SC Upholds Presumption of Innocence for Bar Applicants Amid Pending Criminal Charges

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa

SC Upholds Presumption of Innocence for Bar Applicants Amid Pending Criminal Charges

By Bing Jabadan – TheNATIONWEEK.com, May 18, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling affirming that the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence extends to individuals seeking admission to the Bar, even when facing pending criminal complaints.

This decision allows a 2022 Bar passer, initially barred from taking the lawyer’s oath, to finally join the legal profession.

In a powerful 9-page decision, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the High Court’s En Banc unequivocally allowed Marivic Antonio Taloma to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys. This pivotal ruling overrides previous objections stemming from active criminal cases against her.

Taloma’s journey to the Bar faced a significant hurdle when, after successfully passing the 2022 Bar Examinations, she was denied participation in the mass oath-taking and roll signing ceremonies on May 2, 2022. This prohibition was imposed due to the discovery of pending criminal cases against her, which she had initially not declared in her application.

The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) subsequently received information detailing two criminal cases against Taloma: one for perjury and another for falsification of public documents, both before the prosecutor’s office.

When Taloma filed her petition to be allowed to sign the roll and take the oath in 2024, one of the criminal cases for falsification of a private document was already at the trial stage. Following its proceedings, the OBC recommended the denial of her petition, citing Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which historically mandated that Bar applicants should not be facing criminal cases involving moral turpitude.

However, the Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed with the OBC’s recommendation. The Court clarified that while Rule 138 requires applicants to demonstrate an absence of charges, this requirement must be interpreted consistently with the Constitution, particularly the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“This right to be presumed innocent does not just apply to an accused person’s status in the criminal case where his or her innocence is assailed,” the Supreme Court emphasized. “Rather, the right requires that the state treat all accused persons as innocent in all dealings with the government, despite the filing of a criminal case against them, as long as there is no conviction by final judgment.”

The Court underscored that Section 2, Rule 138, in its original form, should not be construed as an automatic ground for disqualification solely based on the existence of a pending case.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that this provision has been recently amended, now explicitly requiring a final conviction as an essential prerequisite to prohibit an applicant from being admitted as a member of the Bar.

“The mere filing of a charge involving moral turpitude against an applicant to the Bar is not a ground to disqualify or defer his or her oath-taking. An accusation alone does not constitute proof of guilt,” the Court asserted.

In its summary, the Court articulated a new principle: “The mere pendency of a criminal case filed against an applicant to the Bar shall not automatically be taken against the applicant. Pursuant to the amended Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Court may determine on a case-by-case basis whether the applicant should be allowed to take the oath.”

The ruling does, however, acknowledge that should Taloma be admitted to the Bar and subsequently convicted by final judgment in a criminal case involving moral turpitude, disciplinary proceedings, potentially leading to suspension or disbarment, remain fully available.

This decision significantly strengthens the protection of due process for Bar applicants, reaffirming that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of justice, even in the rigorous path to becoming a lawyer.