You are on page 1of 3

Halls of Justice dress code is anti-poor

Members of the legal profession are expected to observe proper attire when they appear
in court, or when they participate in an activity that may require their special skills as
lawyers. That expectation, of course, takes into consideration ideal circumstances and may,
in fact, recite only the general rule. There are lawyers who do not comport themselves
properly enough to be seen as exponents of justice. Some lawyers are even mistaken for the
accused they are defending, because of their lack of sartorial refinement. Fortunately, that
situation is the exception.

To repeat, lawyers who appear in court are required to be in proper attire, usually a
barong or a suit for the men, and the corresponding equivalent for the women. The
requirement not only makes the lawyer look respectable to his client and to the public; it is
likewise a way of maintaining the public respect the court is entitled to as an institution
vested by law to dispense justice though the heavens fall.

In addition, there is the public perception that if one can afford the expenses involved in
becoming a lawyer, one should be able to afford to dress up like one.

Of course, the level of a lawyers legal competence is not determined by his attire in court.
Study, preparation, and experience all have a hand in that. Nonetheless, clients find it more
comforting to be represented by a lawyer in smart and elegant attire than one who is not.

In fine, a dress code need not be imposed on members of the legal profession. It is but
expected of lawyers to dress up for the occasion.

Even police officers who appear in court must be in proper uniform. As law enforcement
officials, they are also expected to give the court the respect due it by being in proper
attire. Since they are in proper uniform, these police officers are allowed to bring their guns,
properly holstered, inside the courtroom.

Major cities in the Philippines have a building designated as the Hall of Justice of that city.
Since that is where all cases are supposed to be litigated, the trial courts of the city, the
offices of the city prosecutor and his assistants, and the public attorneys office are all there.
For quite some time now, a dress code has been in force in these halls of justice. It prohibits
people who are inappropriately attired from entering the building. Those who are in shorts
or in slippers are among those who are considered inappropriately attired. The regulation
is enforced against anyone who wishes to enter the building, lawyers or otherwise.

While the dress code seems premised on a laudable policy of making non-lawyers comport
themselves in a manner appropriate for a forum for justice, it has the badges of an anti-poor
measure.

First, what is to be considered appropriate or proper attire may be easy to define by


those who can afford such attire, but may be beyond compliance by those who are restrained
by limited funds, if not by abject poverty. The requirement creates an obvious social
inequality between those who have and those who dont. In other words, the dress code
discriminates against people who cannot afford shoes, and/or certain footwear and clothing.

Second, the Hall of Justice is a public building. Admission to a public building should not be
restricted on the basis of what attire one is wearing, as long as the attire does not violate
the norms of public morality. Thus, one who is in Spartan attire and is unable to afford
anything more than that, ought not to be barred from admission to the public building,
especially when he has good reason to be there.

Third, there are instances when vendors who, despite their inappropriate attire, are
allowed to enter the Hall of Justice to make food and beverage deliveries. This special
treatment is unwarranted if the rule is to apply to all who enter the building.

Fourth, since the construction of the Hall of Justice is funded by taxpayer money, all
taxpayers have a right to enter it during reasonable office hours, and provided they do not
create trouble. Considering that almost every purchase of goods in this country is subject to
a value added tax, and that almost everyone in the country must have bought something in
his or her life, the law-abiding citizen has the right to enter the Hall of Justice in an attire he
or she can afford to wear, provided that the attire is decent.

Fifth, a dress code may be imposed as a regulation in a public building where it may be
reasonable to require it, as in a public university where the students are being trained to
dress up as future professionals. On the other hand, a Hall of Justice, by its very name,
should be accessible to anybody who needs justice, even if he or she is unable to afford
appropriate attire or footwear. Ones entitlement to justice is based on certain events in
ones life, and not because of ones attire or footwear.

The dress code in the Hall of Justice is likewise incompatible with provisions of the
Constitution, particularly Section 11, Article III thereof which provides Free access to the
courts and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.

as well as Section 1, Article XIII which states

The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequities

Since the dress code is, as shown above, an anti-poor measure and creates a social inequality
where it is least expected, it is in conflict with the above-quoted provisions of the
fundamental law of the land. Like the Sandiganbayan Justice who was recently cashiered by
the Supreme Court, the dress code in the Halls of Justice must be removed.

CANON 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.01 A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

A lawyer may NOT wear outlandish or colorful clothing to court.


As an officer of the court and in order to maintain the dignity and respectability of the legal
profession, a lawyer who appears in court must be properly attired. Consequently, the court can
hold a lawyer IN CONTEMPT of court if he does not appear in proper attire. Any deviation from
the commonly accepted norm of dressing in court (barong or tie, not both) is enough to warrant
a citing for contempt.

You might also like