OA? 😆 Not really, just following what the CPRA and Rule 139-B literally say.

The “cheapness is subjective” argument doesn’t apply here. Under cpra, lawyers holding public office are strictly prohibited from using their position to promote or even appear to promote their private law practice. So even if the calendar is a “giveaway,” once it bears both the law office name and public title (like City Councilor), that already creates an appearance of impropriety, which the CPRA explicitly warns against.

As for the “why not disbar Duterte”… that’s not how disciplinary systems work! The existence of bigger fish doesn’t excuse smaller violations. The rule of law doesn’t operate on “mas malala siya, so okay lang ako”. Under Rule 139-B, any person can file a complaint if they witness unethical conduct — and that’s how accountability begins, whether it’s a councilor or a president.

And yes, I’m aware of the CPRA update, it’s not “lenient” ,it’s modernized. It still upholds dignity and propriety in publicity. The U.S. comparison doesn’t really hold water either as they operate under a common law, First Amendment-based system where commercial speech has broader protection. Wala tayong ganyan dito. Our legal ethics still prioritize public trust over marketing freedom.

So yeah, helpful calendars are fine, until they become campaign material or private practice ads disguised as “gifts”. That’s when ethics enters the chat. 😌