First point: When you are a public officer, are you absolutely precluded from practicing law?

No. Cite case of Lingan v. Calubaquib and Baliga:

Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice of law. In
Cayetano v. Monsod, this court cited the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission
and agreed that work rendered by lawyers in the Commission on Audit requiring [the use of]
legal knowledge or legal talent61 is practice of law.
These powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. Oaths and affirmations
are usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries public officers who are
necessarily members of the bar. Investigating human rights complaints are performed primarily
by the Commissions legal officer. Discussing immediate courses of action and protection
remedies and reviewing and approving draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the
legal officer require the use of extensive legal knowledge.
The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director
constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be an attorney a member of the
bar in good standing and authorized to practice law. When the Regional Director loses this
authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, the
Regional Director loses a necessary qualification to the position he or she is holding. The
disbarred or suspended lawyer must desist from holding the position of Regional Director.
Second point: This is precisely the reason why lawyers engaged in governmental functions are
still governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Also, when engaged in governmental
function, they do not shed their identities as lawyers. Instead, they are placed in the spotlight, so
to speak, as they are mandated to interact with the public, representing themselves as lawyers.
Any misconduct is magnified and may affect the publics perception of the legal profession.
Cite case of People v. Castaeda: The canons embodied in the CPR equally apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks.
Third point: Going back to the case of Lingan, on the disciplinary authority of the Supreme
Court, does it mean that because government lawyers are already covered by the provisions of
the CPR, the Supreme Court already exercises disciplinary authority over any and all acts
committed by them in the exercise of their functions?
No. Cite Pimentel v. Llorente. Make distinction. A lawyer who holds a government position may
not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the CPR or the
lawyers oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral
delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct.
Having settled those matters, we now go to PROHIBITIONS:
The governing law on the matter is Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713.
In the case of In re: Silverio-Buffe, the Supreme Court interpreted this provision as follows: the
general rule under the provision is to bar public officials and employees from the practice of their
professions. By way of exception, they can practice their profession if the Constitution or the law
allows them, but no conflict of interest must exist between their current duties and the practice
of their profession.
Rationale: Promote the observance and the efficient use of every moment of the prescribed
office hours to serve the public.
Explain other issue in the case of In re: Silverio-Buffe. No unfairness in the provisions.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS
President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants
Ombudsman and Deputies

Members of the Constitutional Commissions

LAW
All governors, city and municipal mayors (Section 90, RA 7160)
Judges and other officials or employees of the superior court
Officials and employees of the Solicitor General (Rule 138, Section 35)
Government prosecutors (Jurisprudence, People v. Villanueva)
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Explain personal nature of the prohibition.
But, indirect violation not allowed.
Also, explain that limitation only applies to appearance before courts of justice, electoral
tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies, and administrative agencies.
LOCAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
Cite Catu v. Rellosa, relate to Ramos v. Rada