Doing away with pork and perks
Our republic is again facing another manifestation of grave moral and governance crisis from which we cannot turn away. Their resolution depends on us, citizens and the institutions that we have established to protect us from ourselves, including even those who have betrayed their office and our trust.
Our democracy, relatively young as it is, is founded on basic tenets that should help strengthen it and perhaps help us overcome this current national nightmare. Certain principles are floundering: the principle of separation of powers, fiscal autonomy and the rule of law.
The principle of separation of powers is anchored on the presumption that the powers of government are distributed to the executive, legislative and judicial branches. They are co-equal, independent, and supreme within their own constitutionally given sphere of powers and functions. Corollary to this principle is the checks and balances system where a branch of government is given the power to check or override the other. Example is the pardon power of the President, which effectively sets aside the judgment of the judiciary. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s pardon of the former president, now Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada from the anti-graft court’s conviction for plunder is a glaring, rather embarrassing and unforgettable illustration.
There are independent bodies, such as the Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission and the Ombudsman, which are meant to be outside the influence of the other branches of government. Our strength and future as a democracy are, to a great extent, lodged in these institutions’ unsullied integrity and unyielding neutrality. Public perception of weakness and indecisiveness drag them down as ineffective and unreliable.
A serious problem with devastating consequences has and will always emerge when the two branches of government play sweet music together, especially when monetary perks and accountability issues are involved. The highly controversial pork barrel system involving the executive and legislative departments is one. So much discretion and control and lack of accountability over public funds vested by the Executive Department upon the lawmakers creates serious temptations. Several reference materials are available detailing how some congressional representatives would automatically ask for their commission from contractors of public works. Yet, the corrupt tradition was allowed to flourish until the Napoles scam knocked us out of our lethargy and indifference.
The practice of giving allowances to members of the judiciary and the prosecutors by cities and provinces, with the blessings of the Local Government Code of 1991 (“Code”) “when the finances…allow” is another example. How many local government units have sincerely prioritized and allocated adequate budget for essential services such as health, sanitation, education, environment, disaster risk reduction and management and, unblinkingly, can tell their constituents that their conditions warrant the granting of allowances to judges who are now receiving substantial salaries, compared to the early 1990s when the Code was enacted? The budgetary allotment for judges and prosecutors effectively competes with the vulnerable sectors in the delivery of essential services. Cebu has the highest malnutrition rate in Central Visayas. This fact alone merits a much-needed re-valuation of a local government unit’s (LGU) practice of giving allowances to the judiciary and the prosecutors.
It is important to consider that the Code grants the benefits to judges because perhaps they received very low salaries in the past compared to justices. But the Cebu city government, as an example, has even extended the allowance benefits to Court of Appeals justices. Is this within the ambit of the Code?
Some members of the Bench are understandably miffed when subjected to insinuations of partiality. Many are indeed of proven integrity. But, it is the inevitable and unfortunate consequence when the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy is shattered and with that, the public perception of judicial independence.
To be effective guardians of our Constitution and the rule of law, the judiciary and the prosecutorial arm of the government, being sensitive positions in the administration of justice require the public’s absolute trust that they are institutionally and individually independent of others, including the LGUs.
Judges are required to observe the standards set in The New Code of Judicial Conduct, effective on June 1, 2004, years after the Local Government Code was enacted. Also known as the Bangalore Draft, it is intended to be the “Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries” based upon the following principles:
1. A universal recognition that a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential if the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law;
2. That public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of utmost importance in a modern democratic society; and
3. That it is essential that judges, individually and collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system (https://apps.americanbar.org/rol/publications/philippines-judicial-code-02-2007.pdf).
The Code of Judicial Conduct, Section 5 declares that “Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.”
Hopefully, the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno would urgently craft measures to ensure that our people’s faith in the judiciary will be strengthened. Staunchly preserving its fiscal autonomy way beyond the clutches of the political departments including the LGUs is one such step.
