Retired justices bring pay issue to high court

Ano ba naman iyan. You already retired, collecting pension, why do you want to get hold of the money that don’t belong to your group. Alright, the money was saved from unfilled position, why do you think you have the right to claim that. A saving is a saving.

These Philippine justices are  sometimes  comparable to the MULLAHS of Iran. Onetime i’m in Manila and a woman from Batangas is crying. She told her story as a land despute and its a winning case coz  the desputed land belong to their family. But a Batangas judge allegedly told her that in order to surely win the case, their family need to cough up a brand new car.  In my opinion we need to hang some corrupt judges to prove a point.

well, it has been known by the public how the judiciary( by the SC ) have abused their positions against even the Constitution of the country, now, if Congress will not do their part to impeach them, then, in some way or another the executive can equal their power by the authority to handle the finances, ha, ha, ha! weather, weather lang ‘yan?  pag hindi tumino itong mga judiciary, then let them sack their “thumbs”;  ang mga excesses nila sobra na ang garapalan, time for payback, he, he, he!  after all, Pnoy is elected by landslide victory of the people,  while they are not but appointed by few corrupt officials, ok?

What is fiscal autonomy?

As envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee on full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources
with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions.Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control.

If the Supreme Court says it needs 100 typewriters but DBM rules we need only 10 typewriters and sends its recommendations to Congress without even informing us, the autonomy given by the Constitution becomes an empty and illusory platitude.

The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence end flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based. In the interest of comity and cooperation, the Supreme Court, Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman have so far limited their objections to constant reminders.

We now agree with the petitioners that this grant of autonomy should cease to be a meaningless provision.In the case at bar, the veto of these specific provisions in the General Appropriations Act is
tantamount to dictating to the Judiciary how its funds should be utilized, which is clearly repugnant to fiscal autonomy.

The freedom of the Chief Justice to make adjustments in the utilization of the funds appropriated for the expenditures of the judiciary, including the use of any savings from any particular item to cover deficits or shortages in other items of the Judiciary is withheld. Pursuant to the Constitutional mandate, the Judiciary must enjoy freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated to it in the appropriations law. It knows its priorities just as it is aware of the fiscal restraints. The Chief Justice must be given a free hand on how to augment appropriations where augmentation is needed.

Furthermore, in the case of Gonzales v. Macaraig (191 SCRA 452 [1990]), the Court upheld the authority of the President and other key officials to augment any item or any appropriation from savings in the interest of expediency and efficiency. The Court stated that:There should be no question, therefore, that statutory authority has, in fact, been granted. And once given, the heads of the different branches of the Government and those of the Constitutional Commissions are afforded considerable flexibility in the use of public funds and resources (Demetria v. Alba, supra).

The doctrine of separation of powers is in no way endangered because the transfer is made within a
department (or branch of government) and not from one department (branch) to another.The Constitution, particularly Article VI, Section 25(5) also provides:Sec.25. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.In the instant case, the vetoed provisions which relate to the use of savings for augmenting items for the payment of the pension differentials, among others, are clearly in consonance with the abovestated pronouncements of the Court.

The veto impairs the power of the Chief Justice to augment other items in the Judiciary’s appropriation, in contravention of the constitutional provision on “fiscal autonomy.”

(The foregoing is not about the proposed conditions in the GAA of 2012 under President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, but the En banc Decision of the Supreme Court twenty-one (21) years ago, or dated 15 April 1992, in Cesar Bengzon, et al., versus Hon. Franklin Drilon, et al., G.R. No. 103524, and in A.M. No. 91-8-225-CA involving the veto of President Corazon Aquino of using savings of the SC
appropriations for pension adjustments of retired Justices.)

CAN ANYONE SPOT THE DIFFERENCE?