FACTS:
This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same. He contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP in order to practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and thereby null and void.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the assailed provisions constitute a deprivate of liberty and property of the respondent.
HELD:
NO. The IBP is a state-organized Bar as distinguished from bar associations that are organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership of which are voluntary. The IBP, however is an official national body of which all lawyers must be a member and are subjected to the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which includes payment of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation of regulations in the practice of law. The provisions assailed do not, infringe the constitutional rights of the respondent as it is a valid exercise of polie power necessary to perpetuate its existence with regulatory measures to implement.
