SC urged to exercise judicial restraint on DAP issue

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza on Tuesday cautioned the Supreme Court to exercise judicial restraint so as not to endanger its function and its relationship with other branches of government.

“Allowing suits by individuals or groups, whose interest is no different from that of other citizens, involves risks both to the integrity of the judicial process and to the Court’s relationship with the other branches,” Mendoza said during the oral arguments on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

Mendoza said the high court has limited resources and with public interest cases piling up, “the inevitable pressure generated by groups will deprive the court of that serenity and quiet so badly needed for reflection and sober judgment.”

The former high court justice added that petitioners against DAP used the wrong remedies in questioning the validity of DAP.

Mendoza explained that the certiorari and prohibition sought by petitioners were not proper remedies because they were not the aggrieved parties as required by the Rules of Court.

“While the petitioners claimed to be taxpayers, they did not allege that they had suffered any injury as a result of the adoption of the DAP to justify their standings as taxpayers,” Mendoza said.

Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said last month that DAP has been terminated. Mendoza said that with the termination of DAP, only its applications could be questioned.

Those questioning the legality of DAP or any projects where DAP was used, Mendoza said, could either go to the Commission on Audit or the trial courts.

“That will provide opportunity to examine witnesses, define the issues more clearly and compel the moving parties to shoulder the burden of proof so that definite rulings can be made from which any party, not satisfied with the decision, can appeal to this Court,” Mendoza said.

The high court has already wrapped up the oral arguments on DAP. All parties were required to submit their memorandum within 20 days.

There are a total of nine petitions questioning the legality of DAP. Petitioners include Augusto Syjuco Jr., the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), the Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (Courage), lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and Manuelito Luna; the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa); the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); the militant Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela party-list groups; and Christian sects led by Greco Belgica.