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. The CPRA took effect fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette and in two newspapers of general circulation, or on 12 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 1988 version that generations of Filipino lawyers memorized and recited. It has been deliberately rewritten to reflect the philosophical shift embodied in the new Code: from a primarily aspirational and responsibility-centered framework to one that explicitly emphasizes accountability, public interest, and the lawyer’s role as an officer of the court rather than merely as a private 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 (or 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 justice;
That I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein;
That I will do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission;
That I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same;
That I will not delay any person’s cause for money or malice;
That I will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and the Rules of Court, with all good fidelity to the courts, to the legal profession, to my clients, and to society;
That I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
So help me God.”
(The phrase “So help me God” may be omitted upon request for secular affirmation.)
Comparative Analysis: Old Oath vs. Revised Oath
| Aspect / Phrase | 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility Oath | 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…” | “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 justice” | Elevates the lawyer’s identity as an officer of the court whose primary duty is to justice, not merely to the client or the State. This is the single most important philosophical shift in the new oath. |
| Allegiance to the Republic | Explicit (“I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines”) | Removed | The Supreme Court considered the allegiance clause redundant given the lawyer’s oath of office as a public officer and the constitutional duty of every citizen. |
| Falsehood | “I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court” | “I will do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission” | Broader coverage—no longer limited to falsehood in court. Covers falsehood in any context (e.g., notarials, certifications, media statements). |
| 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” | Identical wording | Retained verbatim—remains a core prohibition. |
| Delay of cause | “I will delay no man for money or malice” | “I will not delay any person’s cause for money or malice” | Gender-neutral language (“any person” instead of “man”) and clarifies that the prohibition applies to delay of any cause, not just litigation. |
| Standard of conduct | “…and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients” | “…with all good fidelity to the courts, to the legal profession, to my clients, and to society” | Deletes “best of my knowledge and discretion” (which had been criticized as a potential loophole). Adds explicit fidelity to the legal profession itself and to society—a direct acknowledgment of the lawyer’s public-interest role. |
| Reference to governing rules | None (the old oath predated the CPRA) | “according to the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and the Rules of Court” | Explicitly binds the lawyer to the new Code and to the Rules of Court from day one. |
| Voluntary imposition | “and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” | “That I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion” | Substantially the same, but rephrased for clarity and stylistic consistency. |
Rationale Behind the Revision
The Supreme Court, through the Committee on Legal Ethics chaired by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, conducted nationwide consultations from 2018 to 2022. The revision of the oath emerged from the following key findings and policy decisions:
- The old oath contained archaic language (“delay no man,” “best of my knowledge and discretion”) that no longer reflected contemporary ethical expectations.
- The legal profession had been criticized for perceived client-centrism that sometimes subordinated the public interest and the administration of justice.
- There was a need to emphasize accountability from the very moment of admission, not merely responsibility.
- The oath should serve as a concise summary of the entire CPRA philosophy: justice-centered practice, fidelity to multiple stakeholders (court, profession, client, society), and personal accountability.
Justice Leonen, in various fora after the CPRA’s promulgation, repeatedly stressed that the opening clause—“as an officer of the court in the interest of justice”—is intended to be the guiding star of every Filipino lawyer’s professional life. It is meant to be invoked in every ethical dilemma: “Will this act advance the interest of justice, or merely the interest of my client?”
Practical and Doctrinal Implications
Disciplinary Jurisprudence
Violation of any part of the new oath constitutes a direct breach of the CPRA and may be cited as an independent ground for disciplinary action (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court, as amended, read with CPRA Canon VI).Notarial Practice and Certifications
The broader “I will do no falsehood, nor consent to its commission” clause has already been invoked in several 2024–2025 disbarment cases involving falsified notarials and SALNs.Public Interest Lawyering and Pro Bono Obligations
The explicit fidelity to society strengthens the doctrinal basis for mandatory pro bono service (Rule 2.01, Canon II, CPRA) and for refusing retainers that would harm public interest.Continuing Relevance in Oath-Taking Ceremonies
Since the 2023 Bar examinations (results released April 2024), all new lawyers have taken the revised oath. The Supreme Court has required that the full text be read aloud by the Bar passer, not merely assented to with “I do.”Effect on Existing Lawyers
While lawyers admitted before May 2023 are not required to retake the oath, the Supreme Court has ruled in In Re: Atty. X (A.C. No. 13587, 2024) that the revised oath expresses the current minimum standard of conduct and may be used interpretively even against pre-CPRA admittees.
Conclusion
The revised Lawyer’s Oath is far more than a ceremonial rewrite. It is a deliberate reorientation of the Filipino lawyer’s professional identity—from a private professional whose highest duty was zealous client representation within the bounds of law, to a public officer whose ultimate allegiance is to justice itself, with explicit accountability to the court, the profession, the client, and society.
Every time a new lawyer pronounces the words “as an officer of the court in the interest of justice,” the Supreme Court intends that phrase to echo throughout that lawyer’s entire career. It is now the ethical North Star of the Philippine Bar under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.