The Lawyer's Oath is the sworn undertaking every Philippine attorney makes before admission to the Bar. It was substantially revised in 2023 under A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC — the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — replacing the 1988 oath formerly found in Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The revised text adds express commitments to work for justice, ensure equitable access to justice, and safeguard the rights of all persons, identities, and communities.
The Oath itself (2023 revised text)
The revised Lawyer's Oath, adopted as part of the CPRA and promulgated as A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC on April 11, 2023, reads in full:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (affirm) that I accept the honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people. I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. In doing so, I shall work towards promoting the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace. I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice. I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion. [For oaths] So help me, God. (Omit for affirmations)."
The bracketed phrasing is part of the official text: a candidate who affirms rather than swears omits the closing invocation. The authority for this text is the CPRA (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC); its repealing clause supersedes the oath formerly carried in Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
What changed from the 1988 oath
This was not a cosmetic refresh. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, who led the drafting, observed that the previous oath used archaic language out of step with a modern, decolonized legal profession, and — more importantly — omitted what he framed as the lawyer's most important duty: to work for justice and to ensure access to it. The revised oath puts those commitments at its center.
| Old (1988) oath | 2023 revised oath |
|---|---|
| Opens "I solemnly swear" | Opens by accepting "the honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility of practicing law… as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people" |
| No express mention of "justice" | Commits to "promoting the rule of law" and to "conscientiously and courageously work for justice" |
| No mention of identities or communities | Safeguards "the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities" |
| No access-to-justice commitment | Commits to "ensure greater and equitable access to justice" |
| "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court" | "do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone" — broader, and no longer limited to "in court" |
| "all good fidelity to courts and clients" | Discharge duties "to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility" |
What each commitment means in practice
Acceptance of the role — "as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people"
The revised oath frames practice as a role accepted, not merely a promise sworn. The lawyer is first an Officer of the Court, and the qualifier "in the interest of our people" sets a public-interest baseline against which every later commitment is read.
Fealty to the Constitution
The Constitution remains supreme. If a client asks for something that violates the Constitution, the lawyer's duty to the client yields. This carries over in substance from the older oath.
Working for justice and access to justice
These are the revised oath's signature additions. The lawyer commits to "work for justice" and to "ensure greater and equitable access to justice." Together they convert access to justice from an aspiration into an oath-level professional obligation — the point Justice Leonen identified as missing from the old text.
Safeguarding the rights of all persons, identities, and communities
The oath now expressly extends protection to "all persons, identities and communities." This inclusive language has no analogue in the 1988 oath and signals that the duty to safeguard rights and meaningful freedoms runs to everyone, not a narrower class.
"Do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law…"
This is the modern anchor of the CPRA's duty of candor. Two changes matter. First, the old "in court" limitation is gone — the duty against falsehood is no longer tied to the courtroom. Second, the oath now adds an express prohibition on perverting the law "to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone." This is the clause most directly implicated when an attorney files AI-fabricated citations: putting a non-existent case before a tribunal is "doing falsehood" within the meaning of this commitment, whether or not the attorney knew the citation was fabricated at the time of filing.
Integrity and utmost civility
The old "fidelity to courts and clients" phrasing is replaced by a duty to discharge responsibilities "to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility." The competence-and-diligence idea remains, now expressed through integrity and civility rather than relational fidelity.
"Without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion"
The lawyer takes on every commitment wholly and in good faith. A candidate who affirms instead of swears omits the closing "So help me, God," per the oath's own bracketed instruction.
How the Oath anchors the CPRA
The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA, 2023) replaced the 1988 Code of Professional Responsibility. The revised oath and the Code were promulgated together in the same issuance, A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC. Where the old Code organized duties largely by relationship (to the court, to the client, to colleagues), the CPRA organizes them by canon — and the oath supplies the values those canons operationalize. In practice, an oath-level breach is litigated as a violation of one or more specific CPRA provisions.
Leading cases and issuances
Worked example: AI-fabricated citations in practice
An attorney prepares a pleading under deadline and asks a general-purpose AI tool to summarize the leading cases on a point of Philippine law. The tool returns a confident, fluent passage citing several authorities. The attorney files without independently verifying each one. Some of the cited authorities do not exist, or do not say what the tool claimed.
This is not hypothetical. In a documented 2025 matter, the Sandiganbayan's Seventh Division, in a minute resolution dated August 7, 2025, addressed pleadings — filed in a case connected to the pork-barrel scandal — whose citations either pointed to authorities that did not exist, did not contain what was attributed to them, or carried incorrect numbers and dates. The motions had been drafted by the client's former counsel using AI-generated research; the lawyer who signed them was reminded that the duty to fact-check and to cite real authority was hers, whoever prepared the draft. The court imposed a reminder — not suspension or disbarment — and did not refer the matter to the Supreme Court. (Reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine Star, August 2025; as a minute resolution it carries no A.C. number and is not reported in the SCRA.)
The lesson is not the size of the penalty; it is where the duty sits. Even a warning rests on the premise that verifying every citation is the lawyer's responsibility, not the tool's. That responsibility flows from the revised oath's commitment to "do no falsehood nor… pervert the law," and it is reinforced by the Judiciary's AI governance framework — A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, the Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary, adopted by the Supreme Court En Banc on February 18, 2026. "I relied on the AI" may mitigate; it does not excuse.
Why this matters for AI-augmented practice
Every AI tool used in Philippine legal practice — including Intellegal — sits inside the boundary set by the Lawyer's Oath. The Oath did not relax because the technology advanced. The attorney remains responsible for every word filed.
This is why Intellegal is built so that every case it surfaces is traceable back to its source, fast enough to verify under deadline pressure. The platform does not relieve you of the verification duty — it makes the duty practical to perform.
FAQ
Did the Lawyer's Oath change in 2023?
Yes — substantially. The Supreme Court adopted a revised Lawyer's Oath as part of the CPRA, promulgated as A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC on April 11, 2023, replacing the 1988 oath formerly carried in Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. It is not cosmetic: the text was rewritten to add commitments to work for justice, ensure equitable access to justice, and safeguard the rights of all persons, identities, and communities.
Where is the revised Oath published, and what is its authority?
The authority is A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC — the CPRA itself — promulgated April 11, 2023. Its repealing clause supersedes the oath previously found in Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The oath is not sourced from Bar Matter 850, which concerns Mandatory Continuing Legal Education.
What are the biggest changes from the old oath?
It opens by accepting the honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility of practice as an Officer of the Court in the interest of the people, rather than "I solemnly swear"; it adds commitments to work for justice and ensure equitable access to justice; it safeguards the rights of all persons, identities, and communities; it broadens "do no falsehood" to add "nor shall I pervert the law" and drops the "in court" limitation; and it replaces "fidelity to courts and clients" with "integrity, and utmost civility."
Can an attorney be disciplined for filing AI-fabricated citations?
Yes. In a documented 2025 matter the Sandiganbayan reminded a lawyer who had signed pleadings citing authorities that did not exist or did not say what was claimed — pleadings drafted by the client's former counsel using AI-generated research — and imposed a reminder rather than suspension. The duty to verify rests on the lawyer, under the oath's commitment to do no falsehood and under the Judiciary's AI governance framework (A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, adopted February 18, 2026).
Can an attorney be disbarred for an Oath violation alone?
In principle yes, though in practice disciplinary cases name specific CPRA provisions. The Oath is the foundation; the CPRA is the enforcement surface. Penalties range from reprimand and suspension to disbarment, depending on the gravity of the breach.