The context of Remulla’s comment
On March 19, 2025, Secretary Remulla publicly challenged Harry Roque, a former presidential spokesperson and lawyer, to return to the Philippines and face the allegations filed against him. He said:
> “Wala pa ngang nangyayari, tumatakas na siya eh … Abogado pa naman siya, hindi siya sumusunod sa batas … Harapin niya.”
In effect, Remulla was asserting that a lawyer who avoids facing the court or the allegations — especially when he is supposed to uphold the law — is undermining justice and the legal system.
What his comment implies
From this scenario we can derive a number of themes:
1. Duty of a lawyer
By the lawyer’s oath in the Philippines:
> “… I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit …”
A lawyer must respect the legal process — which includes being accountable and facing court if required.
2. Avoidance as an indicator of weakness or guilt
Remulla’s point: If a lawyer flees or refuses to face court, it may signal that the lawyer knows there is merit in the allegation, or at least that he cannot effectively defend the claim. The avoidance becomes part of the critique.
3. Public trust and integrity
Lawyers serve both client and court. When a lawyer refuses to appear, it affects not only that specific case but public confidence in the profession and the justice system.
4. “Best liar lawyer will not go to court” as a paraphrase
The phrase you asked for can be interpreted as: A lawyer who is best at deflecting, avoiding, lying — the one who never sets foot in court because he’s never willing to be tested — is in fact not a strong lawyer. The best lawyer is the one willing to stand in court, face the evidence, defend the client, abide by the law.
Why this matters in the Philippine context
In the Roque case, the allegations (human trafficking complaint linked to a POGO firm) required him to appear. Remulla remarked that “nothing has even happened yet, and he’s already escaping.”
The remark resonates because in high-profile legal matters, corporate or political, avoidance can be seen as disrespect for institutions, which are still gaining strength in the country.
The takeaway
A lawyer’s credibility is not just in the words or motions, but in presence — showing up, answering allegations, putting arguments forward in court.
When a lawyer refuses to go to court, it raises questions: Is the suit groundless? Is the lawyer lacking confidence? Or is he avoiding scrutiny?
For clients: choosing a lawyer who will actively engage (including in court) is often more valuable than one promising to “never need to go to court.”
For the public: legal proceedings matter. Avoidance by those accused erodes faith in justice.
Possible objections & nuance
There are valid reasons for delay or absence in court (health, jurisdictional issues, negotiations) that do not imply guilt or being “a liar lawyer.”
The role of the lawyer includes strategy: sometimes avoiding court might be tactical (though risky).
We should avoid simplistic labels like “liar lawyer” without proof; legal ethics require fairness.
Conclusion
In sum: Secretary Remulla’s remarks emphasise that showing up matters. The phrase “the best liar lawyer will not go to court” can serve as a warning: If a lawyer never wants to step into the arena of contestation (the courtroom), then his skill may lie in avoidance — not in defence. A true advocate is one ready to defend, argue, and justify, under the light of scrutiny.
