You are on page 1of 1

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty.

ISSUE: WON respondents right to privacy was violated


MARCIAL A. EDILLON HELD:
Topic: Right to Association NO
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is
FACTS: not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate.
Respondent Edillon stubbornly refused to pay his Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group
membership dues to the IBP for 3 years of which he is not already a member. He became a member
A case was filed against him for non-payment of the said of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. 7 All that
dues and the IBP submitted a resolution to the SC integration actually does is to provide an official national
recommending his removal from the Roll of Attorneys organization for the well-defined but unorganized and
Respondent Edillon argued that the requirement to pay incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a
membership dues is in violation of his constitutional right in member.
the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his
member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
that as a consequence of this compelled financial support elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is
of the said organization to which he is admittedly subjected is the payment of annual dues
personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate
to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services,
Hence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions of may require that the cost of improving the profession in this
the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the
legal force and effect. regulatory program the lawyers.
Basically respondent herein argues that his right to privacy is Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense
being violated because he was compelled to join the IBP compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such
even though he does not want to. In addition, he is made to compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of
pay annual dues to said organization. the State.