPRA: justice-centered practice, the rule of law, integrity, civility, equal access to justice, and personal accountability.
Senior Associate Justice Leonen authored the revised Lawyer’s Oath. Its opening clause—“as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people”—frames the public dimension of every Filipino lawyer’s professional responsibilities.
Practical and Doctrinal Implications
Disciplinary Jurisprudence Violation of the revised oath may support disciplinary liability under the CPRA. The CPRA repealed Sections 20 to 37 of Rule 138, including former Section 27, while Canon VI now governs disciplinary offenses and sanctions.
Notarial Practice and Certifications The broader “I shall do no falsehood” clause applies to conduct both in and out of court. In Ascaño v. Panem (A.C. No. 13287, 21 June 2023), the Supreme Court found a lawyer liable under the revised oath and the CPRA in connection with improper notarization and untruthful statements.
Public Interest Lawyering and Pro Bono Obligations The commitment to greater and equitable access to justice complements Section 3, Canon V of the CPRA, which generally prohibits refusing representation of an indigent person subject to specified exceptions, and the Supreme Court’s Rules on Unified Legal Aid Service under A.M. No. 22-11-01-SC.
Continuing Relevance in Oath-Taking Ceremonies Since the 2023 Bar examinations, whose results were released in December 2023, new lawyers have taken the revised oath before signing the Roll of Attorneys.
Effect on Existing Lawyers While the CPRA does not require lawyers admitted before its effectivity to retake the oath, its transitory provision generally applies the Code to pending and future disciplinary cases unless retroactive application would be infeasible or would work injustice. In Pante v. Tebelin (A.C. No. 13630, 27 June 2023), the Supreme Court applied the CPRA and found a lawyer whose misconduct predated its effectivity guilty of violating the revised oath.
Conclusion
The revised Lawyer’s Oath is far more than a ceremonial rewrite. It is a deliberate reorientation of the Filipino lawyer’s professional commitments—from an oath expressly addressing allegiance, obedience, falsehood, groundless suits, delay, and fidelity to courts and clients, to one that expressly centers justice, the rule of law, rights and meaningful freedoms, access to justice, integrity, civility, and service in the interest of the people.
Every time a new lawyer pronounces the words “as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people,” that phrase encapsulates the public dimension of the lawyer’s professional role. It is an ethical North Star of the Philippine Bar under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.**