Right to retention is a constitutional right; Item 4 of DAR A.O. 05-06 is null & void.

Laws, as well as the issuances promulgated to implement them, enjoy the presumption of validity. However, administrative regulations that alter or amend the statute or enlarge or impair its scope are void, and the courts not only may, but it is their obligation to strike down such regulations.

ITEM 4 of DAR Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 2006 does not indicate that a multiple or series of transfers/sales of land would result in the loss of retention rights. Neither do they provide that the multiple or series of transfers or sales amount to the waiver of retention right of the landowner. Thus, ITEM 4 of said DAR Administrative Order is patently null and void. The presumption of validity cannot be accorded to it for being ultra vires. Administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law as they cannot extend or amend a legislative enactment. Administrative issuances must not override, but must remain consistent with the law they seek to apply and implement.

Admittedly, administrative regulations issued by the Department Head in conformity with the law have the force of law. However, since Department Heads exercise the rule making power by delegation of the lawmaking body, it is requisite that they should not transcend the bounds demarcated by the statute for the exercise of that power. Otherwise, they would be improperly exercising legislative power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the lawmaking body.

While the Court is mindful of the DAR's commitment to the implementation of Agrarian Reform, it must be conceded that departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. There must be no over reaching. Otherwise the rule of law becomes a myth.

(GR No. 176549, January 20, 2016).

Inhibition

Judges must be free to judge without pressure or influence from external sources or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation or to the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they do and dispositions they make in the performance of their duties and functions. Voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience  and sound discretion on the part of the judge based on his/her rational and logical assessment of the case. Bare allegations of bias and prejudice are not enough, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, to overcome the presumption that a judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor.

Failure to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys

While practice of law is not a right but a privilege, the Court will not withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession. The unauthorized practice of law by one assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court and acting as such without authority, constitute indirect contempt of court. This applies to law students and Bar candidates. They are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.

Failure to Sign the Roll of Attorneys for those who passed the Bar does not make one a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar. Hence, practicing law without having signed the Roll of Attorneys is considered unauthorized practice of law.

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)

Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undergo continuing legal education to ensure that throughout their career they keep abreast of law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standard of the practice of law.

Failure to comply with the MCLE requirements jeopardized the causes of clients because the pleadings filed could be stricken off from the records and considered invalid.

A lawyer's failure to comply with the MCLE requirements and disregard of the directives of the MCLE Office warrant his declaration as a delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Right to Bail

Bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. Bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion. Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided the continued incarceration of the accused is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Denying bail despite imperiling the health and life of the accused would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.