Blackmail, solon says of threat to cut SC funds
MANILA, Philippines—Abolishing the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) would compromise the independence of the courts and smack of blackmail against the Supreme Court, which recently declared unconstitutional Congress’ pork barrel as well as Malacanang’s Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), a lawmaker belonging to the independent bloc warned his colleagues yesterday.
Buhay Party-list Rep. Lito Atienza said the P1.77-billion judiciary fund was one of the mechanisms allowed by the law to boost the autonomy of the Supreme Court, one of the pillars of the democratic system.
Amid growing strain between Malacañang and the judiciary, at least two bills have been filed in the House of Representatives proposing the abolition of the JDF or amending the law that established it, the 30-year-old Presidential Decree 1949.
“This (fund) is in no way even remotely similar to the nature of the pork barrel as some quarters are trying to imply,” he said of the JDF.
In a statement, Atienza asked his colleagues to dial down criticism of the Supreme Court, particularly the JDF, saying it might be construed as retaliation for the high court’s recent decisions striking down the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of President Aquino and the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or the pork barrel funds of legislators.
Knee-jerk reaction
Article continues after this advertisement“I would like to caution my fellow lawmakers against any move which may be perceived as a knee-jerk reaction in retaliation for the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring the DAP unconstitutional,” he said.
Article continues after this advertisement
INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO
“Any threat to abolish the JDF and castrate the highest court of the land smacks of blackmail against a Supreme Court that has shown righteousness, independence and strict adherence to the rule of law,” Atienza said.
Atienza noted that the fund is “for the benefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy and required by the impartial administration of justice.”
“Ironically, even a dictator like former President Ferdinand Marcos acknowledged and even strengthened the independence of the courts by making it financially self-sufficient,” he said.
The JDF is funded primarily from legal fees paid to the courts, and which the judiciary uses to augment the allowances of personnel, and to finance the acquisition, maintenance and repair of office equipment and facilities.
Atienza pointed out that at least 80 percent of the fund is earmarked for cost of living allowances, and not more than 20 percent is set aside for office equipment and court facilities.
In fact the bigger allowances, he said, may be granted to those receiving the lowest salaries.
“This fund is in no way discretionary in nature as opposed to the PDAF and the DAP, where lawmakers can decide how the funds are to be used and allocated, opening it to abuse and misuse as shown by the funds channeled to Napoles NGOs and the like,” Atienza said.
RELATED STORIES
SC: We’ve no discretion over judiciary funds
