Article 41 of the Constitution of the kingdom of Cambodia states: “Khmer citizens shall have freedom of expression of their ideas, free of information, freedom of publication and freedom of assembly. No one shall exercise these rights to infringe upon the honor of the others to affect the good customs of society, public other and national security”.
However, the Cambodian Code of Bar seems to put restrictions on lawyers not to get involved in publicities such as TVs, radios, newspapers and other kinds of mass media, even if the press conference held by the lawyers is also restricted under the discipline of the Bar Association. In this aspect, some questions have been raised whether or not this is justifiable for lawyers to carry out their duties; and whether or not such a discipline violates the rights of lawyers regarding to the Constitution. Responding to what is being asked; this paper is going to discuss whether or not Lawyer Chouen should be allowed to hold the press conference in order to help his client with protecting his rights from getting badly publicized.
This is a controversial and incentive question which has been raised so far.The constitution seems to be broad which sometimes not just common people but also legal individuals find it is hard to interpret. As can be clearly seen, the constitution gives citizens rights to freedom of publication, but such rights have been restricted under the organic law, the Code of Bar—which lead to some arguments that lawyer’s right freedom of expression and publication has been violated under this law. That all Khmer citizens shall have freedom of expression and publication is meant that lawyers are also excluded; because lawyers are also the citizens and the main social fabrics of Cambodia. In this sense, that Lawyer Chouen was banned not to hold a press conference is clearly shown a part of his right is being violated in accordance with the constitution.
By looking at the context of implementation of the legal procedure, in accordance with the code of ethics of Cambodia, it can be seen that if a lawyer accepts an employment from any client, he or she must accomplish his or her assignment and respect the will of the client; which is meant that the duty to client is very important in laywering. In this manner, Chouen shall exercise his right to freedom of expression and publication to protect his client; as he believes that holding the press conference is necessary to protect the client from being badly publicized. The press conference would help his client recover from reputation damage caused by the public media.
However, the constitution itself also clearly states that limitation of rights of the citizens. They, indeed, shall have rights to freedom of expression of their ideas, free press of information, freedom of publication, but in a moderate way—no one shall exercise these rights to infringe upon the honor of the others or to affect the good customs of society, public order and national security—they are not allowed to overuse their rights outside the boundary of the laws.
Even though the Constitution states each individual shall have rights to freedom of expression and fee of press as mentioned above, the second paragraph of Article 41 itself also says “The regime of the media shall be determined by law”. In this sense, the constitution deliberately authorizes organic laws to keep individuals under its powers, and the organic laws themselves shall give rights to and lift rights from individuals where the state considers it is justifiable. Since lawyers are under the Bar Association, they shall exercise their rights and professional responsibilities to hold the press conference if specified by the disciplines of the Bar Association in affiliation with the Internal Rules.
In the Cambodian law on ethics for laywers, Article 15, however, states that laywers shall be prohibited not to get embroiled in all public media activites, for example press conferences, in conformity with professional obligation, unless there is any consent from the President of the Bar Association. The purpose of this article is in a manner of protecting ethics morality of being a lawyer and preventing prospective repercussion which could emerge if there is a permission of all public media activities by lawyers.
One of the repercussions is that press conferences by lawyers would significantly affect on the judgment of the court. The nature of the judgment of the court will be under the pressure form the public who are convinced by the press conference held by lawyers. In this era, press can be seen remarkably sharpening people’s life and significantly influencing on their judgment opinions. Consequently, people would be in favor of the client protected by the press conference rather than by the nature of the fact, in which judges would be put under the pressure from the public opinions. As a result, the outcome of the case would also depend on the public opinions rather than the judgment of the court itself.
Through the press conferences, some lawyers may take a chance to get benefits from the public. In this sense, they may take the opportunity to build a good reputation by overstating and making known to the public about how effectively they can protect the clients in order to attract more potential clients than other lawyers could ever do. If this occurs, then the lawyers themselves will be more well-known, and partly influence on the judiciary system and other lawyers. For instance, the judges will be easily convinced by the lawyer who is broadly known and frequently publicized through press conferences—or there might be a good connection between the lawyers and the court personnel in the judiciary system. In the mean time, the lawyers could use his or her potentiality to talk into the judges to be on his client’s side, in which, as a result, it does not seem to warrant that the fairness and impartiality of the outcome of the case could be guaranteed vice versa.
As far as it is concerned, lawyers are always on the side of the client whom they get employment from, and it is not unusual that whatever they are going to address to the public via press conference is bias towards their client’s interests rather than those of the other clients protected by another lawyer. Occasionally, such a press conference may leave negative effects on the interest or spoil the reputation of other party involving in the case, especially in a criminal case, in which either the reputation or the dignity of the other party can possibly be affected before the court; because there has been no any announcement of the judgment from the court that whether or not the client found guilty or innocent. The press conference held before the court’s judgment would have negative effects on the judiciary system which shall be prohibited.
As been clarified, while on one hand, it might be argued that restrictions on press conference held by lawyers have been violating lawyers’ right to freedom of expression, press, publication and assembly in accordance with the constitution. However, the more reasonable argument is that the constitution itself also limits such a right in a moderate way by authorizing the organic laws of the Bar Association. Since lawyers are legal people under the control of the Bar Association, they shall be subject to the internal rule of the Bar itself. Moreover, the purpose of the internal rule of this code is in favor of protecting ethics morality of all lawyers, and preventing prospective repercussions that can possibly emerge from the press conferences by lawyers. Therefore, the internal rule not allowing lawyers to hold press conference are considered as justifiable. Personally, since it is unprofessional and affects ethics or honor of lawyers, Lawyer Chouen shall not be allowed to hold the press conference or he will be subject to disciplinary punishment otherwise.
My school life 