“When an idiot end booted out by the courts after appointed by the palace”
(Or: questioning Larry Gadon’s choice by Malacañang as Antipoverty Czar
after his disbarment by the Supreme Court for impropriety)
The recent disbarment of Larry Gadon demonstrates that lawyers must take their oath seriously, which includes maintaining professional and personal integrity as members of the bar.
When Gadon's profanity-laced tirade against Raisa Robles went viral two years ago, some netizens correctly predicted that justice would soon hold him accountable for his actions, despite the fact that his three-month suspension from the court was "insufficient." And it's only a matter of time before a unanimous decision by the justices is imposed to protect the legal profession's integrity.
As a result, he loses his years of hard work, his license, and his title. Being disbarred means that an attorney can no longer practice law and may lose their job, which is a significant consequence. Disbarment, which results in the loss of a lawyer's right to practice law, is the result of serious misconduct or violations of ethical standards. A severe punishment may jeopardize an attorney's career and reputation. As a result, having a title that carries so much power and influence comes with a great deal of responsibility, which includes upholding the highest standards of professional conduct and decency.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision emphasizes the importance of decency and integrity in the legal profession, and it is bestowed on those who are intellectually, academically, and, most importantly, morally competent. That from the time bar passers swore an oath and became full-fledged lawyers, being a member of the bar is more than just bearing the title of "attorney" and practicing law, but a privilege that can be revoked--and by revoked, a message is sent that abuse or misconduct of any kind will not be tolerated. Whereas a child should be taught "good manners and right conduct" at home and school, a lawyer or any other professional should be taught the highest standard of decency and conduct leading to a more accountable society, where individuals bear the consequences of their actions.
Despite his disbarment, Gadon continues to serve as the president's adviser on poverty alleviation. And the fact that Malacañang defends his appointment during his removal from the bar makes one wonder if it is worth worrying about the credibility of a person who has no regrets about his remarks, if not the need for a "antipoverty czar" whose tasks are the same as those of other existing agencies such as the National Anti-Poverty Commission. Its commissioner is capable of performing the same duties as him! Even the Secretary of Social Welfare and Development is capable of performing the same duties as him! So, why do we need another bureaucrat at a time when the president has promised to reduce the size of government? Or why Gadon when there are people actively involved in anti-poverty campaigns who can be proven?
But this recent issue is irrelevant to Gadon, who believes that the title "secretary" sounds "sweeter" to him than "attorney" because of his appointment by the president. He even claims that he never paid his dues as a cardholder member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines because he was "retired" and no longer practicing law. Furthermore, he believes that he is protected by free speech, whereas his supporters will continue to support him "right or wrong" (and even treated his remarks humorously).
On the other hand, he admitted that the high court's decision was "too harsh" and that he must file a motion for reconsideration--an act attempting to defend his license as a lawyer despite his claim that he has retired from the profession.
In conclusion, regardless of how Malacañang defends Gadon's appointment or how Gadon himself downplays the punishment, people will remember him as a guttermouth who believes he has the right to say whatever he wants even if it means jeopardizing his reputation as a member of the bar.